Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by ultimaThule 24.05.14 19:14

Tuesday 8 May would appear to the have been momentous for Kate, tigger, as ,having seen the 2 grannies off on the express, sobbed on the beach with Fiona, and received a phone call from Ms Booth, she 'thinks' it was on this night, while 'praying privately' at Luz's 'beautiful little church', her spouse had 'an extraordinary spirtual experience', a 'revelation' which he immediately shared with her.

I seem to recall that Andy Redwood also had a 'revelation' which he shared with the nation last year - sadly, he neglected to tell us whether he was in a church or an incident room when he saw the light lol4

According to Exhibit KH1, the first time the bereft couple were parted was on Sunday 20 May when Gerry set off for Rothley Towers, returning on Tueday 22 May with his new best pal, Clarence, about whom the government was soon to express concern that he was 'becoming the story'. .

by **tigger** 24.05.14 19:43

Ah! That fits nicely! Instructions from above may not have been from heaven so much as from Whitehall.

I will try very hard to find that comment. It was very factual and I copied and sent it to Pat Brown just as she was about to go to PdL.

It makes sense to me because Gerry would need instructions and it may also have been a case of 'this is what we can do for you and in return X Y and Z are required by us.
Whilst there he may even have met up with the 'family friend' Gordon Brown.

by Guest 24.05.14 19:49

ultimaThule wrote:
According to Exhibit KH1, the first time the bereft couple were parted was on Sunday 20 May when Gerry set off for Rothley Towers, returning on Tueday 22 May with his new best pal, Clarence, about whom the government was soon to express concern that he was 'becoming the story'. .

Apologies if I'm having a senior moment but didn't Clarence only join Monty McCann's Flying Circus in September 2007?

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

by Cristobell 24.05.14 20:47

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
According to Exhibit KH1, the first time the bereft couple were parted was on Sunday 20 May when Gerry set off for Rothley Towers, returning on Tueday 22 May with his new best pal, Clarence, about whom the government was soon to express concern that he was 'becoming the story'. .

Apologies if I'm having a senior moment but didn't Clarence only join Monty McCann's Flying Circus in September 2007?

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

I can't see that he mentions the McCanns in this link, or am I missing something?

Clarence did appear quite early on in the saga as Government appointed spokesman, though I am not sure of the exact dates when he left his government job to work as full time spokesman for the McCanns - £70k pa, I believe, paid for by the Fund. I think in the summer of 2007 the McCanns employed Justine McGuinness, they advertised and Gerry returned to the UK to carry out the interviews, selecting Justine. I wonder if Justine has been interviewed, and perhaps asked why the job was so short lived?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.05.14 21:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
According to Exhibit KH1, the first time the bereft couple were parted was on Sunday 20 May when Gerry set off for Rothley Towers, returning on Tueday 22 May with his new best pal, Clarence, about whom the government was soon to express concern that he was 'becoming the story'. .

Apologies if I'm having a senior moment but didn't Clarence only join Monty McCann's Flying Circus in September 2007?

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

An FOI confirmed that Clarence was appointed/seconded to the Foreign Office from the CIO to work on the McCann case on 6 May 2007.

He travelled, apparently with Gerry, to Portugal on 22 May (having almost certainly arranged the visit to the Pope in Rome before he left the UK).

He formally resigned (or so it was said) from the Civil Service and started working full-time for the McCanns direct on or around 19/20 September 2007.

by bobbin 24.05.14 22:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
According to Exhibit KH1, the first time the bereft couple were parted was on Sunday 20 May when Gerry set off for Rothley Towers, returning on Tueday 22 May with his new best pal, Clarence, about whom the government was soon to express concern that he was 'becoming the story'. .

Apologies if I'm having a senior moment but didn't Clarence only join Monty McCann's Flying Circus in September 2007?

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587
An FOI confirmed that Clarence was appointed/seconded to the Foreign Office from the CIO to work on the McCann case on 6 May 2007.

