Angus McBride (McCanns former lawyer) tells how he manipulated media

by Daisy 26.09.11 12:37

Interesting article from Angus McBride (Kingsley Napley) the McCanns former lawyer telling how he put pressure on the mainstream media over their reporting of the McCanns. The report is dated 16th May 2011

Angus McBride calls privacy laws campaign 'misleading'

Leading criminal defence lawyer says media has not 'earned the right to unfettered freedom of expression'

One of the country's leading criminal defence lawyers has accused
sections of the media of waging a "misleading and self-interested"
campaign over the UK's privacy laws, and questioned whether there is any
public interest in exposing the private lives of footballers and
celebrities.

Angus McBride, whose clients have included Kate and
Gerry McCann and the England football captain, John Terry, says that he
does not believe that the media in this country has "earned the right to
unfettered freedom of expression".

Drawing on his own experiences
working for the McCann family in the months after Madeleine was
abducted, he recalls visiting a number of Fleet Street editors to ask
them to show restraint in their reporting, particularly over some of the
wilder uncorroborated claims that were being circulated by the
Portuguese press.

"It is fair to say that a number of the editors
listened carefully and their subsequent reporting reflected … the fact
that they understood that to report the allegations would be immoral,
scurrilous and damaging to the efforts of many to find Madeleine
McCann," says McBride, a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
"Others,
however, listened coldly and made it quite clear that commercial
pressures trumped completely the rights of these two tragic parents and
their daughter.

"I was told this 'whodunnit' mystery was one of
the biggest stories in many years … and that the truth of what had taken
place was not going to get in the way of that line of reporting because
that is what the public wanted as evidenced by the increase in sales.

"Bile-infested internet comment on the McCanns was fuelled by this early reporting and continues to this day..."

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

From his own website: Angus McBride: "a bright media- savvy tactical genuis" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 26.09.11 13:46

Daisy wrote:
"I was told this 'whodunnit' mystery was one of
the biggest stories in many years … and that the truth of what had taken
place was not going to get in the way of that line of reporting because
that is what the public wanted as evidenced by the increase in sales.

"Bile-infested internet comment on the McCanns was fuelled by this early reporting and continues to this day..."

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

From his own website: Angus McBride: "a bright media- savvy tactical genuis" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks for the share Daisy. Interesting is it that all these representatives of the McCanns all seem to know the "truth" of what happened isn't it. Well Kate & Gerry's version of course because they say it is "true"!

by **tigger** 26.09.11 14:22

This lovely lawyer forgot to mention that he must have reminded the various editors he met of the libel and slander laws, which could make anything the McCanns objected to seeing in print, very costly.
Curious however, that no injunctions (the Fund could easily have paid for those) were requested by TM. Surely they could have asked for a media blackout on themselves and the twins? Leaving Madeleine to take centre stage. The Fund is a separate entity and could go on advertising.

by Gillyspot 26.09.11 15:02

tigger wrote:This lovely lawyer forgot to mention that he must have reminded the various editors he met of the libel and slander laws, which could make anything the McCanns objected to seeing in print, very costly.
Curious however, that no injunctions (the Fund could easily have paid for those) were requested by TM. Surely they could have asked for a media blackout on themselves and the twins? Leaving Madeleine to take centre stage. The Fund is a separate entity and could go on advertising.

That will surely be for the same reason that the McCann's chose not to go down the route of using the Press Complaints Commision to stop (what they thought of as) unfair press (on the advice of Adam Tudor) and chose to Sue instead. (money).

by Daisy 27.09.11 23:31

Here's a report well worth reading if you haven't already done so. There's also a video but I can't bring myself to watch that. Gerry giving his version of events regarding the media at the IBA (International Bar Association) annual conference. He attended along with Adam Tudor.

Gerry McCann, father of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, was
the keynote speaker at an IBA Annual Conference session of the Media Law
Committee. He spoke about his relationship with the media and media law
over the past two years.

Other high profile speakers at the session included Herman Croux,
Roger Mann, Julian Porter, Kelli Sager, Paul Tweed and Adam Tudor.
The session was chaired by Mark Stephens and Nigel Tait.

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

GM: "This is a brief outline of the talk, and I’ll probably speak for about
20 minutes. I want to first of all talk about decisions and whether to
interact with the media or not. It’s not compulsory. I’ll talk about a
strategy which we tried to employ. We’ll show some of the supportive
press coverage and I will show you some of the front page headlines
which caused us to take action and the results of that legal redress.
And I’ll conclude with just a few minutes really about some thoughts and
our experiences and recommendations or suggestions which is up to the
legal profession and the judiciary whether they act on of course."

