Wednesday, 9 July 2008

EU ministers reject “Madeleine Alert”

The set up of an European Amber Alert System was rejected, yesterday, by EU Justice Minister, during an informal meeting, in Cannes, France. "We shouldn't send out a European alert when a child has been gone for just a few hours," German Justice Minister told the Media. "The great majority of children return home after two or three days." However, the EU Justice Ministers agreed on the necessity of a closer cooperation between police forces and alert systems already used in EU countries.

For the MailOnline, “Brussels throws out McCann's appeal for European missing child alert system,” in this meeting. The announcement “was welcomed” by Kate and Gerry, who have been campaigning for an EU alert system to be adopted by all 27 countries: "This announcement is very encouraging as it underlines the fact that there is a Europe-wide desire for things to improve,” Mr. Clarence Mitchell, the family spokesman, told the MailOnline.

French Justice Minister Rachida Dati “urged her counterparts to adopt the system Paris uses, which she said has worked six times in six tries. When it comes to protecting children in Europe no resource should be spared," she said. "We absolutely must bring together everything that we have."

A "written declaration" to the European Parliament, signed by a group of EU Mps and backed by the McCann managed to collect, until today - the last day - 351 signatures, but it needed 393 in order sent it to the European Parliament to be voted, not to be automatically adopted, as the MailOnline wrote.


The Truth ALWAYS Comes Out said...

I must admit I had lost faith in the European Parliament after the shannanigans with the McCanns going there with "their" so-called Madeleine Alert system.

I am happy to say that my faith has been restored. Finding missing children should definately be a priority, but through the correct means that do not put the childen at risk nor alarm people falsely. As was stated, most children are found close to home.

I do have a suggestion for the McCanns though. Perhaps they could try to launch a "don't neglect your kids to go out boozing" system. This is a quite efficient system, and contrary to what Kate Mc. told the journalist regarding the Madeleine Alert system, this system would in fact be safe and most likely prevent her "abduction".

Stop the spin McCanns. Use your experience and errors to teach others not to do the same. I, for one, would have much more respect for you than I do now.

Anonymous said...

Que as assinaturas que faltam,e o dia é longo,os segundos por vezes demoram imenso a passar,não apareçam.
Já foi uma vergonha incrível terem tido acesso ao PE....


Anonymous said...

The Alert Scheme can't be 'automatically adopted' by anyone Paulo. The 'written declaration' is not legistlature. It is not legally binding. The 'written declaration' is the first stage of a very rigorous bureacratic process.

The 'written declaration' is one of the first stages of getting a policy heard and enforced in the EU Parliamentary process. If the declaration gets all 393 signatures it will, after a period of about three weeks, be passed into 'text' and translated into all Community languages. Only at this stage will it be sent to the College of Commissioners for adoption as a formal proposal for legislation. The proposal will follow the co-decision procedure, and is likely to be debated in the Parliament and the Council for at least another year, and possibly longer. If adopted they then proceed with a timetable for change.

The 'written declaration' gives the Sponsor MEPs the mandate to ask the European Commission to draft laws to deal with the issue.

If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified the Commission may then have the authority to draft legislation for all 27-member states. However, without that ratification it is still up to the individual nations to implement the scheme.

For anything to become EU law under the co-decision procedure it has to be accepted by all three bodies: Commission, Council and Parliament. Even if the scheme was first conceived of by the Barroso Commission (the EU 'cabinet') it still has to pass through the co-decision procedure.

Interesting that contrary to what you argued a few weeks ago (that Jacques Barrot rejected the alert system proposed by the McCanns) Barrot made this statement:

"EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot urged the ministers to go further, saying that missing children were being found more quickly in European countries where a solid alert system is in place, like France and Greece.

"The ministers have to be more energetic and impose this alert service," he told reporters. "When a child has been abducted we have to move very, very quickly."

Sounds like he was endorsing the McCann's alert system to me - not 'rejecting it' like you tried to argue.

The real aim and policies of the Prum Treaty (which the McCann's earlier campaigning clearly reflects) was to call for closer cooperation and file sharing amongst European Police Forces.

Have a look at the McCann's earlier interviews - this is what they were campaigning for intitally: pan-european cooperation and file-sharing. The 'alert-scheme' was tagged on later.

You are trying to simplify something that cannot be simplified. The McCann's and the Commission's campaign was moderately sucessful in many ways.

The alert scheme was just an afterthought.

Gerry talking about border control and police cooperation in August 2007

Gerry talking about cross-border cooperation and file-sharing in June 2007

Anonymous said...

These reprts take a slightly different line to the Daily Mail's sensationalist 'non-story':

Fenland Citizen

USA Today

A 'centralised system' is a very wishy-washy term and is technically almost impossible to implement on a pan-European basis (it's difficult enough to set these things up between Police forces in the UK).

These reports are a little closer to the truth of what's been agreed.

Before you 'twist' that knife any further into their backs, Paulo, perhaps you'd care to stop cherry-picking news reports to suit your argument.

Shu said...