He travelled, apparently with Gerry, to Portugal on 22 May (having almost certainly arranged the visit to the Pope in Rome before he left the UK).

He formally resigned (or so it was said) from the Civil Service and started working full-time for the McCanns direct on or around 19/20 September 2007.

Why, on earth, would a Foreign Office appoint a spokesperson/ controller of what goes out in the press, to a couple, 3 days after their child is allegedly 'abducted' ?
I think this is a more than significant action from government and for which I can see no (good) explanation.
Why would a couple NEED a spokesperson, let alone the top guy in the govt of the day, especially when Gerry, having dragged his feeble looking wife out for 'poor victim photography', delivered competently (if not convincingly) a clearly worded news bulletin written by himself.

by TheTruthWillOut 24.05.14 22:31

It is a very good question Bobbin.

What if the appointment was genuine to begin with and then after a few weeks/months they slowly realised they'd been duped?

It would explain the whitewash/not whitewash debate. They would both be correct! Cover their own arses while simultaneously trying to solve the case.

Someone wake me up from this dream! titter

by Woofer 25.05.14 0:32

bobbin wrote:Why, on earth, would a Foreign Office appoint a spokesperson/ controller of what goes out in the press, to a couple, 3 days after their child is allegedly 'abducted' ?
I think this is a more than significant action from government and for which I can see no (good) explanation.
Why would a couple NEED a spokesperson, let alone the top guy in the govt of the day, especially when Gerry, having dragged his feeble looking wife out for 'poor victim photography', delivered competently (if not convincingly) a clearly worded news bulletin written by himself.

You`re right bobbin, GM is more than capable of delivering spiel to the masses as we`ve seen. Maybe that was the reason CM was rushed over there - to shut him up and monitor them.

by aiyoyo 25.05.14 5:04

bobbin wrote:
Why, on earth, would a Foreign Office appoint a spokesperson/ controller of what goes out in the press, to a couple, 3 days after their child is allegedly 'abducted' ?
I think this is a more than significant action from government and for which I can see no (good) explanation.
Why would a couple NEED a spokesperson, let alone the top guy in the govt of the day, especially when Gerry, having dragged his feeble looking wife out for 'poor victim photography', delivered competently (if not convincingly) a clearly worded news bulletin written by himself.

Maybe FO was desperate to get rid of him for some time and the opportunity came up.
Then he stupidly put his foot nicely into it, so they shoved him out of the way, into the arms of mccanns he landed because he'd no choice and they were obliged to take him on since he'd lost his job because of them.

It was alleged he warned Mccans about phone bugging, when his role was to help them manage the press, and not to teach them how to outsmart the investigators.
On top of that, perhaps he wasn't supposed to abuse his position using it to arrange visit to the Pope for Mccanns without prior consent from his superior, combined with perhaps other mistakes indicative he was getting personal with the Mccanns.
Maybe his actions drop the FO into difficult situation that his position became untenable and he was asked to go.
Otherwise it seems odd that he was able to resign suddenly and just take off without having to serve notice.

Did the Mccanns really wanted him as spokesperson, who knows, but he landed up with them somewhat.
Thus far he'd done an effective job for them, and often he walks a fine line between professionalism and personalisation speaking for them instead of speaking on behalf of them.

by ultimaThule 25.05.14 8:05

Reading between the lines of this article which, curiously, is the first result shown when googling his name http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7010286.stm it seems probable that ex-reporter and failed BBC news presenter Clarence Mitchell is unlikely to have slotted seamlessly into what was essentially a backroom role in the now defunct Central Office for Information which was housed in a location south of the Thames away from the buzz of Downing Street and the House, aiyoyo.

Regardless of the manner in which he ~~bigged~~ talked up his role as director of media monitoring, I suspect that within a very short time of taking up this post in April 2006 Clarrie was casting around for another ~~over~~ well paid sinecure which would enable him to once again feel the warmth of the spotlight on his artfully coiffed head.

