Re: All 70 comments published on the 'Harlow Star' website (70 comments were published, not 45 as stated earlier)

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.12 9:39

PeterMac wrote:
aniandr wrote:Of all god damn things people could say about a lost child. Amusing?
Didn't Clarence Mitchell use that word when talking about a cast list for a film ?

Here's our collection of 'Issues of Concern' about Clarence Mitchell, published in our 6-page leaflet: "Clarence Mitchell: A MASTER MEDIA MANIPULATOR". Mitchell has publicly pronounced this leaflet 'libellous', but has never sued me on its contents, the only member of 'The McCann Team Big Five' who has not (so far) sued me. The quotes you're referring to are in blue at Item 15:

Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns:

21 Issues of Concern

Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case. At the end of our leaflet we explain how to obtain more information on the Madeleine McCann case, including our 60-page booklet: ‘What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted’.

1. Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls

There were sell-sourced reports that the McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were tipped off. He refused to answer.

2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in

On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed in ’phone calls to their relatives that an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. This claim was reported extensively in the media. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forced the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘The abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily,’ leaving no forensic trace. The window in question was just over 2ft square and was 3ft above the ground. It was dark at the time the McCanns say Madeleine disappeared. For an abductor to have taken Madeleine through such a window, in the dark, without being seen or heard by anoyne (except the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner), and without leaving any forensic trace, is highly unlikely.

3. Smearing Robert Murat

A curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who had previously worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the Police. It is very likely that this followed conversations between Mitchell and her. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’, also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He told one newspaper:

“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don't want to, and I can't, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won't say more”. He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel, since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £600,000 in libel damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and libelled him.

4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’

During early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His statement could also have had serious implications for the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund, which could only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on the premise that Madeleine was still alive. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that Madeleine was still alive.

5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity

Interviewed by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not charitable and include making payments to the McCanns. It only has to make annual returns to Companies House. Beyond that, the Trust is not accountable to anyone.

6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’

Asked on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund, Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional - monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund, namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example, monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be properly accounted for.

7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’

Pressed about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann family and their friends or acquaintances.

8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test

The McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, after a number of lie detector experts came forward to offer their services, he announced: "Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.

9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so

Clarence Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don't want to do anything about 'woe is us a year on'. That is what the tabloids would like us to do, but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda” (one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann - One Year On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly with his personal knowledge. And the programme was very much: “Woe is us a year on”.

10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor

It has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’ friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter. At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was much laughter.

11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent explanation for it”

To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent explanation’ for everything?

12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May

One of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist, Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was: “So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused to elaborate.

13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing - and then being forced to retract that statement

Clarence Mitchell had come under pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many significant contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding: “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”.

Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always wearing watches.

Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile ’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’ statements to the police, which have been publicly released, that the McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this before he made his statement.

14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’

On 11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’. When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were bold claims to make given that…

Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to answer any of them.

The McCanns had refused point blank to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
The McCanns’ statements contained numerous changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and apparent obfuscations.

15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing

On 7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really had.

16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening

Interviewed by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and dining out for the evening. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right”. Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of them..

17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night

In an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’ (i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone every night’. Mitchell had no answer.

18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine

Clarence Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised for making it.

19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission

Months after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing, though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz - without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is find their own daughter?”

20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’

In early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake. At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking children".

Mitchell then commented:

“Developments such as this give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the moment - every time we do something like this and move things forward it gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this - putting all this information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way; simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda forward on our side of the equation”.

Many asked why Mitchell and the McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation to Madeleine’s having possibly been raped and murdered by paedophiles.

And his use of the word ‘agenda’, yet again, once more prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?

21. Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before

On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns were told by their children that they had been crying the previous night whilst they were dining out, only to then leave them alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:

“That is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May the 3^rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said: “Why didn’t you come see - come and see me and Sean when we were crying, last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their checks - they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as they did the next night, when she went missing - they had found nothing to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her asleep each time.

“There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to Madeleine’s bedroom. She too was there all evening and heard no crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in the context of ‘leak’ came from a Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].

“What happened later - her disappearance - they felt that that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried. Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they fledwhen she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the police in confidence - legally protected documentation has been in those files for 11 months - and whydoes it appear on the very day they were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to stop this…from happening in the future”

During this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work.