Marvelous! now he's trying to change the law.

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

by Angelique 28.09.11 1:05

Daisy

Yes - I remember Gerry being invited to speak. I was hard pressed to stomach reading it when he attended and it was reported a while ago. So I have read it again and he does seem to alter events to suit his version.

I see he says CR acted for them on a conditional fee basis - don't know what this means, for a set fee maybe.

by Gillyspot 28.09.11 1:31

"Conditional basis" as far as I know is "no win no fee" but with Carter-Rucks previous record of scaring the pants of everyone they were sure to win. Nowadays they aren't so bulletproof as has been proven by recent cases (not to do with the McCanns) and the fact that they (the McCanns have lost in the last 2 court cases against Amaral in Portugal may actually reset the scales of justice somewhat towards fairness.

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 12:37

Unbelievable! Let's face it, Kate and Gerry McCann have courted and used the media from day one, indeed it was vital to instill the vision of their 'innocence' in the eyes of the public. Wasn't it Sky News who were reporting the 'abduction' at just after midnight?
Surely, they must realise what a double-edged sword the UK media can be? They chose to not only stay in the public eye but to ask the same public for don*tions for their company. So, it follows that if there is a negative story about them it is in the public interests to print it. They must learn that you can't pick and choose - it's ok when they are printing stuff in your favour, yet not so when the cover becomes negative? Take the rough with the smooth or take none at all!

Ultimately, they could have faded into relative obscurity, like Kerry Needham, but they chose the public route
It's SO annoying to hear them moaning about bad press, because either way, they win! GOOD PRESS =DONATIONS, BAD PRESS = LIBEL PAYOUTS
Laughing all the way to the bank..... Or jail (we can but hope)

by Guest 28.09.11 12:52

I'd like to add the famous Daily Telegraph report at 12.01 - link given - but I'm wondering if it's a mistake for 12.01 p.m. just after 12 noon. Wouldn't the correct time one minute after midnight be produced as 00.01 as it is on my computer? That would explain the otherwise baffling reference to searches being carried out until 4.30 a.m.

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

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 13:42

Marian wrote:I'd like to add the famous Daily Telegraph report at 12.01 - link given - but I'm wondering if it's a mistake for 12.01 p.m. just after 12 noon. Wouldn't the correct time one minute after midnight be produced as 00.01 as it is on my computer? That would explain the otherwise baffling reference to searches being carried out until 4.30 a.m.

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

Marian, having read the article you may well be right about the time... It's interesting to note that even at such an early stage there were glaring discrepancies - Jill Renwick reporting the broken shutters/window abduction idea, whilst MW spokesperson said no evidence of abduction, in fact nobody was sure it WAS an abduction!

As an aside, the photo in the article? To me, she looks one sad, scared little mite to me. Not the happy-go-lucky ray-of-sunshine David Payne would've had us believe!

by Daisy 28.09.11 15:39

rainbow-fairy wrote:They must learn that you can't pick and choose -
it's ok when they are printing stuff in your favour, yet not so when the
cover becomes negative? Take the rough with the smooth or take none at
all!

Isn't that exactly what they're doing though rainbow-fairy? Showing us
that they can pick and choose? The McCanns have set new precedents in
censorship; they haven't just jumped on the bandwagon, they're steering
it! They seem to have been chosen to spearhead the campaign for tighter
controls over the media (both mainstream & online).

We all know the internet is due to undergo drastic changes don't we?
We're already seeing freedom of speech being threatened right here on
this very forum with Tony Bennett taking the brunt of it. How did the
McCanns get to be in such a position, a posisition that let's them wield
power and make changes that affect the rest of us? Unless they're doing
someone elses bidding of course.

About the Telegraph article: It has to be 12.01 PM & not AM because it mentions Jill Renwicks interview on GMTV (breakfast show) that took place the following morning

by HotlipsHealy 28.09.11 15:47

I agree with you Daisy.

I think this is all part of the wider agenda and the McCann case was meant to be.

But it still doesn't explain why Madeleine had to die.

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 18:20

Daisy wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:They must learn that you can't pick and choose -
it's ok when they are printing stuff in your favour, yet not so when the
cover becomes negative? Take the rough with the smooth or take none at
all!

Isn't that exactly what they're doing though rainbow-fairy? Showing us
that they can pick and choose? The McCanns have set new precedents in
censorship; they haven't just jumped on the bandwagon, they're steering
it! They seem to have been chosen to spearhead the campaign for tighter
controls over the media (both mainstream & online).