Imo, in terms of PR agents, CM is as interchangeable with the now disgraced Max Clifford as their shared initials and I don't find it at all surprising that little more than a week after he accompanied Gerry on his return trip to Luz on 22 May 2007, the government was concerned that Clarence was 'becoming the story'*. As it seems likely that his resignation in September was eagerly accepted, the words 'jumped before pushed' come to mind winkwink

*Exhibit KH1 p.170

'

by **tigger** 25.05.14 8:38

Ha! Isn't this case replete with people making themselves look important! Perhaps without Clarrie in the case, we wouldn't even be here.
Wasn't it the Freud clan who picked him up and dusted him down? No doubt it suited them to do so at the time but CM appears to be one of these people who are promoted 'away' asap, before they can do too much damage.
He is a classic example of having reached his level of incompetence. Often these people tend to do well, mainly because of the above mentioned method of getting rid of them often being the only course open to their employers.

spin

by **Tony Bennett** 25.05.14 9:24

ultimaThule wrote:Reading between the lines of this article which, curiously, is the first result shown when googling his name http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7010286.stm it seems probable that ex-reporter and failed BBC news presenter Clarence Mitchell is unlikely to have slotted seamlessly into what was essentially a backroom role in the now defunct Central Office for Information which was housed in a location south of the Thames away from the buzz of Downing Street and the House, aiyoyo.

Regardless of the manner in which he ~~bigged~~ talked up his role as director of media monitoring, I suspect that within a very short time of taking up this post in April 2006 Clarrie was casting around for another ~~over~~ well paid sinecure which would enable him to once again feel the warmth of the spotlight on his artfully coiffed head.

Imo, in terms of PR agents, CM is as interchangeable with the now disgraced Max Clifford as their shared initials and I don't find it at all surprising that little more than a week after he accompanied Gerry on his return trip to Luz on 22 May 2007, the government was concerned that Clarence was 'becoming the story'*. As it seems likely that his resignation in September was eagerly accepted, the words 'jumped before pushed' come to mind

*Exhibit KH1 p.170'

@ uT

Your interpretation of Clarence Mitchell above is wholly contradicted by the following facts:

1. The government appointed him to the role of McCann spokesman on 6 May 2007, less than 72 hours after Madeleine was reported missing

2. He was the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit, which was 40-strong

3. He went straight from the BBC, where he reported on the most notorious crime stories of the time, to Director of the MMU

4. As Director of the Media Monitoring Unit, he reported direct to the Cabinet Office, based in 10 Downing Street, where he would have had regular contact with Tony Blair and other top government officials. He would be instrumental in 'killing' all stories likely to harm the government and the Labour Party

5. Far from being characterised by you as being located in a quiet backwater 'south of the Thames', the COI was an integral part of government and the Media Monitoring Unit alone cost over £2 million a year to run

6. You assume that Clarence Mitchell 'resigned before he was pushed'. It is equally possible that he has remained on the government payroll all along, whatever might have been said to the media

7. His signifiicance was reinforced by his moving seamlessly from being the Head of the Media Unit to Head of the McCann Reputation Management Campaign to being slotted in, in September 2008, as a PR consultant by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, Mathew Freud, at Freud Communications

8. His significance was further enhanced when David Cameron met Rupert Murdoch in his Mediterranean yacht in 2009 and they did a deal whereby Murdoch told his newspaper editors to switch support from Labour to the Conservatives. They all complied

9. Once again, his importance was emphasised when Cameron and his Director of Communications, Murdoch man Andy Coulson, hired him as Deputy Director of Communications for the Conservative Party in March 2010

10. His standing has been confirmed by his being accepted as a Conservative Party candidate and being allocated the constituency of Brighton Pavilion to contest in next year's Genenral Election.

11. In addition to all of the above, his power is such that he has been able to order Britain's media to reproduce his quotes, stories and claims - however improbable they may be - but nearly always attributed (at his command) to 'a source close to the family' etc.

