The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns - by CRAIG MURRAY, former British Ambassador

Posted by Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/

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.
-----------------


About Craig Murray

---

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
Personal Biography:
Craig Murray was born in West Runton in October 1958 and educated at Sheringham Primary and Paston Grammar schools.
He graduated from the University of Dundee in 1982 with a MA (Hons) 1st Class in Modern History.
From 1982 to 1984 he was President of Dundee University Students Association and he was a member of Dundee’s tournament winning Granada TV University Challenge team in 1983.
Professional Biography:
In 1984 he joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As a member of the Diplomatic Service his responsibilities included the following:
1986-9 Second Secretary, Commercial, British High Commission, Lagos
Responsible for promoting British exports to, and business interests in, Nigeria.
1989-92 Head of Maritime Section, FCO, London
Responsible for negotiation of the UK and Dependent Territory continental shelf and fisheries boundaries, for implementation of the Channel Tunnel treaty and for negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. From August 1990 to August 1991 he was also head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, responsible for intelligence analysis on Iraqi attempts at evading sanctions, particularly in the field of weapons procurement, and with providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo.
1992-4 Head of Cyprus Section, FCO London
Responsible for UN negotiations on the Cyprus dispute, relations with the government of Cyprus and for the mandate and requirements of the British contingent of the UN force in Cyprus,
1994-7 First Secretary (Political and Economic), British Embassy, Warsaw
Head of the Political and Economic sections of our Embassy in Poland. Responsible for relations with Poland, and assisting Poland’s post-communist transition process with reference to preparation for EU membership.
1997-8 Deputy Head, Africa Department (Equatorial), Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Responsible for British political and commercial relationships with West Africa, including development issues.
1998-2002 Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission, West Africa Branch
Responsible for British economic, political, commercial and aid relationships with Ghana and Togo. In Autumn 1998 Craig Murray was the UK Representative at the Sierra Leone Peace talks held in Togo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, including direct negotiation with the RUF terrorist leadership.
2002-2004 British Ambassador, Uzbekistan
Responsible for our relationship with Uzbekistan. He found Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime unconscionable, as detailed in the rest of this website.
At the 2005 UK General Election, Craig Murray takes on Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in Blackburn as an Independent candidate, winning 2,082 votes.

I wonder what's changed his mind to tell his story now? when he could have done this in 2014.

This is just one of the interesting comments from the Craig Murray article:



Denise Thomson April 20, 2016 at 19:50
Well done for speaking out Mr Craig. You may be interested to know that Martin Grime, the (then) South Yorkshire Police dog handler whose dogs alerted to cadaver scent and blood in the apartment, car and on McCann clothing also had pressure put on him to over emphasize the need for forensic corroboration in both his statements and rogatory. Never in his career, on any case, had he been asked to do so. He and other law enforcement agencies involved would have been totally aware that any cadaver alerts without a body were still of value to an investigation. Even non corroborated alerts are deemed circumstantial and assist towards evidence gathering as was demonstrated in both the Adrian Prout and Sam Parker cases for example.

“Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations.”
Martin Grime

This is a lengthy blog but it rebuts many of the myths surrounding both the police dog handler and the dogs Eddie and Keela in the McCann case and is well worth a read.

Well, there we have it. ..above and beyond the norm...steered by the govt.

Quote...

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.

End of quote.

This was the original blog he was going to write, together with the comments which are still there.:
 
A Day Off Politics
 
23 May, 2014  in Uncategorized by craig
 
No politics tomorrow.  Instead there will be a short post entitled – Amanda Knox, Oscar Pistorius and the McCanns.  Guilty as hell.
 
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/a-day-off-politics/
 
In one of his replies to a comment he stated:
 
   
‘I know John Buck fairly well. A nice man, but the chances of him ever doing anything without a direct instruction are nil.’

"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......" 

Hmmm.....Interesting that he makes the statement that he does not believe this was linked to a high level paedophile ring. I mean, if it were simply 'less than exemplary parents" - why has it gone on for so long?....Years and years long with different governments involved. Surely if this was a simple case of wanting to be attached to a worthy cause of a missing child - then the next government would have shut this down quick-smart. Cos why would anyone want to cover/support child neglectors, It can't simply have been a 'highly photogenic tragedy - when the facts pointed immediately to the parents leaving their children on their own. It was a tragedy alright, and one that clearly needed immediate spin - and that's what they got. But what government would want that headache - unless they had to get involved....for what ever reason.