Oh,Upsss senor anónimo......twist the knife...oh! senhor anonimo do not do that

Shu said...

The Republic’s Attorney General orders that until that date, it is defined whether more diligences are necessary or the process is archived
(more to read at J.M).


Não para os vendedores do templo.

Cláudia said...

Hey, anonymous, are you being paid directly from the fund or does it come in brown envelopes?

guerra said...

I'm for any system that will be beneficial to a child's welfare. I cannot comment on this system since I am not in a position to judge if this system is better or worse than any other system. What I, like many others find ludicrous is how politicians have gone out of their way to associate this couple with this initiative. A couple that left 3 children alone night after night whose total ages were less than 8 years. A couple who are suspects in a criminal investigation and who have refused to cooperate with police. That's why many people are outraged, but it appears from the sentiments expressed by some people here that this is not an issue. I sometimes wonder if some of these people are given an agenda to follow like that of many British journalists.

Anonymous said...

Segun parece, hay 11.000 folios sumariales y éllos han accedido a so 81. Hagan cálculo señores.Estella

carilina said...

Funny how the mcs are related to Pinochet through their lawyers ...

Pinochet: [b]James Lewis QC [/b](Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police and [b]Michael Caplan QC[/b] for the applicant

In a way, people who belong to the same "club" always "win". Take for example [b]Salvador Allende[/b] and [b]Augusto Pinochet[/b], they both belonged to the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge. Given any outcome, one of 'theirs' was sure to end up in power.

In the Pinochet case James Lewis QC "lost" but Michael Caplan QC "won" ....

McCann: [b]James Lewis QC[/b] for the Police in the 7/7/08 Court and "lost" while [b]Tim Scott QC[/b] "won" 81 pieces of information and [b]Michael Caplan QC[/b] is on hold.

....interesting links below ...

Salvator Allende, who was murdered in the coup which installed General Augusto Pinochet, was a member of the [b]Grand Orient Masonic Lodge[/b] . In fact, [b]Allende and Pinochet were members of the same Masonic [/b]Lodge. An interesting and informative article on "The metaphysical roots of world politics" explains:
"According specialist in Masonry L. Zamoisky:
"Among the Masons there exists a tactic called: 'always being in the eye of the developing hurricane'. It means the infiltration of their people in fascist, communist, democratic, anarchist and other structures. By the way, each of the above-named 'isms' brought about colossal revolutionary upheavals. Might they all have been just various attempts for a global change of the conception the development of humanity, and what's more, all under the control of one and the same force?
"Let's cite just one example: Both Salvador Allende and General Pinochet were members of the same Masonic lodge. Given any outcome, one of 'theirs' was sure to end up in power. It was known in advance that the loser would be sacrificed, cut off, like a dead branch..."

[b]Friday Law Report: Pinochet could not be extradited[/b]
Independent, The (London), Oct 30, 1998 by Kate O'Hanlon
30 October 1998
Regina v Bow Street Magistrates' Court and others, ex parte Ugarte
Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Richards) 28 October 1998 A FORMER foreign head of state was immune from the civil and criminal process of the United Kingdom in respect of acts done in the exercise of his sovereign power. The Divisional Court granted the applications of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte for judicial review of two provisional warrants for his arrest which had been issued under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 at the request of Spain. The applicant was the head of state of the Republic of Chile from September 1973 to March 1990, and was, at the present time, a life senator. The first provisional warrant alleged: "Between 11 September 1973 and 31 December 1983 within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Central Magistrates' Court of the national court of Madrid {he} did murder Spanish citizens in Chile within the jurisdiction of the government of Spain." The second provisional warrant made the following accusations against the applicant: between 1 January 1988 and December 1992 (i) being a public official, intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties; (ii) being a public official, conspired with persons unknown to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties; between 1 January 1982 and 31 January 1992 (iii) he detained other persons (the hostages) and in order to compel such persons to do or to abstain from doing any act, threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain the hostages; (iv) conspired with persons unknown to detain other persons (the hostages) and in order to compel such persons to do or to abstain from doing any act, threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain the hostages; and between January 1976 and December 1992 (v) conspired together with persons unknown to commit murder in a convention country, all within the jurisdiction of Spain. The applicant applied for judicial review by way of certiorari to quash both warrants, and applied for leave to move for judicial review of the failure of the Home Secretary to cancel the first warrant under section 8(4) of the 1989 Act. Clive Nicholls QC, Clare Montgomery QC and Helen Malcolm (Kingsley Napley) for the applicant; Alun Jones QC and [b]James Lewis (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police[/b]; James Turner QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary. Lord Bingham CJ said that the first warrant was bad in law because the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile was not an extradition crime. The offence specified was not within section 2(1)(a) of the 1989 Act because the murders had not been committed in Spain, nor did it fall within section 2(1)(b)(ii), since it was not an offence for which the United Kingdom could claim extra-territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction could only lie in respect of a murder committed abroad under section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 if the alleged offender were a British citizen. Further, the condition in section 2(3)(a) was not satisfied because Spain's assertion of jurisdiction was based on the nationality of the victims rather than that of the offender. The argument that the Home Secretary should have cancelled the first warrant was, however, unhesitatingly rejected. It was not the Home Secretary's duty to review the legal validity of the warrant. The applicant's claim to sovereign immunity by virtue of the operation of international customary law, and by virtue of municipal law, both the common law and under the State Immunity Act 1978, was well founded: he was entitled to sovereign immunity as a former head of state from the civil and criminal process of the English courts in relation to any act done in the exercise of his sovereign power. That was conclusive against the second warrant, and, had it been necessary, against the first.

