The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns 382

I have a confession to make. Back in 2014 I posted that I was going to write something further on the subject of the McCanns. In the end I did not, because I was surprised by the strong emotional reaction I received, from a number of decent people, who were enraged that I might be prepared to write something not to the McCanns’ advantage. But I regret being so pusillanimous, particularly as so much discussion has been suppressed by the extremely aggressive stance taken on threats of libel action on this story.

So in the full knowledge that some decent people will be outraged, here it is.

This week there have been two more developments. The Home Office has announced that it will fund still further the police investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, on which £10 million has already been spent. Plus the appeals court in Lisbon has overturned the libel verdict against the Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral, who led the case and formed his own firm convictions at to what happened. The 500,000 euro libel award to the McCanns is now cancelled.

None of these sums of money would matter in the least, and practically nobody would grudge any expense, to have Madeleine McCann alive, safe and happy. There can be nothing worse for a parent than the loss of a child, whatever the circumstances. If the McCanns genuinely do not know what happened, that must be agonising beyond belief. My grandparents had a nineteen year old son, an uncle I never knew, missing in action in World War 2 and the pain never left them, even when his fate was resolved.

And yet, and yet… It is because our children are so precious to us that we treat them as such. I recall an incident on Jamie’s first birthday, which we spent in a hotel in Italy. I was in the room with Jamie. My then wife had gone out to the car. The birthday cake was delivered to reception and had to be paid for. Jamie was fast asleep. I dashed out of the hotel room, down two flights of steps to reception, literally threw the money at them and ran back up the stairs. I was away under two minutes but have never experienced such adrenalin, nor would wish to again. An overwhelming instinct had kicked in telling me I had done wrong in leaving the baby unattended, even so briefly.

I find the McCanns’ behaviour indefensible. There appears to be a disconnect in the public mind in the UK which prevents people from realising just how far the McCanns were from their children. This is a useful graphic just to see the layout, (do not worry about the other info on it).


The McCanns could not actually see their apartment from the tapas bar due to the wall around the pool. To get back there, they had to use the gate and walk around that wall, which made it a 75 yard hike. And the apartment had double doors onto the street on the opposite side of the block from that facing the pool.

I do not see how anybody understanding this geography can consider that it was normal parenting for the McCanns to leave two one year olds and a three year old, alone in the apartment in these circumstances – for hours, and repeatedly several days running. It is something I would absolutely never dream of doing with my own children. If nothing else, had any of the children been crying and in distress – and the chances of that with three tiny children are pretty high – there was no way they could hear them.

The claimed abduction is not the only thing that could have happened. Cholic. Vomiting. Sore nappies. Coughing. Choking. Bad dreams. Overheating. All kinds of thing can distress children. So far as I can judge, it is not that I am weird in my own views, rather it is absolutely accepted in British society that you do not leave 1 year olds without care of an adult. Why are the McCanns an exception?

Which leads me on to the question of why they received such exceptional treatment from British authorities, directed straight from No. 10, to the extent that Blair and Brown eventually gave them a PR representative? I used at one stage to be Resident Clerk in the FCO, a now abolished post effectively of night duty officer. I can tell you from horrible personal experience that the FCO deals with gut-wrenching cases of lost or dead children abroad frequently. I spent one of the most terrible three hours of my life, through to a cold dawn, on the phone with a hysterical bereaved mother desperate to explore any avenue that might give a possibility that the boy who had just drowned in Brazil was misidentified as her son. On average, I am afraid such tragedies get substantially less than 1% of the public resources that were devoted to the McCanns.

I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO. It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody. Plus, against jingoistic presumption, a great many Brits who have contact with foreign police are actually criminals.

The British Ambassador in Portugal, John Buck, had been my direct boss in the FCO. he was Deputy Head of Southern European Department when I was Head of Cyprus Section. He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.

I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly. But material was also leaked to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe there was a high level paedophile ring involved. I make no such argument. Nor do I claim to know what happened to Madeleine McCann. But I do believe that the McCanns were less than exemplary parents. I believe that New Labour’s No.10 saw, in typical Blair fashion, a highly photogenic tragedy which there might be popularity in appearing to work on.

And I believe there is a genuine danger that the high profile support from the top of the British government might have put some psychological pressure on the Portuguese investigators and prosecuting officers in their determinations.

Liked this article? Please consider sharing (links below). Then View All Latest Posts

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

382 thoughts on “The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns

1 4 5 6
  • Ruth Bashford

    Dave who posted on Janury 9th 2018 at 17:23 has got it wrong. The officers charged with torturing Leonor Cipriani were found not guilty and Leonor was given a further 7 months in prison for lying. Goncalo Amaral was actually found guilty of perjury. The mystery is why did the McCann’s private detectives, Metodo 3, get involved with the case? Were they employed to look for Madeleine or discredit Amaral? Needs investigating!

    • Patricia Ossandón

      Metodo 3 WAS an agency that used illegal methods to spy high politicians under the order of corrupted police officers. The ex director and 3 detectives were detained for those illegal activities, they accused each other, so there is a good idea of their moral values, they would sell their mothers for money. Among those illegal activities money laundering is included.
      Don’t think it’s a coincidence that two unknown doctors contacted a Spanish???? agency specialized in illegal activities… not known for searching abducted kids…who recommended them???

  • James Donlan

    The problem we face now is the UK Government will never accept they got it wrong, so any new evidence will be swept under the carpet. Protecting the Governments reputation is going to outweigh justice for Madeleine McCann unfortunately.

  • G Thompson

    McCanns are rotten to the core..

