Re: Mitchell, the mole in the hole, true colour.

by Guest Sat 05 Apr 2014, 10:40 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the Radio Humberside interwiew with Peter Levy thread, link above:

Felix wrote:Clarence Mitchell: Well, thank you for the good wishes Peter, and, of course, I will pass those on... on to them. Errr... I speak to them pretty much virtually every day. I either phone or email or contact. Errr... And I will certainly make it clear to them that... that you... you've said that. Errm... I'm now working as a result of moving into Public Relations, if you like, with the Madeleine, errm... situation. I now work for a PR agency in London, Lewis PR. I'm the Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs which means that I work with a number of their clients as well, advising them on their media contact. And if any particular stories flare up involving those clients I... I generally act as a... a bit of a go-between, in much the same way as I do for Kate and Gerry, with... with the media, the print, broadcast and online media. Errm... And on the public affairs side because of my governmental work, errm... I'm able to assist as well, where I can, with, errr... governmental contact for some of the clients too. So it's... it's a busy old agenda, errr... just as frenetic as... as the BBC in many ways; if it's on the other side of the fence.

...the underlined could give weight to the MI5 premise.

I looked up that interview because it's my local radio station and I'm glad I did. I was also struck by the nature of Peter Levy's questions. I think he knows.

by margaret Sat 05 Apr 2014, 12:21 pm

Dee Coy wrote:

Felix wrote:Clarence Mitchell: Well, thank you for the good wishes Peter, and, of course, I will pass those on... on to them. Errr... I speak to them pretty much virtually every day. I either phone or email or contact. Errr... And I will certainly make it clear to them that... that you... you've said that. Errm... I'm now working as a result of moving into Public Relations, if you like, with the Madeleine, errm... situation. I now work for a PR agency in London, Lewis PR. I'm the Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs which means that I work with a number of their clients as well, advising them on their media contact. And if any particular stories flare up involving those clients I... I generally act as a... a bit of a go-between, in much the same way as I do for Kate and Gerry, with... with the media, the print, broadcast and online media. Errm... And on the public affairs side because of my governmental work, errm... I'm able to assist as well, where I can, with, errr... governmental contact for some of the clients too. So it's... it's a busy old agenda, errr... just as frenetic as... as the BBC in many ways; if it's on the other side of the fence.

Isn't it striking that he can talk about himself without one single erm... But when he mentions the McCanns he's full of erm and errs.[/quote]

by TheTruthWillOut Sat 05 Apr 2014, 12:31 pm

margaret wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:

Felix wrote:Clarence Mitchell: Well, thank you for the good wishes Peter, and, of course, I will pass those on... on to them. Errr... I speak to them pretty much virtually every day. I either phone or email or contact. Errr... And I will certainly make it clear to them that... that you... you've said that. Errm... I'm now working as a result of moving into Public Relations, if you like, with the Madeleine, errm... situation. I now work for a PR agency in London, Lewis PR. I'm the Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs which means that I work with a number of their clients as well, advising them on their media contact. And if any particular stories flare up involving those clients I... I generally act as a... a bit of a go-between, in much the same way as I do for Kate and Gerry, with... with the media, the print, broadcast and online media. Errm... And on the public affairs side because of my governmental work, errm... I'm able to assist as well, where I can, with, errr... governmental contact for some of the clients too. So it's... it's a busy old agenda, errr... just as frenetic as... as the BBC in many ways; if it's on the other side of the fence.

Isn't it striking that he can talk about himself without one single erm... But when he mentions the McCanns he's full of erm and errs.

[/quote]

So much thinking about what one is saying....even Peter Levy does a similar thing. Not quite able to ask a 'hard' question directly without pausing and stumbling.

by Liz Eagles Sat 05 Apr 2014, 1:31 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
margaret wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:

Felix wrote:Clarence Mitchell: Well, thank you for the good wishes Peter, and, of course, I will pass those on... on to them. Errr... I speak to them pretty much virtually every day. I either phone or email or contact. Errr... And I will certainly make it clear to them that... that you... you've said that. Errm... I'm now working as a result of moving into Public Relations, if you like, with the Madeleine, errm... situation. I now work for a PR agency in London, Lewis PR. I'm the Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs which means that I work with a number of their clients as well, advising them on their media contact. And if any particular stories flare up involving those clients I... I generally act as a... a bit of a go-between, in much the same way as I do for Kate and Gerry, with... with the media, the print, broadcast and online media. Errm... And on the public affairs side because of my governmental work, errm... I'm able to assist as well, where I can, with, errr... governmental contact for some of the clients too. So it's... it's a busy old agenda, errr... just as frenetic as... as the BBC in many ways; if it's on the other side of the fence.