This is clearly a man with real power and influence.

I have no agenda in reiterating the above facts about Clarence Mitchell.

But I suggest that, uT, you may well have an agenda in seeking to grossly minimise his role and importance in the Madeleine McCann mystery

by TheTruthWillOut 25.05.14 10:06

Wow Tony, your last line there is well out of order IMO.

If you are going to call someone out like that then 'show me the receipts' as the kids say these days.

by Guest 25.05.14 10:18

Tony, you are breaking forum rules by attacking the poster not the post. There is no need for it.

by **tigger** 25.05.14 10:56

tigger wrote:Ha! Isn't this case replete with people making themselves look important! Perhaps without Clarrie in the case, we wouldn't even be here.
Wasn't it the Freud clan who picked him up and dusted him down? No doubt it suited them to do so at the time but CM appears to be one of these people who are promoted 'away' asap, before they can do too much damage.
He is a classic example of having reached his level of incompetence. Often these people tend to do well, mainly because of the above mentioned method of getting rid of them often being the only course open to their employers.

Imo only someone full of his own importance could publicly state that he controlled what came out in the press.

That's hardly going to reflect well on the government is it? Events such as the McCann affair always throw up such creatures.MWT being one that comes to mind.
In Clarrie's case whoever employed him had to grin and bear it. the PM could hardly counter it with a lie about tnere being no control of the press.

i think he was appointed to handle something that looked from Whitehall very much like the Soham case. That's exactly what the pink one was saying.
Then he helped all that lovely money come in by his Blue Peterish instruction just to put cash in an enveloppe and address it to Kate and Gerry in Rothley.

Clarence Mitchell's power point presentation on his successful PR campaign is a thing to behold. I'd give it a -D.
But it tells you all you need to know about Clarence.

Then there are the countless gaffes he's made - and that's not counting trying to shake the Rottweiler Pope by the hand.I

Sorry for quoting myself here, shortcut, not vanity.

by aiyoyo 25.05.14 11:12

tigger wrote:Ha! Isn't this case replete with people making themselves look important! Perhaps without Clarrie in the case, we wouldn't even be here.
Wasn't it the Freud clan who picked him up and dusted him down? No doubt it suited them to do so at the time but CM appears to be one of these people who are promoted 'away' asap, before they can do too much damage.
He is a classic example of having reached his level of incompetence. Often these people tend to do well, mainly because of the above mentioned method of getting rid of them often being the only course open to their employers.

Casual worker then ? Good for a limited period only! I like that.
I think it describes his rolling stone gathers no moss career rather well.
He committed career suicide when he became Mccanns' employee.
Now he's Mc-cursed and not hireable any more by any reputable corporation.

by aiyoyo 25.05.14 11:26

ultimaThule wrote:

Regardless of the manner in which he ~~bigged~~ talked up his role as director of media monitoring, I suspect that within a very short time of taking up this post in April 2006 Clarrie was casting around for another ~~over~~ well paid sinecure which would enable him to once again feel the warmth of the spotlight on his artfully coiffed head.

If he had cast around and landed Mccanns for a sinecure job he'd made a very bad decision.
No one can see what's so important about his role as spokesperson to parents of a missing child.
Receiving 70K (if true) from the Fund donated by the public is disgraceful especially when it is not a non-profit company.
His reputation now is synonymous with the Mccanns - stank to high heaven.
When they go down so will he. Maybe not literally to jail but he'll emerge smelling like sewage rat.

Imo, in terms of PR agents, CM is as interchangeable with the now disgraced Max Clifford as their shared initials and I don't find it at all surprising that little more than a week after he accompanied Gerry on his return trip to Luz on 22 May 2007, the government was concerned that Clarence was 'becoming the story'*. As it seems likely that his resignation in September was eagerly accepted, the words 'jumped before pushed' come to mind

I beg to differ. More like he was pushed so he jumped !