He makes light of two children crying while their parents were not with them.

He justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out dining with their friends and leaving all three children alone again the very night after the children told them of their crying.

He claims, without evidence, that the police leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the night before.

He claims the police have done something illegal.

Some might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years to come be ‘a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate public opinion’.

But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who is genuinely helping us get to the truth?

Or is it just possible that this person who once boasted that his job was ‘to control what comes out in the media’ is someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?

MORE INFORMATION

Coming soon: “The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1”, published by the Madeleine Foundation, available from the Madeleine Foundation, price £3.00 including postage. This is a collection of eight of the most important documents about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which the Portuguese Police have now released for the public to view, and will give readers valuable insights into what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

There’s also a wealth of information about the McCann case at other sites, we’d recommend in particular:

· www.mccannfiles.com

· www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk

· www.jillhavern.forumotion.net

· http://themaddiecasefiles.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published by The Madeleine Foundation, January 2010

by **tigger** 03.11.12 9:45

Re the film: McCannfiles (for more google IMG Maddie on McC files)
The announcement on 08 January 2008 that the McCanns planned to sanction a film based on Madeleine's disappearance caused instant uproar and revulsion.

Such was the backlash that Gerry was forced to write a rare blog in a vain attempt to try and reverse the tide of public opinion. He now insisted that they were not considering a film but a documentary, along the lines of those already produced by the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News. However, first reports of the project clearly indicate that it was a film or TV drama that was planned.

GMTV stated in its report on 08 January 2008 that the project had initially been discussed in mid-December. At that meeting, comprising Clarence Mitchell, a representative of the McCanns and an unidentified person from the film agency IMG, they apparently discussed the possibility of a film or TV drama based around Madeleine's disappearance.

We need to clarify here that IMG is the world's largest entertainment agency. It is not the world's largest documentary agency. They are in the business of producing entertainment and if the McCanns wanted a boots and braces documentary, as they now insist, then surely IMG was not the right agency for them and the project should have been dismissed out of hand.
unquote

by Guest 03.11.12 9:49

Thank you Tony and Tigger for the clarification or should that be clarence-ification.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.12 10:12

Jean wrote:I believe that Clarence was referring to the assembled media scrum when he said that "you" (meaning them) might find it amusing to think up a cast list but that there were no plans for a film.

If there was an award for the most cringeworthy action in the whole McCann-Saga, would it be Clarence Mitchell saying it would 'be hugely entertaining and a lot of fun' to think up a cast list for the film 'Madeleine'? -or might it be this, from the Independent:

Extract from Clarence's 'I Am A Decent Human Being' Interview - The Independent 1st March 2009

QUOTE

In media terms, he says, Madeleine was "a perfect storm: her age, her appearance, the location, the parents..." Columnists wrote about "people like us". Picture editors loved Kate, to an extraordinary degree. "It would be sad if it wasn't laughable: Kate was finding herself in Nuts or whatever lads' magazine's top 10. You think, 'This is ridiculous.' But they can't help how they look."

There's no truth, then, in the report that he tried to get Kate to be photographed in a swimsuit? "Utter bollocks," said Mitchell. Gerry suggested it without realising the implications, he says, and was then persuaded otherwise

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/clarence-mitchell-i-am-a-decent-human-being-if-i-can-help-them-i-will-1634738.html

UNQUOTE

There must be few better examples than discussing a film about Madeleine, and discussing photographing Kate McCann in a swimsuit, to illustrate how the McCanns' focus has been on what the media say about them, rather than on finding Madeleine.

The contest as to who suggested the idea imn the first place just adds a further layer of cringe-making embarrassment: "It was Mitchell's idea" - "Bollocks - it was yours" - "No it wasn't" - "Oh yes it was" - "You started it..."

by Liz Eagles 03.11.12 10:35

what do you get when you have a block of lard in one hand and CM with his magic PR wand in the other?

Ghee - Clarified butter.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.12 10:39

Jean wrote:Thank you Tony and Tigger for the clarification or should that be clarence-ification.

Hi, Jean, the officialspellings are 'clarrie-fy' and 'clarrie-fication', as shown in the latest edition of 'The UK Online Media Dictionary':

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

clar·i·fy verb kler-ə-fī, kla-rə- fī
clar·i·fied
clar·i·fy·ing
clar·i·fi·ca·tion

Alt. sp. Also spelt clarrie-fy{see Note 4 below}

clar·rie·fy
clarrie·fi·ca·tion

Definition of CLARIFY/ CLARRIE-FY

[To follow]

by Guest 03.11.12 10:50

I don't know if this has been posted before - other changes in the language since 2007.