Isn't it striking that he can talk about himself without one single erm... But when he mentions the McCanns he's full of erm and errs.

So much thinking about what one is saying....even Peter Levy does a similar thing. Not quite able to ask a 'hard' question directly without pausing and stumbling.[/quote]

.....................................

Paxman's interview with GM was alarming. Old Paxman, the BBC Rottweiler couldn't perform a single piece of serious questioning. shocking stuff imo.

by jeanmonroe Sat 05 Apr 2014, 2:11 pm

Initially, the McCanns claimed that their apartment was locked and that an abductor had broken into the apartment and damaged the shutters when they were jemmied open. The McCanns had phoned their family and friends to give their version of events and told them to spread the word. Newspapers, radio and television picked up these reports and broadcast them as though they were factual reports. However, there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in."

You want 'erms and errrs'?

John Hill: The parents were regularly checking, errm... through the, errr... the french windows of their apartment, errm... and between, errm... errr... ten... ten o'clock and ten fifteen, errm... the alarm was raised that Maddie was missing from that room.

WHO 'got at' John HIll? (to 'drop' the McCanns 'jemmied, forced, broken, smashed' shutters 'proclaimations')

NO mention of 'jemmied, forced, broken, smashed' shutters, from Mr Hill, even though the McCann's had already told the world THAT.!

by Cristobell Sat 05 Apr 2014, 2:15 pm

Clarence lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth. He likes to portray himself as important and well connected, as indeed he is/was. His connection to the government now is flimsy, at the very least. He is prospective tory candidate for Brighton with a grey man, authoritative manner that is unlikely to appeal to the colourful inhabitants of Brighton and Hove and it is a strange move sideways for a successful spinmeister who could presumably have earned far more in the private sector, or indeed in the thick of it at Tory Central Office in the run up to the General Election.

by ultimaThule Sat 05 Apr 2014, 2:43 pm

jeanmonroe wrote:Initially, the McCanns claimed that their apartment was locked and that an abductor had broken into the apartment and damaged the shutters when they were jemmied open. The McCanns had phoned their family and friends to give their version of events and told them to spread the word. Newspapers, radio and television picked up these reports and broadcast them as though they were factual reports. However, there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in."

You want 'erms and errrs'?

John Hill: The parents were regularly checking, errm... through the, errr... the french windows of their apartment, errm... and between, errm... errr... ten... ten o'clock and ten fifteen, errm... the alarm was raised that Maddie was missing from that room.

WHO 'got at' John HIll?

NO mention of 'jemmied, forced, broken, smashed' shutters, from Mr Hill, even though the McCann's had already told the world THAT.!

The first image imprinted on the world's consciousness was one of a 3 year old child stolen from her bed by a person, or pesons. who had jemmied open the metal shutters of her bedroom window in order to make off with her and, as is often the case, few looked beyond the headlines or beneath the sensationalism disseminated by the McCanns and their UK relatives.

In the various media accounts of Madeleine's 'disappearance' I found it surprising that the word 'kidnap' was so little in evidence as surely only a person, or persons, intent on extracting money from, or revenge on, the parents would commit such an audacious and determined crime?

by **tigger** Sat 05 Apr 2014, 7:31 pm

It would be good to know the time of John Hill's statement. I think Bell Pottinger was on the job very quickly.
Might have been on Friday.
Clearly- as I believe PeterMac pointed out - the jemmied shutters arrived in the UK well in advance of midnight on the 3rd.

By late afternoon on the 4th the story would already be changed. Besides the fingerprint lady had been seen examining the shutters, which were clearly not broken.
Certainly MW seems to have bent over backwards to prop up whatever version of events was the plat du jour.
The time of the alarm, the doors, the phone call to the police - john Hill must just have done and said what he was told.