*Exhibit KH1 p.170

'

by **sharonl** 25.05.14 21:59

When the going gets tough, the tough get going - maybe there was a case for jumping ship, but I would bet he was pushed.

The big question for me would be why a person so closely linked to the government would stay in the employment of the prime suspects in a missing child case, after they were made arguidos.

by Woofer 25.05.14 22:10

He`s a MONITOR so he monitors people - he`s good at that. And he probably has to shut them up.

I used to be a monitor at school.

Come to think of it, they always look rather docile in his company - as if they`ve been naughty children.
Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash - Page 30 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU15TlusyMHLZyy9IuNuQw9H_6BrUNKLhj0sOCEBKchLllnP2DOg

Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash - Page 30 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU15TlusyMHLZyy9IuNuQw9H_6BrUNKLhj0sOCEBKchLllnP2DOg

Note the forked tongue big grin

by **PeterMac** 25.05.14 22:37

Tony Bennett wrote:He travelled, apparently with Gerry, to Portugal on 22 May (having almost certainly arranged the visit to the Pope in Rome before he left the UK).

From Prosecution Exhibit KH 1, M' Lud
"At lunchtime, [22nd May] Gerry arrived back in Praia da Luz with Clarence. My first impressions of Clarence were good. He was very friendly and knowledgeable, and, most importantly, he seemed genuinely concerned about Madeleine: it was clear that to him this was not just about a challenging secondment. He and Gerry had chatted non-stop during the two-and-a-half-hour flight to Faro. When Gerry had told Clarence about Jane Tanner’s sighting he was astounded that this still hadn’t been made public. We decided we would really push the PJ to release this critical piece of information in the hope of identifying this man and child."

The Last photo was sent to the Press Agency on 23rd and made available - with all the Mitchell "spin" (aka McLies) on 24th
Gerry and Mitchell may not have had the photo with them in physical form, as one other significant family member also arrived that same evening. Quite by chance, of course.
One coincidence, two coincidences . . . .

by Watching 25.05.14 23:01

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:He travelled, apparently with Gerry, to Portugal on 22 May (having almost certainly arranged the visit to the Pope in Rome before he left the UK).

You are probably correct - From the diary of Mrs.

SUNDAY, MAY 27: Clarence (Clarence Mitchell, Foreign Office family liaison at the time) spoke to us about a possible trip to the Vatican. It seems that it really is going to happen' main story on the news!

Gordon Brown spoke with Mr on phone 23rd May, day after Mr & Mitchell arrived in PDL. Vatican trip 30th May?

by Mirage 25.05.14 23:05

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:He travelled, apparently with Gerry, to Portugal on 22 May (having almost certainly arranged the visit to the Pope in Rome before he left the UK).
From Prosecution Exhibit KH 1, M' Lud
"At lunchtime, [22nd May] Gerry arrived back in Praia da Luz with Clarence. My first impressions of Clarence were good. He was very friendly and knowledgeable, and, most importantly, he seemed genuinely concerned about Madeleine: it was clear that to him this was not just about a challenging secondment. He and Gerry had chatted non-stop during the two-and-a-half-hour flight to Faro. When Gerry had told Clarence about Jane Tanner’s sighting he was astounded that this still hadn’t been made public. We decided we would really push the PJ to release this critical piece of information in the hope of identifying this man and child."

The Last photo was sent to the Press Agency on 23rd and made available - with all the Mitchell "spin" (aka McLies) on 24th
Gerry and Mitchell may not have had the photo with them in physical form, as one other significant family member also arrived that same evening. Quite by chance, of course.
One coincidence, two coincidences . . . .

I wonder if Clarrie was equally astounded that Tanner hadn't publicised her sighting on the very night it happened, leaving the tapas lot running around like headless chickens, colliding with one another in dark isolated places where dogs barked. Or needlessly running up and down rua do cemetaria which erm seemed erm to spook old Matt no end.

by Woofer 25.05.14 23:12

Out of all the things that TB has listed for a whitewash, its CM`s involvement that rings big bells for me.