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-reference-material.html

by ShuBob 03.11.12 14:14

Tony Bennett wrote:[...]Here's our collection of 'Issues of Concern' about Clarence Mitchell, published in our 6-page leaflet: "Clarence Mitchell: A MASTER MEDIA MANIPULATOR". [...]

For me, one of the worst things Clarence Mitchell has done which confirmed to me (my opinion of him) that he has no interest whatsoever in Maddie's plight is when he gave a talk on 18 October 2007- just over a month after the McCanns had been declared suspects in the disappearance of their daughter- titled:

“Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign”

by aiyoyo 03.11.12 16:35

No kidding! Is that title for real?

Oh dear, so revealing.........talking about shooting oneself in the foot!

by Guest 03.11.12 20:49

Interesting to read the pros and cons all wrapped up at the foot of one misleading press report. As far as the negative comments are concerned it is apparent to me that there are two major divisions a) Those who are opposed to the thoughts, words and deeds of Tony Bennett and b) those who are opposed to Tony Bennett full-stop. If the two respective elements could disregard their prejudices and see what he is genuinely trying to achieve in the interest of a missing child then I think much of this animosity could be avoided.

by RS5 03.11.12 21:24

Gillyspot wrote:
RS5 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Welcome RS5, oops thats another post.Over 2000 posts alone welcoming new members

Thank you. Another post welcoming a new member. Yet another wasted moment in your life

The current attacks on Tony Bennett are interesting. I have the whole weekend to mull over them.

No welcome is ever wasted. If you take time to read the evidence & understand it in the McCann case then you we see what we are talking about.

IMO K & G are not "proven innocent" of anything not least neglect. Anyway Welcome to our forum. Madeleine needs the truth & nothing less. Just my thoughts though.

Actually I went on to state (on Harlow Star website) that they should do an exposay on the McCanns Ltd Co "fund" & where donated money was spent - bearing in mind family were entitled to "financial assistance" that seems to have been whooshed. Still part of my comments were approved - that is something.

Hello. gillyspot, and thank you for the welcome.

I was making a rather sarcastic reference to a barbed comment in a previous post by a now-departed member. I get exactly where you are coming from.

by roy rovers 03.11.12 21:34

Gollum wrote:Interesting to read the pros and cons all wrapped up at the foot of one misleading press report. As far as the negative comments are concerned it is apparent to me that there are two major divisions a) Those who are opposed to the thoughts, words and deeds of Tony Bennett and b) those who are opposed to Tony Bennett full-stop. If the two respective elements could disregard their prejudices and see what he is genuinely trying to achieve in the interest of a missing child then I think much of this animosity could be avoided.

Basically two categories of interest in this case:

1) Those who believe the redtops fed by the Mccann PR machine (PROS).

2) Those that have read into the case - even by just a little (ANTIS).

by Guest 03.11.12 22:03

C.Edwards wrote:Whoa... hold on to the attack dogs for a minute. You *could* interpret PauliPevsner's "amusement" comment (as I do) that the amusement comes from the performance of those on the forums, not the subject of the discussion itself which, pretty obviously, is no cause for amusement so some high horses need to be climbed off here.

This is another trait of forums on both sides. Post something that isn't canon for the location and you very quickly get suspected of being "one of them". but sadly there are no forums where that can happen and you very quickly get jumped on for holding a contrary opinion. As appears to have happened to PauliPevsner here, to be honest.

edit: ah, looks like the discussion moved on whilst I was posting...

Don't get your drift, what do you mean by saying "There are those of us that would quite happily debate on both sides of the fence"? I haven't been a member of this forum for very long but in that time I haven't seen any strong bias of opinion that could be considered prohibitive to differing viewpoints. If a member is obviously trying to disrupt the general harmony of the forum then they must expect to be unpopular.

The danger as I see it is when members favour another purely because that other has agreed with the member on one or more occassions. That I think is where the bias enters into the forum, not a difference of opinion.

All 70 comments published on the 'Harlow Star' website (70 comments were published, not 45 as stated earlier)