We all know the internet is due to undergo drastic changes don't we?
We're already seeing freedom of speech being threatened right here on
this very forum with Tony Bennett taking the brunt of it. How did the
McCanns get to be in such a position, a position that let's them wield
power and make changes that affect the rest of us? Unless they're doing
someone else's bidding of course.

About the Telegraph article: It has to be 12.01 PM & not AM because it mentions Jill Renwicks interview on GMTV (breakfast show) that took place the following morning

Thanks Daisy, you are right, re-reading my post I don't think I explained myself very well. They should take the bad press as well as the good. But they don't, do they? It's absolutely unprecedented, isn't it? In my whole 37 yrs I can't think of a situation that is vaguely comparable! Things they don't like are just 'whooshed' away.
I actually find it frightening, what lies behind it all. To allow so much blatant control and manipulation to two public servants should be unheard of. What the hell is the cover up? I think it's MUCH bigger than just poor Maddie - I think it's gigantic.

by Daisy 29.09.11 21:25

It's ok rainbow-fairy, I knew what you meant [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] was just verfying your point: 'How it should be and how it is'.

I think we're all thinking along the same lines though. What is the
wider agenda? What does lie behind it all? Too right RF this is so much bigger than a case of a missing girl, it always has been hey? That's what attracts me
to continue
studying this case - "The Wider Agenda" because selfish as this may sound, (& if explained it's not) that's what's going to affect me and mine.

Plus! It's fascinating! Surely no other case in recent history has
featured so many corrupt & dodgy characters, so badly acted 'a
script'; such a high level of (intimate) government 'intervention',
Police support, blatant manipulation of the media, attracted so much wealth - millionaires! billionaires! and on it goes. Yup! The McCanns are at the centre of one of the most intentionally conspicious 'whodunnits' of modern history. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What have they actually done that warrants them this level of support? That's the million dollar question, the question that leads me in a different direction to: murder/manslaughter/accidental death. These guys must have given something in return for the help they've been given? That's usually how it works isn't it?

I was born and bred (Yorkshire) with the old idiom: "You don't get owt for nowt in this life lass" I'm a grandmother now and this saying as always proven true. There is always a price.

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 21:49

Daisy wrote:It's ok rainbow-fairy, I knew what you meant [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] was just verfying your point: 'How it should be and how it is'.

I think we're all thinking along the same lines though. What is the
wider agenda? What does lie behind it all? Too right RF this is so much bigger than a case of a missing girl, it always has been hey? That's what attracts me
to continue
studying this case - "The Wider Agenda" because selfish as this may sound, (& if explained it's not) that's what's going to affect me and mine.

Plus! It's fascinating! Surely no other case in recent history has
featured so many corrupt & dodgy characters, so badly acted 'a
script'; such a high level of (intimate) government 'intervention',
Police support, blatant manipulation of the media, attracted so much wealth - millionaires! billionaires! and on it goes. Yup! The McCanns are at the centre of one of the most intentionally conspicious 'whodunnits' of modern history. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What have they actually done that warrants them this level of support? That's the million dollar question, the question that leads me in a different direction to: murder/manslaughter/accidental death. These guys must have given something in return for the help they've been given? That's usually how it works isn't it?

I was born and bred (Yorkshire) with the old idiom: "You don't get owt for nowt in this life lass" I'm a grandmother now and this saying as always proven true. There is always a price.

He he Daisy I know the saying very well, I have relatives from Derbyshire and Yorkshire... Yes, there is always a price and one way or another the Tapas lot have sold their souls to the Devil!
Glad you got the gist of my post, it's not always easy I find to always clearly express things online (and being on a mobile I can't add smilies to show sarcasm etc!

Yes I have grave misgivings about K n G, and the Tapas 7/8/9/10/whatever - IMO accident doesn't scratch the surface of what has been covered up.

by jd 30.09.11 0:03

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Daisy wrote:

I was born and bred (Yorkshire) with the old idiom: "You don't get owt for nowt in this life lass" I'm a grandmother now and this saying as always proven true. There is always a price.

Begs the question what was Kennedy and Smethursts interest in all this??? Kennedy wouldn't give the amount of money he did to the 'fund' (limited company) without some personal financial interest return

by **tigger** 30.09.11 8:01

HotlipsHealy wrote:I agree with you Daisy.

I think this is all part of the wider agenda and the McCann case was meant to be.

But it still doesn't explain why Madeleine had to die.

This is one thing I found and posted on the topic 'Was this the reason etc. '
There is also a posting about the trial of Correia with interesting quotes.

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

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children "to ensure your own peace of mind."
Posted by SteelMagnolia [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This full article was published on the 10th December 2006

by rainbow-fairy 30.09.11 8:49

tigger wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:I agree with you Daisy.