Eta: for me it was a four yr. old - but three years sounds possibly more helpless than a four year old. Not capable of opening doors and so on.

by kimHager Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:12 am

This is why the theory on the pedo that was molesting or assaulting little british girls in that area around the time of madeleine's disappearance dont fly with me, reports said the individual would get in bed with the children while the parents were oblivious . The reports never said that the individual was taking the children out of the homes and his MO we assume didnt change during these attacks
SO...it would seem that..errrm..thats not our man.
To see the mccanns controlling what the British press knew of the "abduction"from day one and even Gerrys very damning statement of how confusion is a good thing in the very beginnning, im shocked the mccanns are still out walking the streets enjoying themselves.sorry to go off topic

by Okeydokey Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:27 am

Paxman's interview with GM was alarming. Old Paxman, the BBC Rottweiler couldn't perform a single piece of serious questioning. shocking stuff imo.[/quote]

You are certainly right about that Paxman interview. Makes one wonder. Same with Ian Hislop - never a critical word directed at the McCanns.

by Liz Eagles Sun 06 Apr 2014, 9:47 am

Okeydokey wrote:Paxman's interview with GM was alarming. Old Paxman, the BBC Rottweiler couldn't perform a single piece of serious questioning. shocking stuff imo.

You are certainly right about that Paxman interview. Makes one wonder. Same with Ian Hislop - never a critical word directed at the McCanns.[/quote]

.....................................................................................................

I don't know what's up with the quote button on my pc so I've put a line of dots.

Here is the link for the Paxman interview.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ETA: Paxman's body language is something to behold.

by whmon Sun 06 Apr 2014, 12:19 pm

Final sentence by GM in Paxman interview: '[the fund is being used]...to try at the very least to find Madeleine or who took her.'

You would have thought he would have referred to this as his ultimate goal not the very least goal.

by Cristobell Sun 06 Apr 2014, 12:44 pm

Going by the stuttering, gibbering, sweaty performance of Gerry here, I would say Paxman did very well!

by Guest Sun 06 Apr 2014, 1:35 pm

Cristobell wrote:Going by the stuttering, gibbering, sweaty performance of Gerry here, I would say Paxman did very well!

Me too. I thought Paxman voiced his questions with a cynical tone and, like aquila alluded to, his body language was negatively stiff. He looked to be almost straining away from McCann. I know Paxman is a challenging interviewer anyway, but he came across as though he didn't like Gerry one bit. I reckon most of them know, just can't say.

by Doug D Sun 06 Apr 2014, 1:53 pm

Probably not Paxman's fault if it was an agreed, scripted interview, which generally seems to be the case. We have seen GM's reaction when people go 'off-script'.

It also makes you wonder why his hand-holding, cc sniffing wife was not on show.

Not allowed or trusted if Paxman did try to have a go maybe?

As for Hislop, I think he is pretty much tied down and fearful as to what he can or is prepared to say at present, but I believe he will get his monies worth once the can of worms really starts to open, which surely can’t be too far away now can it? We did get a little taster in the ‘Eye’ a couple of weeks ago, although only parodying the MSM reporting.

I believe it was CM, supported by C-R, who approached all of the papers fairly early on with clear instructions about what they could and could not say, but it still amazes (and frightens in the bigger picture!) me that they (MSM) have allowed this bully-boy tactic to hold sway even to this day.

I was wondering whether perhaps a D-notice had been issued covering all things McCann, which is what Joana Morais was threatened with when she copied details from an article by Mark Hollingsworth for ES Magazine, included in the London Evening Standard edition dated August 28, 2009. This made reference to a former undercover police officer who worked on MI5 operations, so at least it had some, pretty vague mind, ‘security’ implications, but the daftness of the system is exposed as the full article is readily available to read on the internet and writing to Joana in Portugal is outside the scope of what is, at best, a voluntary code within the UK.

Out of interest I had a look at the D-notice website which states:

‘The Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC) oversees a voluntary code which operates between the UK Government departments which have responsibilities for national security and the media. It uses the Defence Advisory (DA)-Notice System as its vehicle. The objective of the DA-Notice System is to prevent inadvertent public disclosure of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations and methods, or put at risk the safety of those involved in such operations, or lead to attacks that would damage the critical national infrastructure and/or endanger lives’.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I appreciate that Blair, in particular, interpreted the definition in a ludicrously all-encompassing manner, especially when it also states in the FAQ’s:

‘May not ‘damage’ just be official embarrassment when something has gone wrong?
Not as far as the DA-Notice System is concerned; political and official embarrassment are not reasons for excluding material from public disclosure’

but it should have been the MSM which held him to account for that, by not allowing effective ‘censorship’ on matters of political embarrassment, which clearly fell outside the scope of the voluntary system.

