Brighton rock group used latest Maddie pic for publicity

by **Tony Bennett** 21.05.12 16:52

An excited Becky Evans from the Brighton Argus has just 'phoned me to tell me about a local rock group which had been using flyers for a gig this Saturday, using the latest 'age-progressed' picture of Madeleine McCann to publicise the event. Apparently the picture of Madeleine looking 9 was purely used to attract interest in the gig; there was no accompanying message about looking for Madeleine, nor were they proposing to raise a penny from the gig for the hard-pressed Find Madeleine Fund. A local had complained to the Brighton Argus. The group had apparently now agreed to stop distributing the flyer.

She wanted a quote from me.

Alas, the reporter had wrongly assumed that The Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns; it was really Clarence Mitchell they wanted to speak to. I gave her the right number to call.

That might be a tough one, though, even for Clarence.

Was this (a) a bad thing because it exploited Madeleine? or (b) a good thing because it helps people in the Brighton area to look for Madeleine?

by **tigger** 21.05.12 17:11

Tony Bennett wrote:An excited Becky Evans from the Brighton Argus has just 'phoned me to tell me about a local rock group which had been using flyers for a gig this Saturday, using the latest 'age-progressed' picture of Madeleine McCann to publicise the event. Apparently the picture of Madeleine looking 9 was purely used to attract interest in the gig; there was no accompanying message about looking for Madeleine, nor were they proposing to raise a penny from the gig for the hard-pressed Find Madeleine Fund. A local had complained to the Brighton Argus. The group had apparently now agreed to stop distributing the flyer.

She wanted a quote from me.

Alas, the reporter had wrongly assumed that The Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns; it was really Clarence Mitchell they wanted to speak to. I gave her the right number to call.

That might be a tough one, though, even for Clarence.

Was this (a) a bad thing because it exploited Madeleine? or (b) a good thing because it helps people in the Brighton area to look for Madeleine?

Off you go Clarrie!

by **PeterMac** 21.05.12 17:35

They always have to make this choice.
Was it a good thing that Madeleine was not found before the launch of the book, so that sales and serialisation rights were not disrupted, or was it a bad thing ?
Is it a good thing that so many sites continue after all this time to discuss and debate what might have happened, because this gives the possibiity that the mystery may one day be solvdd, or is it a bad thing because this raises questions in people's minds.

by **PeterMac** 21.05.12 17:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
Alas, the reporter had wrongly assumed that The Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns; it was really Clarence Mitchell they wanted to speak to. I gave her the right number to call.

Interestingly, they have sought to re-capture the word Foundation

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

by rainbow-fairy 21.05.12 18:16

Now that could be close to call!

It should be a good thing IF Maddie is alive and findable, as any publicity should be good publicity - BUT
It could be a bad thing if the band has made any money off the back of it, as only K+G are morally ok to make money off the back of her (just ask Snr Amaral)

So my answer is; "Let's defer this question to Mr Mitchell..." I'm sure he can spin a suitable soundbite. It'll probably include the word 'vile' somewhere...

by Liz Eagles 21.05.12 18:23

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Alas, the reporter had wrongly assumed that The Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns; it was really Clarence Mitchell they wanted to speak to. I gave her the right number to call.
Interestingly, they have sought to re-capture the word Foundation
Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Well, there are a lot of well educated, professional people on this forum and they are not swallowing the Mctripe. I really try to put myself into the shoes of a parent who has lost a child. I still can't see what's right about the McCann case. I still can't see the reason for so much media coverage. I just don't get it.

by Guest 21.05.12 19:45

Poor old Becky can't have done a great deal of research to think that the Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns! I can see a great future for her with a national tabloid as the need to research one's stories has gone completely out of the window in recent years - unlike Madeleine.

Something like this happened before, Tony? Someone who asked for the Foundation's permission to use a photo of Madeleine? It might have been a hoax though.

by Liz Eagles 21.05.12 19:56

PeterMac wrote:They always have to make this choice.
Was it a good thing that Madeleine was not found before the launch of the book, so that sales and serialisation rights were not disrupted, or was it a bad thing ?
Is it a good thing that so many sites continue after all this time to discuss and debate what might have happened, because this gives the possibiity that the mystery may one day be solvdd, or is it a bad thing because this raises questions in people's minds.

Well it's a good thing to have the opportunity for extra funds - the legal eagles are on the case.

OOOOhhhhh I feel a song coming on....Pink Floyd....Money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujg1Xrq37LY

by **Tony Bennett** 21.05.12 20:44

Jean wrote:Poor old Becky can't have done a great deal of research to think that the Madeleine Foundation represented the McCanns! I can see a great future for her with a national tabloid as the need to research one's stories has gone completely out of the window in recent years - unlike Madeleine.

Something like this happened before, Tony?

Perhaps five or six times over the past four years we've had journalists or members of the public ring up here thinking they were contacting the McCanns' site. We've had perhaps two or three e-mails as well. I'm satisfied that none of the donations ever made to The Madeleine Foundation over the years (and there haven't been that many) have come from anyone who thought we were really the McCanns' Fund.

by Pershing36 21.05.12 20:54

Hate to say it but I fear this will be another win win scenario for the powerful TM.

First they 'could' claim the use of the posters were for nothing more than publicity and could make people think they were somehow donating to the search for Maddie when promotion of their gig might and I say might have been their aim. Obviously we don't know what their aim was with the information we have been given so far.

Second they 'could' claim the MF is diverting legitimate awareness enquiries away from the official sources. I am sure the powers at be will make the most of this giving what is going on at the moment.

The closed hate sites are already following this thread with the usual bile they spit. I fear a silly move by a band may end up with them having to give a majority of their proceeds to the fund. They probably innocently thought they were dealing with a charity and could help awareness.

