Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by orlandoblue

  1. Mineral rights aren't moveable assets like cars, tanks and planes.

    "The Geneva agreement on natural resources under the sea dictates that they are divided by the median lines. Most people accept that the Geneva approach is the standard approach. Which gives Scotland 91% of revenues." -National Institute of Economic and Social Research

    Cheers - that's more what I'm looking for. Are they currently divided by median lines in a UK context though ?

  2. Oil is a fixed asset, it belongs to Scotland by nature of geography. Scotland will not, rather sensibly, be asking for an 8.9% share of coal, shale gas, etc in England Wales and NI. Or fishing stocks for that matter.

    Rather sensibly because they know if they do there would be a claim on the oil?

    That doesn't really answer my question though. It currently stands as a geographical asset of the UK so why would the UK not want to retain some of the revenue and why would they not be entitled to ?

  3. I saw Alex Salmond talking about how we would take our share of the UK debt but that would also mean we are perfectly entitled to our share of UK assets.

    Does this theory mean that the rest of the UK would be entitled to a share of any current UK assets that are in Scotland eg Oil.

    If not why not? Is the proposal that we'll take our share of the debt plus the share of any UK assets held in England, Wales and NI but we will retain 100% of assets in Scotland?

  4. I don't think it will. BAE systems are the only British commerical concern building warships. Their only functional yard is going to be on the Clyde. Exactly how will the Uk government strong arm BAE into moving production down south after a Yes vote?

    They won't but they could stop contracts going to BAE at all as if the UK didn't have a ship buildig capability all future contracts would presumably be open to international tender?

  5. http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/analogy-why-cadaver-dogs-are-not.html

    This thread is why juries probably aren't a good thing.

    Not sure if you're with me or agin me :lol:

    I'm certain the dogs will have given an accurate indication of the presence of the smell they are trained to detect. That's what they do.

    That said, all the dogs are really doing is path finding for further work to be done. If the blood dog finds the smell of blood others will presumably then be tasked with finding the blood and obtaining samples for analysis etc. The death dog will only tell you if the smell of cadaverine is present. Same rules as above that should then lead to further work.

    ETA : should have said that while it is probably the case that the dogs did their job properly there wasn't another shred of evidence to suggest the McCanns had done anything untoward.

  6. tanner didn't give a description of the man she thought she saw carrying a blonde 4 year old until 4 months after MM was reported missing. does that sound normal to you?

    if tanner is exposed as a liar it would be petrol on the conspiracy bonfire which they probably want to avoid. how can it have taken the police over 4 years to find this guy? why would the person not have come forward if they were in the area with their own 4 old year daughter?

    nothing about the tanner sighting makes sense.

    I'm an open minded person - but are you telling me that the McCann's were not only involved in this but also managed to convince their friends to lie on their behalf ?

  7. So we are to believe that the Jane tanner sighting at 9:15 has resulted many years later in the guy being found with a legitimate story but we're not hearing who it is or when this was discovered or how they didn't manage to find this guy who was obviously staying in the area for years.

    We now have a ten o'clock sighting which is being focused on which comes from an Irish family called the smiths who originally said they thought it was Gerry McCann.

    I suspect tanner has admitted making up the quarter past 9 sighting and the police are going for this ten o'clock sighting to max out the overtime and foreign trips.

    Did they not say the tanner sighting was a man taking his own daughter home from the crèche. ?

  8. As someone outside the UK, is the breakthrough that someone saw a man of average height, average built, average hair and average face carrying a girl to the beach, possibly in pajamas? This would definitely merit a 25 minute reconstruction 6 years later.

    I got asked at work about a case 4 months ago, and I got details wrong. How can someone be expected to remember a face from 7 years ago?

    The breakthrough is that a sighting of a man carrying a child used to be commonly accepted as the suspect carrying Madeleine. The Police now believe this was a perfectly innocent man carrying his own child home. This obviously moves their focus elsewhere.

  9. So this guy just ignored the news for 5 years - seems likely.

    Did they not claim all the windows/doors were secure

    The 2 other children in the room? The public location of the room?

    Yes - Gerry referred to one tonight. Seems suss to me the appeal completely doesnt bother with witnesses such as this - they seem vital to the timeline.

    You don't know if he ignored the Police. It could be down to how well he was interviewed in the first place.


    Question remains. If you think it's suspicious that she was taken and not any of her siblings then you'd need to say why it would be less suspicious if it was one of them.


  10. Has the Met's "meticolous" reinvesitgation actually considered any other scenarios. There is absolutely no proof she was abducted yet this seems to be the only scenario they are admitting.

    A few things stand out;

    1) Why has it taken the 9.15pm man 5 years to come forward

    2) How did they get in - is there any evidence of forced entry

    3) If it was pre-planned why Maddy and why not one of the other children

    4) No eye witness/evidence from anyone confirming the continued presence of all at the tapas bar nor the "30 minute" checks

    5) If it is a peado ring is there any evidence of further crimes from them or did they all reform after Maddy.

    1. The Police approached him

    2. Through the unlocked window

    3. Why not her?

    4. Should there be witnesses to this?

    5. Pass

  • Create New...