I think this is all part of the wider agenda and the McCann case was meant to be.

But it still doesn't explain why Madeleine had to die.

This is one thing I found and posted on the topic 'Was this the reason etc. '
There is also a posting about the trial of Correia with interesting quotes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] nda-microchip-one-generation-i

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children "to ensure your own peace of mind."
Posted by SteelMagnolia [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This full article was published on the 10th December 2006

Ha, if that was printed Dec O6, perhaps they should have held off for more than five months...

Seriously, tigger, there will be those laughing their socks off at this. Tin-pots! Nut jobs! Etc etc, yet I think this could explain so much - In my earlier post I said I think the cover-up is gigantic and in an earlier topic I posted that next thing it would be 'look what happened to Maddie, ON HOLIDAY! Micro-chip your children, NOW!!!'

The above could explain the seemingly idiotic journo's who can't see, or won't print, the contradictions and bloopers we can all see. When they story first broke, the reports weren't all favourable - they are now. Why? Have the papers now been 'briefed' on the true purpose of it all? Obviously the powers that be would use a nice, trustworthy, middle class pillar of the community. They wouldn't have risked a Karen Matthews! Unfortunately, I think the public were seriously underestimated in terms of 'gullibility' - some of us, anyway!
If it is indeed the reason, in the age of the Internet and a few thinking people it was doomed to fail! The propaganda may have worked years ago, but not now.
Incidentally, I got a puppy in Jan, when I took her for her jabs the vets were running a 'special promotion' - microchip for only £5. I had her done much without thinking, I've since read research that suggests they are not as safe as they will try and tell you. Hmmm - could have it taken out but that would involve surgery, so no way. Will just have to see how she goes I guess.

by jd 01.10.11 0:14

rainbow-fairy wrote:
...... I posted that next thing it would be 'look what happened to Maddie, ON HOLIDAY! Micro-chip your children, NOW!!!'

This has always crossed my mind. And a possible reason why this scam was set up with this purpose before that week in PDL

by HotlipsHealy 01.10.11 6:32

jd wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
...... I posted that next thing it would be 'look what happened to Maddie, ON HOLIDAY! Micro-chip your children, NOW!!!'

This has always crossed my mind. And a possible reason why this scam was set up with this purpose before that week in PDL

If that's the case - that this was a scam set up for microchipping - then it means Madeleine MUST be alive (HIDDEN where the parents know where she is) because, surely, she wouldn't have been 'sacrificed' or even intentionally left alone to be 'abducted' for the sake of a microchipping agenda?
But then we have the dogs....so that MUST mean Madeleine's death really was premeditated IF this was a scam set up for microchipping.
I don't buy it. nah

I can't imagine any scenario where a parent would allow the death of their child for a government agenda.
And yet we've seen Gerry with his 'wider agenda' flipchart.
We've seen the incredible amount of government aid and protection they've had.
We've seen the parents bizarre behaviour, globetrotting, leaving the twins, suing people with Fund money.
We've seen the dogs alerting to cadaver and blood in various places.
We've seen the McCann's with their government books and attaching themselves to other missing kids and Amber Alert.
We've seen Gerry get a standing ovation by police officers and Kate named as an inspirational woman. bigshock

They (the McCanns, the media, the police, the government etc) are collectively trying to brainwash us and are, therefore, taking the piss.
But Madeleine is the butt of their jokes because they all say she was abducted but the dogs, the PJ and NSY don't believe she was.
How else can we see it? Please explain. $i don\'t know$

by rainbow-fairy 01.10.11 10:28

HotlipsHealy wrote:
jd wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
...... I posted that next thing it would be 'look what happened to Maddie, ON HOLIDAY! Micro-chip your children, NOW!!!'

This has always crossed my mind. And a possible reason why this scam was set up with this purpose before that week in PDL

If that's the case - that this was a scam set up for microchipping - then it means Madeleine MUST be alive (HIDDEN where the parents know where she is) because, surely, she wouldn't have been 'sacrificed' or even intentionally left alone to be 'abducted' for the sake of a microchipping agenda?
But then we have the dogs....so that MUST mean Madeleine's death really was premeditated IF this was a scam set up for microchipping.
I don't buy it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I can't imagine any scenario where a parent would allow the death of their child for a government agenda.
And yet we've seen Gerry with his 'wider agenda' flipchart.
We've seen the incredible amount of government aid and protection they've had.
We've seen the parents bizarre behaviour, globetrotting, leaving the twins, suing people with Fund money.
We've seen the dogs alerting to cadaver and blood in various places.
We've seen the McCann's with their government books and attaching themselves to other missing kids and Amber Alert.
We've seen Gerry get a standing ovation by police officers and Kate named as an inspirational woman. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
They (the McCanns, the media, the police, the government etc) are collectively trying to brainwash us and are, therefore, taking the piss.
But Madeleine is the butt of their jokes because they all say she was abducted but the dogs, the PJ and NSY don't believe she was.
How else can we see it? Please explain. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Until and if someone 'fesses up, there's no other way we can see it is there?