Copyright 1998 Newspaper Publishing PLC
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved. ... _n14196530

[b]Monitor: Comment on the decision not to extradite General Pinochet[/b]
Independent, The (London), Oct 30, 1998
CHILEAN PUBLIC opinion has realised, during these days in which Pinochet has been deprived of his freedom, the extreme levels of politicisation and disinformation that characterise the European version of national events in the last quarter century. Given the gross historical inexactitudes that have been flying around, we suppose that political considerations will prevail over juridical ones. The British judges have shown surprising courage and independence. The court ruling has helped to calm the country and is a first step towards putting behind us an episode that has wounded the dignity of many Chileans.
El Mercurio, Chile

THE DOCTRINE that the[b] High Court in London has invented [/b]for this occasion is extremely dangerous. By adopting it, the UK could become a paradise for all deposed dictators. According to this, not even Hitler could have been tried. If this absurd doctrine is not rejected by the Lords, anyone who became head of state and government by whatever means would enjoy for the rest of their days immunity in the UK, even though they were guilty of robbery, torture and mass murder. El Mundo, Spain IT IS not difficult to conclude, despite the legal verdict, that Pinochet, with his detention in London, has been morally condemned at an international level. European countries have been queuing up in recent days to condemn him. He may have won the legal battle, but morally he has not escaped scot-free. Nothing will be the same again, not for Chile, nor for dictators. The former dictator will not be tried in Chile, where he is protected by the military, but he will never again be able to travel the world freely as if he had never hurt a fly. La Vanguardia, Spain BRITAIN'S HIGH Court did not examine the substance of the crimes that Judge Garzon attributes to Pinochet, but limited itself to covering up with diplomatic immunity all the acts carried out by the Chilean ex-dictator. Pinochet will be able to regain his freedom and return to Chile in the air force plane that is waiting for him in a nearby airport, unless Britain's highest court rectifies the decision, which is very unlikely. Many heads and former heads of state accused of various crimes will now sleep more soundly. The ruling has extracted the governments of both Spain and Britain from a tight corner, and probably helped avoid problems in Chile. But how can we forget his crimes and leave his victims without redress? El Pais, Spain

Copyright 1998 Newspaper Publishing PLC
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved. ... tBody;col1

[b]"Because Pinochet is a controversial figure, so is Michael Caplan[/b]. People in Chile remember the main argument for the defence was his poor state of health. And the first image of Pinochet in Chile was when he got out the plane in a wheelchair then stood up and walked," says the BBC's Andrea Ernandez in Santiago.
"So today some people think Michael Caplan is an excellent lawyer and Madeleine's parents are in good hands. Others who ask why they chose someone who defended Pinochet, a military ruler who was accused of crimes against humanity."
But Mr Caplan has said that a lawyer has a duty to a client, just as a surgeon has to a patient. Clients don't want to be judged by their lawyers. What they want is ability and a safe pair of hands. In Michael Caplan, Kate and Gerry McCann have got just that.

Anonymous said...


Hey, anonymous, are you being paid directly from the fund or does it come in brown envelopes?

Certainly an big big brown envelope !!!

Shu said...

Muito obrigada,P.R.

MC said...

Gerry McCann dijo el 2 de junio del 2007 que, para recuperar a Madeleine, nada los detendría:

"Haríamos cualquier cosa

para recuperar a nuestra hija, venderíamos nuestra casa, si pensáramos que eso garantizaría su regreso sana y salva."


Anonymous said...

McCanns win MEPs' backing for abduction alert system.

Gerry and Kate McCann have won the backing of MEPs for a Europe-wide child abduction alert system which they believe could have helped find their missing daughter Madeleine.
Gerry and Kate McCann attend a meeting concerning children's rights at the European Parliament
A majority of members of the European Parliament have now signed a declaration calling for the introduction of the so-called Amber Alert system, which would involve much greater co-operation between countries when a child is reported missing............'-backing-for-abduction-alert-system.html

Great news for the children of Europe if this goes the full way. Don't you agree Paulo?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 22:33 - yes, of course it is, providing the parents don't neglect their responsibilities at the outset.
It all very well blaming all and sundry for not locating missing children but in a case like Madeleine's, initial responsibility lay with the parents. No, sorry...strike that. I don't know what came over me there.

Mickey Mouse

Cláudia said...

Of course that for the Amber Alert to be effective (assuming it will go ahead) we all have to pray that the parents of the missing child remember to call the proper authorities right away instead of waiting for the golden hour to pass.