What ever happens you can be sure who will come up in the papers smelling of roses.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.05.12 14:03

The Brighton Argus have now published their article about the rock band mis-using Madeleine's image:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9719163.Disgust_over_Brighton_band_s_Maddie_McCann_flyer/?ref=twt&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The local MP sponsored the event at which they were due to appear!

The band has been banned - and unfortunately Becky Evans didn't in the end get her quote from Clarence Mitchell.

by **PeterMac** 22.05.12 14:37

But what fascinating comments. The worm is clearly turning.

What a nonsense article. Rock and Roll used to be far worse than this.
Considering the press seem desperate to use a Maddie photo whenever they can to flog their papers, why is this any more disgusting.

Speaking as a parent (which effectively means I can get away with saying anything) I'd say this is as offensive as going into a shopping centre with a friend and seeing who has the bottle to shout "BOGIES" the loudest.
Seriously, will the media PLEASE stop fetishising this child's image for the sake of a story and find a new poster girl for their paedogeddon narrative?

Actually that isn't a photo at all. It's a mock up. It is not real!

Grow the funk up! This is nothing compared to biting bats heads off or any of the rock roll PR stunts that are legendary. If a bunch of fuddy duddies get their feathers in a ruffle then good. The world has gone PC mad! If you wanna have a go at anybody have a go at Maddie's parents for not looking after their daughter!

I saw this and had to sign up! Hilarious. PC gone crazy.

As the man says, this is not a photograph of the girl. It's digital artwork, done for--wait for it--publicity purposes! the publicity being meant to help locate her. So they used it for their own publicity. Offensive? Using her ACTUAL photograph would be, I think. Poor taste? Very possibly, but we saw worse back in the punk rock era and we survived that.

At least the general comments on here have not been brainwashed by Liberal busybodies.

by jmac 23.05.12 5:04

PeterMac wrote:They always have to make this choice.
Was it a good thing that Madeleine was not found before the launch of the book, so that sales and serialisation rights were not disrupted, or was it a bad thing ?
Is it a good thing that so many sites continue after all this time to discuss and debate what might have happened, because this gives the possibiity that the mystery may one day be solvdd, or is it a bad thing because this raises questions in people's minds.

Was it a good thing that Madeleine`s coloboma was announced to the world (good marketing ploy) or was it a bad thing because the abductor could have done something to Madeleine`s eye, or worse?

Oops, sorry this is out of date: Correction,

Was it a good thing that after four years the McCanns admitted that it was merely a fleck, or was it a bad thing because everybody had been looking for the wrong girl?

by **tigger** 23.05.12 5:58

jmac wrote:
PeterMac wrote:They always have to make this choice.
Was it a good thing that Madeleine was not found before the launch of the book, so that sales and serialisation rights were not disrupted, or was it a bad thing ?
Is it a good thing that so many sites continue after all this time to discuss and debate what might have happened, because this gives the possibiity that the mystery may one day be solvdd, or is it a bad thing because this raises questions in people's minds.

Was it a good thing that Madeleine`s coloboma was announced to the world (good marketing ploy) or was it a bad thing because the abductor could have done something to Madeleine`s eye, or worse?

Oops, sorry this is out of date: Correction,

Was it a good thing that after four years the McCanns admitted that it was merely a fleck, or was it a bad thing because everybody had been looking for the wrong girl?

It was a good thing to admit it was a fleck and barely visible because it was a bad thing that it stopped people identifying random girls as Maddy all over the world.
It was a good thing to have publicity about these sightings because it was a bad thing that the Fund wasn't getting contributions.

by Gillyspot 23.05.12 6:59

And as with the Voucher Digg the media (in this case the Brighton Argus) just HAD to share the offending image - just so even more could be offended by it. Who is sick?

by jmac 23.05.12 7:04

Gillyspot wrote:And as with the Voucher Digg the media (in this case the Brighton Argus) just HAD to share the offending image - just so even more could be offended by it. Who is sick?

From the comments about this article it looks like readers of the Brighton Argus are well aware of the double standards involved in these publicity stunts.

by bobbin 23.05.12 8:12

OK, so the McCanns put pictures of the 'image' of Maddie out (We don't know if any of them have been real)

What do they get in return, publicity and money for their ~~lifestyle~~ fund.
The Papers swell their coffers.
What do we get in return, nothing, just more whingeing that what has already been given is still not enough.

The boys from the band put pictures of the 'image' of Maddie out (We do know it's not real)

What do they get, publicity and money for their lifestyle.
The Papers swell their coffers.
What do we get in return, the chance to hear some good old rock 'n' roll.

I know whose 'ethics' I prefer, at least the band is honest. Brighton rock group used latest Maddie pic for publicity 110921

Brighton rock group used latest Maddie pic for publicity 110921

Brighton rock group used latest Maddie pic for publicity 259100

by **tigger** 23.05.12 8:32

No - great post Bobbin!

by russiandoll 23.05.12 9:36

I saw the image and there is no way the band were promoting look for Maddie as the age progressed photo was defaced to the extent her featues were obliterated.
I believe she is no longer with us. A photo of what she might have looked like is a heartbreaking reminder of this for any peope who loved her. To do this to what could have been her face is offensive in the extreme imo.
I think a band using that flyer in a pitiful attempt to gain attention is despicable in its disrespect for a probably deceased child.
The media are worse for publishing it and giving it attention for their own disgusting reasons.
It should have been ignored.
If the band was sending a message of contempt for why this photo was released and the way the case has been handled, there were better ways to do it imo, if they had used a bit of imagination and sensitivity.