It could be that something really did happen to MBM, Gerry has high-level government contacts - maybe the pro-chippers are tge ones covering their backs, after the event? You scratch our backs, we'll protect yours? Wouldn't necessarily mean MBM was pre-fated for this?

by Guest 27.01.16 18:33

News UK puts Rebekah Brooks' former defence lawyer in charge of legal

Company’s chief executive hires Angus McBride, her counsel during phone-hacking trial, due to his ‘wise advice and strategic approach’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, began her new role as the News UK’s chief executive in September 2015. Photograph: Niklas Halle'N/AFP/Getty Images
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@JaspJackson
Wednesday 27 January 2016 17.38 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 27 January 2016 17.58 GMT

The lawyer who successfully defended Rebekah Brooks during her trial for phone hacking has been put in charge of legal at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the company she returned to run as chief executive in September.
Angus McBride, currently a partner at Kingsley Napley, will take over as general counsel for the publisher of the Times and the Sun from April.
Brooks was acquitted in 2014 of all charges relating to phone hacking during her time as editor of the News of the World.
Brooks said: “When I first spoke to Angus last autumn about joining us in this capacity, he was reluctant to give up the work that he loves. I am thrilled that he has decided to join us as he is always ten steps ahead and has a huge capacity to grasp quickly the full spectrum of issues. I have come to trust him implicitly and believe that News UK will benefit from his legal expertise, wise advice and strategic approach.”
McBride said: “I am delighted to be joining News UK and look forward to working with its superb team of lawyers to provide legal advice and assistance throughout the company, and to Rebekah and the executive team.
“I hope that my 25 years in practice working at the cutting edge of high profile litigation will strengthen the team in confronting the ever more complex legal landscape the industry faces. I relish the challenge.”
McBride’s listing on the Kingsley Napley website describes him as having “extensive experience in high profile matters requiring press and reputational management”. The site also lists his involvement on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann in relation to the Portuguese criminal investigation following the abduction of their daughter, and in the cash for honours scandal.
McBride will replace current general counsel Emma Moloney, who is leaving at the end of this month.

More here:

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

by willowthewisp 29.01.16 15:15

Ladyinred wrote:News UK puts Rebekah Brooks' former defence lawyer in charge of legal

Company’s chief executive hires Angus McBride, her counsel during phone-hacking trial, due to his ‘wise advice and strategic approach’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, began her new role as the News UK’s chief executive in September 2015. Photograph: Niklas Halle'N/AFP/Getty Images
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@JaspJackson
Wednesday 27 January 2016 17.38 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 27 January 2016 17.58 GMT

The lawyer who successfully defended Rebekah Brooks during her trial for phone hacking has been put in charge of legal at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the company she returned to run as chief executive in September.
Angus McBride, currently a partner at Kingsley Napley, will take over as general counsel for the publisher of the Times and the Sun from April.
Brooks was acquitted in 2014 of all charges relating to phone hacking during her time as editor of the News of the World.
Brooks said: “When I first spoke to Angus last autumn about joining us in this capacity, he was reluctant to give up the work that he loves. I am thrilled that he has decided to join us as he is always ten steps ahead and has a huge capacity to grasp quickly the full spectrum of issues. I have come to trust him implicitly and believe that News UK will benefit from his legal expertise, wise advice and strategic approach.”
McBride said: “I am delighted to be joining News UK and look forward to working with its superb team of lawyers to provide legal advice and assistance throughout the company, and to Rebekah and the executive team.
“I hope that my 25 years in practice working at the cutting edge of high profile litigation will strengthen the team in confronting the ever more complex legal landscape the industry faces. I relish the challenge.”
McBride’s listing on the Kingsley Napley website describes him as having “extensive experience in high profile matters requiring press and reputational management”. The site also lists his involvement on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann in relation to the Portuguese criminal investigation following the abduction of their daughter, and in the cash for honours scandal.
McBride will replace current general counsel Emma Moloney, who is leaving at the end of this month.

More here:

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

Expecting a big case to be defended by Angus,eh Rebekah, on behalf of special friends?