It occurred to me following the tragic case of Tia Sharp this week, that met officers must be reviewing thousands, if not zillions, of hours of CCTV from all over the globe? I am basing this on the last report in Tia's case being 120 hours of video footage.
From an economic perspective, I am curious as to how resources are allocated. Are they linked in any way to statistics? In a nutshell, do they start at the beginning and work outwards?
The Met are being mashed at the moment, but in their defence, they have admitted their errors almost immediately, and it only took them a week to cop on, that they should start investigating the place she went missing from.
I think many questions have arisen following the tragic events of this week. I don't know whether it is in the climate of the Levenson Enquiry and resignations at the met, but I feel we have been told quite a lot about the way in which this missing child cases are conducted. This tragic case has a sense of transparency about it.
There are of course, a lot of political reasons behind it, not least the characters involved, are easily dispensable and unlikely to rock any corporate or government policy. In addition, it is great spin, it diverts the attention of the populace towards the degraded lives, of the shiftless and their unlimited sprogs who are infesting decent society. We already have calls for compulsory sterilisation. It also provides excellent gloating opportunities and reasons to deprive the deprived still further, and it detracts from the billionaires bonuses and the double dip recession. Its a win, win situation.
For the Scotland Yard team reviewing this case, the public are this week, much more informed than they were last week. As nice as Kate and Gerry and their friends might be, it will be hard to convince anyone that starting with a sighting on Mars (I am pretty sure the Mars Rover had a travel pack of age progressed Maddie posters) and working backwards, is not in anyone's mind an economical, or even sane, way to conduct an enquiry.