Are the Mccanns suddenly being abandoned by their supporters/backers? Are they finally being left to clear up their own mess?

mouse wrote:"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......" 

Hmmm.....Interesting that he makes the statement that he does not believe this was linked to a high level paedophile ring. I mean, if it were simply 'less than exemplary parents" - why has it gone on for so long?....Years and years long with different governments involved. Surely if this was a simple case of wanting to be attached to a worthy cause of a missing child - then the next government would have shut this down quick-smart. Cos why would anyone want to cover/support child neglectors, It can't simply have been a 'highly photogenic tragedy - when the facts pointed immediately to the parents leaving their children on their own. It was a tragedy alright, and one that clearly needed immediate spin - and that's what they got. But what government would want that headache - unless they had to get involved....for what ever reason.

Are the Mccanns suddenly being abandoned by their supporters/backers? Are they finally being left to clear up their own mess?

If the establishment is cutting the Mcs loose, it must be confident that the trail back to the heart has been extinguished or sufficiently feint that too much harm will not arise by following it.

@Rogue-a-Tory---"If the establishment is cutting the Mcs loose, it must be confident that the trail back to the heart has been extinguished or sufficiently feint that too much harm will not arise by following it."

I was just about to post something similar. The loosening of restrictions on the media, as personified by Craig Murray's post, screams that a  'limited hangout' is in the offing, aka the Establishment may be preparing to throw the troublesome McCs to the wolves.

 "Limited hangout" is intelligence jargon for a form of propaganda in which a selected portion of a scandal, criminal act, sensitive or classified information, etc. is revealed or leaked, without telling the whole story. The intention may be to...divert public attention away from a more heinous act by leaking information about something less heinous."

""spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case."

If the narcissistic, over-entitled McCanns harbor any notion they might just start blabbing in the event their protection is removed, I'd advise them to stay out of small planes.

mouse wrote:"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......" 

Hmmm.....Interesting that he makes the statement that he does not believe this was linked to a high level paedophile ring. I mean, if it were simply 'less than exemplary parents" - why has it gone on for so long?....Years and years long with different governments involved. Surely if this was a simple case of wanting to be attached to a worthy cause of a missing child - then the next government would have shut this down quick-smart. Cos why would anyone want to cover/support child neglectors, It can't simply have been a 'highly photogenic tragedy - when the facts pointed immediately to the parents leaving their children on their own. It was a tragedy alright, and one that clearly needed immediate spin - and that's what they got. But what government would want that headache - unless they had to get involved....for what ever reason.

Are the Mccanns suddenly being abandoned by their supporters/backers? Are they finally being left to clear up their own mess?

The way he has worded it would lead anyone to consider who has made that argument!

The appeal decision seems to have provided a more secure platform for people to speak. Well done to Craig Murray. 

Could the high level of support the Mc's enjoyed be simply a cynical attempt to increase party/leader popularity - a marketing opportunity of the poorest taste? Wouldn't you think then that the Mc's would have been dropped like hot potatoes at the first hint that things might not turn out as originally assumed they would. The government had the opportunity very early on, it's not as if the doubts surfaced months into the investigation. Instead, Craig Murray tells us that, despite contradictions in the storylines, the British Embassy staff in Lisbon were told to continue the abnormal level of support. IMO, what Murray tells us about the Embassy's concerns and the government's response, confirms that the support was a necessity. Don't forget Amaral's mantra regarding solving of the case (re: opening of MI5's files).

Interesting information about the pressure put on Martin Grime's as well. (DT knows MG through his brother).

It's pretty obvious that Craig Murray knows next-to-nothing about this case (or so he pretends).

And he waits for 9 years to say this?

Let him read up a bit more before he puts pen to paper finger to keyboard on this subject again

Maybe it`s me, but what I find weird is Tony & Cherie Blair and Gordon Brown phoning K&G.  I doubt if they would have phoned me if I`d mislaid a child  .  Maybe I`m just jealous.

Maybe its everyman (or woman) for him/herself. Perhaps some want to disassociate themselves after the appeal being overturned.
Scotland Yard are still investigating though....or were they just testing the waters the other day finding out public opinion - and on finding a negative response - perhaps they're now gearing up for the final wind-down... 