    Random woman from Coucil estate takes off to Spain leaving 11yr old and rightly suffers due consequences on return.. No Status/Friends in high places to pervert course of justice on HER behalf.
    UK Justice..?? A SICK JOKE.. no more no less.

  • Sheryl

    If you are in any doubt of the innocence of the McCanns in this case then please watch Peter Hyatt’s statement analysis and his conclusion of an embedded confession in one of their interviews. Statement analysis is a fascinating tool used by the FBI.

    • Peter Szolkowski

      Richard D Hall’s Youtube Videos on the McCann case should be aired on National TV. They never will though hence I try to share this info everywhere. Paedophilia goes right to the top and In my opinion the McCanns are deeply involved. Also, in my opinion, Madeline is not the McCann’s daughter at all. Both alleged parents being doctors would have access to a baby belonging to a mother who was told her child had died. Just my conjecture….. a theory. This would explain to me at least the utter lack of emotion from either alleged parent when talking about their supposed daughter. Never have I seen a tear shed for this child by either of the McCanns. This is just not normal. Saville frequented hospitals for years and we all know why.

  • Idomy Research

    Cover up = an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.
    Maddie McCann – No one can find a thread of truth after 11 years!
    Conclusion – Cover up!
    Why? Because a public figure was involved along with the McCanns in something deemed sordid or illegal? Why else would 10 Downing Street be involved to such an extent within hours of the alarm being raised? Why else would the authorities DEMAND that the case ONLY be investigated from an abduction angle leaving the “parents” (I use the word parents loosely as no caring parent would leave babies alone) out of the equation completely.
    I probably began my research like most with a kind of curious thought but having formed no initial opinion other than something seemed odd. Just a few short hours later, with the help of officially accepted videos and documents, I had come to the conclusion that “odd” was an understatement and that the McCanns were involved in this “disappearance” up to their necks. The accepted official evidence points to nobody else so I am left in no doubt that an attempt has been made to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime and that has the backing of some in the top echelons of power. A full blown cover up!

  • Chris Barclay

    “I believe that New Labour’s No.10 saw, in typical Blair fashion, a highly photogenic tragedy which there might be popularity in appearing to work on.” Quite possible. However, it would not explain why the British Government wanted to chaperone the McCanns during police interviews when no journalists or photographers were present. The only explanation for that is that the FCO wanted to be aware immediately of any change in direction of the investigation by the Portuguese police. It’s difficult to say why that may be. One explanation, however, is that the FCO wanted to go over the heads of the police investigation and thereby affect the course of the investigation.

  • Nick

    We are probably talking about a cover up here.
    All the assistance from start, the Britt gave false leads to PJ, Mitchell left a well paid job in the Gov to assist the McCann’s and more….
    Well, I don’t know but there is only one known connection between the Blair Gov and G McCann and it’s named “COMARE”.
    Gerry did work under COMARE in 2006 and they researched the risk of cancer around Nuclear plants.
    What also happened in 2006 was that Blair made a 360 degree turn and started the plans to build Hinkley Point C.
    If we read the COMARE report from that time we can see that they concluded that it was no increased risk of cancer around the nuclear plants but if we read other reports on the same theme they concluded the opposite.
    Brown took office and gave go ahead to Hinkley Point C and it was EDF who built it, Gordon Browns brother is a Director at EDF.
    Key players in this case were Smethurst, Brian Kennedy and Bell Pottinger those keyplayers were also involved in the nuclear industry and in the Hinkley point C project.
    This is snipped from an interview with Goncalo Amaral in august 2008:
    “Where did the alleged power of the couple, which you have been suggesting, come from”?

    “On the first night, a dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also mentioned.”

    Hinkley Point C was a very expensive ongoing project and the nuclear industry is a matter to the national security and this was a very sensitive time for the project I believe and Brown Gov gave gohead in 2008 to build Hinkley Point C.
    I wonder if Gerry knew something very sensitive and
    inconvenient things about this which he could reveal?

  • Rob Champion

    If the abduction theory is true and Tannerman is the culprit, it has been proven that the window of opportunity for him would have been around 2 – 3 minutes from Gerry leaving the apartment and the Jane Tanner sighting. I’m sure that this is why, sometime later, Gerry says that thinking back, he sensed that there may have been someone in the apartment during his last visit. Either he had this sense at the time, or he didn’t. If he did, then surely he would have looked behind the doors etc., who would go away and leave their kids if they had that feeling? I don’t think it’s credible to come up with the “thinking back” tale other than to give an extended window of opportunity to Tannerman. He’s conveniently remembering something that didn’t happen.

  • Thomas McNaughton

    The strangest thing about the whole thing is the idea that these parents would actually leave their children unattended like this. My theory is that they did not. There was an adult present each night and the unattended story was just fabricated to create the possibility of an abduction that never happened. Think about it – if you don’t believe there was an abduction then why then also believe the outlandish idea that they would actually leave one years olds on their own. You wouldn’t, I wouldn’t and they wouldn’t.

  • Sonic5000

    Hi, first post on this forum,

    Just a couple of views for Craig & others.

    Reading Gonçalo Amaral’s book Chapter 12 he states that after Kate had raised the alarm all had rushed to the apartment except Diane Webster who remained at the table for a few more minutes. Reading this its as if she already knew what was happening or had happened.

    My second concern is regarding Yvonne Warren Martin, the Child Protection Officer who was staying near the resort on the day Madeleine went missing. After hearing about the disappearance on the news decided to offer help to The McCann family. She in her statement to the PJ said that she had met David Payne during the course of her duties as CPO but was unsure if it was professional or as a suspect. This encounter resulted in her writing anonymously to UK police asking if he was on the sex offenders register. She received no answer. The link to her statement

1 4 5 6