Trying to shoe-horn ‘matters McCann’ into the scope of the system seems to be a different ball game altogether and would present a complete open-house to the conspiracy theorists, so what is to stop Murdoch ‘declaring war’ on what can presumably only be
C-R dictates and more to the point, why has he not done so already?

by Cristobell Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:03 pm

Dee Coy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Going by the stuttering, gibbering, sweaty performance of Gerry here, I would say Paxman did very well!

Me too. I thought Paxman voiced his questions with a cynical tone and, like aquila alluded to, his body language was negatively stiff. He looked to be almost straining away from McCann. I know Paxman is a challenging interviewer anyway, but he came across as though he didn't like Gerry one bit. I reckon most of them know, just can't say.

Paxman can reduce seasoned old politicians to gibbering fools, and I find it quite amusing that Gerry believed he had the verbal dexterity to take him on. Going by body language, Paxman is distant and I would describe his stance as sceptical. To get another view of Jeremy Paxman, there is a touching interview online with the late Christopher Hitchens where Paxman exhibits sympathy and respect, something we don't see in his interview with Gerry. He knows.

by Pershing36 Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:08 pm

Cristobell wrote:Going by the stuttering, gibbering, sweaty performance of Gerry here, I would say Paxman did very well!

I think he did well under the circumstances. But seeing Paxman regularly rip people to shreds for much stronger arguments tells you how much his hands were tied.

Very interesting but frustrating in other ways. You could tell he really wanted to go for it over the media circus they created but you could see that smug GM knew his hands were tied.

by j.rob Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:22 pm

Paxman's body language is a real give-away. It looks to me as though he can't stand Gerry McCann, knows he is lying through the teeth and is mightily annoyed that he cannot go for the jugular, imo. His had is right in front of his mouth when Gerry is talking - he is literally having to gag himself from saying what he wants to say. Even when Paxman is in Rottweiler mode, there are usually signs of some humor and more signs of his personality. Here he is deadly serious. Perplexed even. Yes - he knows that Gerry's version of events is a fantasy.

by j.rob Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:41 pm

Apropos the lack of love that Gerry appears to display when it comes to the subject of Madeleine, and given that body language is harder to fake than words, I looked through the very few photos where Gerry appears alongside Madeleine. I can only find one where he is actually holding her. It is in Kate's book and Gerry is helping her blow out the candle on her birthday cake. She appears to be sitting on his lap and he has one hand around her.

There is another photo of Gerry with Madeleine below this. He is sitting next to her on a garden step but, despite the fact that she looks like she is about a year old - in other words barely walking, he is not touching her. In fact, Gerry's arm closest to her is drawn away from her, across Gerry's body. And the other arm is also drawn away from her . He appears to be making a semblance of being with his daughter, but there is no warmth or connection. Actually, the opposite.

There are a few photos of him with all three children but he is holding the twins.

It is also telling that in that supposed 'final photo' of him sitting next to the pool, Madeleine, while apparently being very near him, again appears completely disengaged from him. My theory is that he never bonded with her and when the twins came he found her 'surplus to requirements'. I know that sounds horrible but what ever happened to Madeleine was horrible.

by Cristobell Sun 06 Apr 2014, 2:44 pm

j.rob wrote:Paxman's body language is a real give-away. It looks to me as though he can't stand Gerry McCann, knows he is lying through the teeth and is mightily annoyed that he cannot go for the jugular, imo. His had is right in front of his mouth when Gerry is talking - he is literally having to gag himself from saying what he wants to say. Even when Paxman is in Rottweiler mode, there are usually signs of some humor and more signs of his personality. Here he is deadly serious. Perplexed even. Yes - he knows that Gerry's version of events is a fantasy.

Gerry is a father who has had his daughter stolen, as Paxman says, in the most horrendous circumstances, yet he is sat there grinning from ear to ear. No wonder JP had to gag himself.

If we go to the other extreme and look at the fawning Lorraine Kelly, it looks as though she is constantly fighting off the urge to cuddle them and say 'there, there'.

by jeanmonroe Sun 06 Apr 2014, 3:12 pm

HOWEVER, we have to remember that JP and his 'colleagues' at the BBC ALL KNEW about Savile 'common gossip' and HE and ALL did NOTHING!

'Common gossip' at BBC that Jimmy Savile liked 'young girls', says Jeremy Paxman

Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman has said it was 'common gossip' at the BBC that Jimmy Savile liked 'young girls' before he was outed as a paedophile.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

13.27 A baffling quote from Mark Thompson, former director-general of the BBC. The knowledge of Savile's predilection for underage girls was widely known at the BBC, and almost every other interviewee has conceded this was the case.