Does seem highly irregular behaviour from the media though - not defending the Mccanns as is the usual rule. Really strange that they are not on-message. Rothley Towers must have near blown the roof off with all this today!!! 

Actually almost feeling optimistic that something might just be happening - and that's not like me either. Where the Mccans are concerned I have always been pessimistic about a future outcome, but you just never know.

Good times for Goncalo though - that is the main thing. A truly honourable man.

Tony Bennett wrote:It's pretty obvious that Craig Murray knows next-to-nothing about this case (or so he pretends).

And he waits for 9 years to say this?

Let him read up a bit more before he puts pen to paper finger to keyboard on this subject again

I agree!  Smacks to me of yet another opportunist looking to make a name for himself - and ain't there been a few of them over the past nine years;  invariably claiming to have that little bit of exclusive information that raises them above all others.

Tony Bennett wrote:It's pretty obvious that Craig Murray knows next-to-nothing about this case (or so he pretends).

And he waits for 9 years to say this?

Let him read up a bit more before he puts pen to paper finger to keyboard on this subject again

Could you expand on your comment on how much Craig Murray knows as he has only talked about it from his working position? If he hasn't been following the case on the fora he won't  know as much as we do. This shouldn't prevent a person from posting.

whatsupdoc wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:It's pretty obvious that Craig Murray knows next-to-nothing about this case (or so he pretends).

And he waits for 9 years to say this?

Let him read up a bit more before he puts pen to paper finger to keyboard on this subject again

Could you expand on your comment on how much Craig Murray knows as he has only talked about it from his working position? If he hasn't been following the case on the fora he won't  know as much as we do. This shouldn't prevent a person from posting.

For starters, a member of the UK diplomatic corps are not supposed to go blabbing to all and sundry about Foreign and Commonwealth Office business - there is this nuisance thing called the 'Official Secrets Act' that controls errant tongues.  I read this a while ago which is quite an eye opener..

'When you join the Foreign Office, and once you have been "positively vetted", you are required to sign the Official Secrets Act. This draconian document comprises your agreement never in your lifetime to reveal to outsiders, or to publicise in any way, the content of your work. With astonishing breadth, the act defines the information that you must protect to your grave as any official business, determined by the government itself. In other words, anything that you do in the course of your work is to be kept secret, forever. Any revelation about what that work entailed is, in theory, a criminal offence. When I was offered the document to sign, I did not hesitate. The glamour of secrecy lured me in, and I simply never believed that the day would come when its strictures might seem more a threat than an invitation...'

Read on..

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/02/world-diplomats-iraq-british

It's pretty obvious that Tony Bennett and Verdi know next to nothing about Craig Murray. Maybe they should read up a bit more about his brave and selfless stand against the British Government's acceptance of torture, including boiling people alive, in the country where he was their Ambassador.

Human rights supersedes any man made laws and Craig Murray is among a very small band of people who have sacrificed their careers to take the correct stance.

He confirms for us that the Foreign Office forced the diplomats to work for the McCanns against their own judgement, which reinforces the view of many that the Government was involved in what was happening in PDL from the Get Go, so his contribution is most welcome.

Thanks for the reply and link, Verdi. I do know about the OSA and I wonder how much truth is in the story and how much is fantasy. I have watched quite a few people in the aero and space industries,who, after retirement , go on to radio & tv appearances telling stories in great detail only to follow it up with information which I perceive as doubtful or inaccurate.


eta Just noticed Rob Royston's post.  I think the OP reinforces what I and others thought that the govt was involved from the start else John Buck wouldn't have arrived on the scene.

128 comments have been left on Craig's blog since last night - I see PeterMac has posted one aswell:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/comment-page-2/#comment-590983

From the comments and responses, I think this confirms TB’s suggestion above:
 
A couple of questions:

1/. What, in summary (if it’s possible to summarise) were the “inconsistencies” in the McCanns’ story?
 
2/. Are you ascribing the British authorities unusual level of support to the McCanns solely to Mr Blair’s hunger for a popular cause? If you are, then why – with Blair long gone – does this support seem to continue? I should have thought that it would have been quietly dropped and the whole matter quietly forgotten (even the Appeal Court’s decision wouldn’t have been news for more than a day on some inside page).
Thanks.
 