This taken from another thread about CM:-

"In addition to that, two sources, one of them a documentary film-maker, have assured me that they are certain that Clarence Mitchell is an MI5 employee with connections at the very heart of MI5 - and in that role would know about all the skeletons in the cupboard of anyone who is anyone in this country...worth also noting here that Goncalo Amaral in his book specifically mentions that he (Amaral) attended a meeting at which at least one MI5 officer was present."

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1892-when-did-clarence-mitchell-arrange-for-the-mccanns-to-see-the-pope

PS - and if MI5 are involved it has got to be to protect someone extremely high profile, or to protect previous Government Enquiries that have covered up something.

by aiyoyo 25.05.14 23:25

sharonl wrote:When the going gets tough, the tough get going - maybe there was a case for jumping ship, but I would bet he was pushed.

The big question for me would be why a person so closely linked to the government would stay in the employment of the prime suspects in a missing child case, after they were made arguidos.

Yes, it just does not make sense that a Civil Servant who'd held a relatively decent position, closely linked to the government would downgrade his career so radically to become employee to a pair of obscure individuals suspected involved in their daughter's disappearance.

Effectively, he'd reduced himself to a one-man-band at the beck and call of one man and his homemaker wife. All the trappings and glamour of working in a big establishment -- with office to go into, with co-workers and inter-department for interactions, all the perks, incentives and pension benefits etc would all have to be forfeited in his career switch.

Under his new employment with the Fund (paid by a missing child's money), you would query where did his work from. Was he given a regular contract stating terms ie salary, work venue, work days, work hours, probation period, annual leave, incentives, notice period etc?
Was he required to report in for work at the mccanns' home and generally observe terms within the contract?

It's hard to understand why CM downgrade his career, harder still to comprehend why Mccans should need to have an expensive spokesperson just to manage control ~~their~~ ~~image~~ the media?
I

by **sharonl** 26.05.14 0:05

aiyoyo wrote:
sharonl wrote:When the going gets tough, the tough get going - maybe there was a case for jumping ship, but I would bet he was pushed.

The big question for me would be why a person so closely linked to the government would stay in the employment of the prime suspects in a missing child case, after they were made arguidos.

Yes, it just does not make sense that a Civil Servant who'd held a relatively decent position, closely linked to the government would downgrade his career so radically to become employee to a pair of obscure individuals suspected involved in their daughter's disappearance.

Effectively, he'd reduced himself to a one-man-band at the beck and call of one man and his homemaker wife. All the trappings and glamour of working in a big establishment -- with office to go into, with co-workers and inter-department for interactions, all the perks, incentives and pension benefits etc would all have to be forfeited in his career switch.

Under his new employment with the Fund (paid by a missing child's money), you would query where did his work from. Was he given a regular contract stating terms ie salary, work venue, work days, work hours, probation period, annual leave, incentives, notice period etc?
Was he required to report in for work at the mccanns' home and generally observe terms within the contract?

It's hard to understand why CM downgrade his career, harder still to comprehend why Mccans should need to have an expensive spokesperson just to manage control ~~their~~ ~~image~~ the media?
I

Some excellent points there.

I wonder how long the press have been controlling this case and how long has Rebekah Brooks been blackmailing government officials.

There was something on Joana's site about the McCanns doing a deal with the press, We know that a few stories were sold to the press and that there were staged walks by the McCanns purely for media purposes.

just a thought, but if NOTW were failing in 2006 and Rebekah Brooks was searching for the perfect story, and Madeleines' "abduction" just fitted the bill, was Brooks blackmailing Blair and Brown? and what was Mitchells' real purpose in McCann employment. After all, he was appointed as McCann spokesman by Tony Blair. Was it to ensure that Brooks got her storylines and to protect Blair from exposure, or just to protect the McCanns?