Steven_Swinford Steven Swinford Former DG Mark Thompson said he had "never heard" rumours that Savile had a "dark side. #Pollard

"The knowledge of Savile's predilection for underage girls was widely known at the BBC, and almost every other interviewee has conceded this was the case."

HE, AND MANY, MANY OTHERS, INCLUDING 'CHILDLINE' FOUNDER, ESTHER R, DID NOTHING, TO THEIR ETERNAL SHAME AND DAMNATION FOREVER!

by jeanmonroe Sun 06 Apr 2014, 3:26 pm

And the BBC are 'doing a Savile' with the McCanns, imo.

NO QUESTIONING THEIR 'VERSION' OF EVENTS.

TREATING THE MCCANNS LIKE THEIR SHIT DOSEN'T STINK.

"BUT THEY ARE CHARITY 'FUNDRAISERS' JUST LIKE OUR 'NACHUNAL TREASURE', JIMMY, WAS, DON'T YOU KNOW"?

"WE WON'T HAVE A BAD WORD SAID AGAINST THEM"

by Pershing36 Sun 06 Apr 2014, 4:17 pm

jeanmonroe wrote:And the BBC are 'doing a Savile' with the McCanns, imo.

NO QUESTIONING THEIR 'VERSION' OF EVENTS.

TREATING THE MCCANNS LIKE THEIR SHIT DOSEN'T STINK.

"BUT THEY ARE CHARITY 'FUNDRAISERS' JUST LIKE OUR 'NACHUNAL TREASURE', JIMMY, WAS, DON'T YOU KNOW"?

"WE WON'T HAVE A BAD WORD SAID AGAINST THEM"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And who sets all the BBC funding? Oh dear, it comes down to the Government again. Whoever does anything with this case the Government are always the head honcho.

Nothing independent just one establishment after another who take orders from the Government.

I see the BBC are confident now they can fleece the UK public for their licence whether you own a TV or not nowadays.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Liz Eagles Sun 06 Apr 2014, 4:40 pm

Not in any particular order.....

Murdoch (The Sun) turned its back on the Labour Party in 2009 after 12 years of support in favour of the Conservative Party.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Sun publishes Kate McCanns diaries.

Rebekah Brookes 'persuades' Cameron to open a review.

Clarence Mitchell (controller of what comes out in the media), former head of MMU for the Labour Party quits job to become spokesperson for the McCanns and is now a PPS for the Conservative Party.

Gerald McCann (after receiving many thousands in damages from newspapers) joins Hacked Off to campaign for strict media controls.

Leveson Inquiry. Judge Leveson in a press conference at the end of the Inquiry takes no questions. Presents his findings and recommendations then goes to Australia on business.

Leveson recommendations not implemented. Tories favour Royal Charter.

Yep, Mitchell's always in the thick of things imo.

by Liz Eagles Sun 06 Apr 2014, 4:54 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Rasputin Sun 06 Apr 2014, 5:19 pm

Is that Charlie from Casualty Aquila ? :-)

by Liz Eagles Sun 06 Apr 2014, 5:22 pm

Rasputin wrote:Is that Charlie from Casualty Aquila ? :-)

The above photo is taken from Clarrie on twitter.

I couldn't help myself but to post it. titter

the irony, the irony......

Clarence autographing things about cats.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest Sun 06 Apr 2014, 5:25 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dogs and Cats are our best friends, it says on the website.

by Newintown Sun 06 Apr 2014, 5:26 pm

Rasputin wrote:Is that Charlie from Casualty Aquila ? :-)

Poor Charlie, please don't insult him. The last time I watched Casualty Charlie had more hair and was better looking. big grin

CM looks a right plonker in that photo, having been rejected by doggies he's now throwing all his enthusiasm into saving cats.

He seems to have been sidelined by the Tories, sent down to Brighton into a constituency he most doubt will not be able to win, are they trying to tell him something??

by Doug D Sun 06 Apr 2014, 5:33 pm

I’ll do anything to scrape up a vote says:

" The people of Brighton Pavilion will rightly be horrified to learn that over 3,000 dogs and hundreds of cats are still being used in the UK for experiments. The moral and scientific case for this cruelty to be brought to an end is now overwhelming. It is time for change. Please support BUAV and its fantastic #OurBestFriends campaign. "

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Latest topics