Reply ↓
craig Post author 
April 20, 2016 at 13:20
 

1) I took it to mean they gave inconsistent versions of events on the night and the condition of the apartment. I don’t think I was told in great detail.

 
2) I think it is just that government is like a juggernaut. Once the course is set, it takes an effort to change.


....................................... 
   
Maybe in view of the response to his posting, he will get to look into the case a bit more. People are certainly giving him plenty of leads in the comments, together with a recommendation that he watches Richard Hall's videos.

Another response from Craig in the comments:
  
‘Let me add how I very first heard of the McCanns. It was the very first day it was headline news in the UK – which I imagine was either one or two days after the event. The couple made two live press appearances (press conference, interview, I cannot pretend to recall). I was not watching, it was Nadira who paid attention, and Nadira made to me this remarkable observation. She said that not only had Kate McCann changed her clothes between appearances, she had changed her earrings to match. Nadira considered that to be very extraordinary in a frantically searching parent. That was the first I ever knew of the McCanns.’

Doug D wrote:Another response from Craig in the comments:
  
‘Let me add how I very first heard of the McCanns. It was the very first day it was headline news in the UK – which I imagine was either one or two days after the event. The couple made two live press appearances (press conference, interview, I cannot pretend to recall). I was not watching, it was Nadira who paid attention, and Nadira made to me this remarkable observation. She said that not only had Kate McCann changed her clothes between appearances, she had changed her earrings to match. Nadira considered that to be very extraordinary in a frantically searching parent. That was the first I ever knew of the McCanns.’

The change of earrings was one of the very first things that was picked up on back then iirc.

whatsupdoc wrote:Thanks for the reply and link, Verdi. I do know about the OSA and I wonder how much truth is in the story and how much is fantasy. I have watched quite a few people in the aero and space industries,who, after retirement , go on to radio & tv appearances telling stories in great detail only to follow it up with information which I perceive as doubtful or inaccurate.


eta Just noticed Rob Royston's post.  I think the OP reinforces what I and others thought that the govt was involved from the start else John Buck wouldn't have arrived on the scene.

@whatsupdoc wrote:  I think the OP reinforces what I and others thought that the govt was involved from the start else John Buck wouldn't have arrived on the scene.

Whoa wabbit!  There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that political influence (affiliated with the media) was steering this case from the beginning, indeed I've always been quite vocal on the subject, particularly the swift presence of the ambassador at the scene of the crime.  This is not normal protocol, it's not the function of an ambassador to get personally involved with a case such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - as we know it.  Nor do I doubt for a second that diplomats are compromised during their term of service - cajoled into acting against their own judgement.  Goes with the job description.

Get'emGoncalo posted this diplomats CV up-page, which I own is indeed very impressive.  The main thing that stuck out for me was his reason for not revealing such explosive material before now - because he didn't want to offend public sensitivity?  Information that could have blown the whole McCann defence strategy sky high and he keeps it to himself until now?  This is the sort of revelation that leads to people mysteriously disappearing and later being found dead in some remote countryside location through heart failure.  Or doing a Reggie Perrin never to be seen or heard of again.

Whistleblowers are generally police informants, not town criers.  Having said that, if his report raises a few eyebrows that leads to some awkward questions being asked 'in the House' (snort!), in the media or any other more effective platform, then so much the better.

@Rob Royston wrote:   It's pretty obvious that Tony Bennett and Verdi know next to nothing about Craig Murray.
 
Speaking only for myself, you could well be right but from what I have read he certainly seems to have a led a very colourful life.  I wonder if  the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assigned him to specific high risk destinations because he was the right man for the job, or whether he took it upon himself to work above the call of duty. 

That aside, everyone's entitled to a private life, even those working in the public sector but it would be helpful if they kept their private life private;  maybe this shouldn't reflect on his ability working as a diplomat, the point is, it brings his personal integrity into question.  There's quite enough indiscretion going on in the public sector, without boasting about one's sexual exploits.    As I said before, if everything this person has publicly claimed, by way of the internet, since his retirement from the diplomatic corps be true - I'm astonished he hasn't been found dead from an unexplained heart attack.

This is only an observation - I guess the truth will never be known.  The establishment excel in the art of keeping the public in the dark.