Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Woofer wrote: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."

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


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.

notlongnow wrote:

Woofer wrote: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."

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


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.

If this is true surely this case would never have resurfaced,or are rm and rb more powerful than the uk government?

sharonl wrote:

Let's not forget the reason that the review was set up in the first place - To pacify Rebekah Brooks and prevent her from putting whatever it is she knows about David Cameron and the Government, on her front pages.

That says it all for me, the review was set up to protect certain government officials, not to find Madeleine or protect the McCanns.

Also remember her text to David Cameron - "We are all in this together", what does that mean?

Tony Bennett wrote:

sharonl wrote:

Let's not forget the reason that the review was set up in the first place - To pacify Rebekah Brooks and prevent her from putting whatever it is she knows about David Cameron and the Government, on her front pages.

That says it all for me, the review was set up to protect certain government officials, not to find Madeleine or protect the McCanns.

Also remember her text to David Cameron - "We are all in this together", what does that mean?

"We are all in this together" began when Clarence Mitchell's then boss, Matthew Freud, son-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, lent the future Prime Minister of this country his private jet so that he could fly to a meeting with his father-in-law on his Mediterranean yacht in the summer of 2009.

It was there that this deal was done:

Rupert Murdoch: "My papers [Times, Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World] will switch support from Labour to the Conservatives if you let me have BSkyB".

Cameron: "Done".

What happened?

1. All four papers changed to backing the Conservatives.

2. Murdoch got control of BSkyB.

And we mustn't forget another fascinating footnote to 'We are all in this together':

3. Two months after the Mediterranean yacht meeting, Cameron appointed Murdoch man Andy Coulson, former editor of Murdoch's the News of the World, as his Diretctor of Communications, and

4. The two men, Cameron and Coulson, chose Clarence Mitchell as their Deputy Director of Communications in March 2010, two months before the 2010 General Election.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So like every wannabe MP/Prime Minster in forever he cut a deal for press support for his campaign but then later got leaned on/blackmailed to get a review of the MBM case.

Pathetic. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable.

This is probably what would be/is being covered up IMO, not who is responsible for MBM's disappearance. SY/OG are (now) tasked with separating the two issues, which no doubt is very, very difficult?

What a mess.  

tigger wrote:

Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

REPLY:  That's correct, Blair and Murdoch met in 1996, a year before Blair was elected, and that's when they did their deal. And in 1997 Murdoch's Sun was able to openly boast: 'It was the Sun wot won it'. However, both Thatcher and Major knew where media power lay and both made very sure that they talked regularly to Murdoch and his men. Who knows what deals might have been done, tigger, after all, Thatcher hob-nobbed with both Jimmy Savile and Rupert Murdoch (both holders of a Papal knighthood), and who knows what Thatcher knew about high-level paedophiles in Britain and what efforts she made to prevent anything too serious coming out? 

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell (who used to write for Forum, a porn mag) and various PR outfits. No doubt Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

REPLY: Certainly, for whatever reason, Murdoch forced Cameron's hand over this £7.6 million-and-rising Operation Grange.

But Murdoch isn't 100% evil. It's very strongly rumoured that Murdoch, a bit of a Eurosceptic on the quiet, forced Blair in 2004 to say that he would hold a referendum on the proposed European Constitution.

He and the E.U.-powers neatly got out of that one by re-labelling the European Constitution the 'Treaty of Lisbon' (both documents are near-identical) and saying: You can't vote on it as it's 'only a Treaty'.

    

tigger wrote:Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell ( who used to write for Forum, a porn mag)  and various  PR outfits. No doubt  Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

tigger wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So like every wannabe MP/Prime Minster in forever he cut a deal for press support for his campaign but then later got leaned on/blackmailed to get a review of the MBM case.

Pathetic. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable.

This is probably what would be/is being covered up IMO, not who is responsible for MBM's disappearance. SY/OG are (now) tasked with separating the two issues, which no doubt is very, very difficult?

What a mess.  

Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell ( who used to write for Forum, a porn mag)  and various  PR outfits. No doubt  Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

PeterMac wrote:

Woofer wrote:
Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely)
/quote]
NO.
Born Rebekah Mary Wade on May 27, 1968 in Warrington, Cheshire, Brooks attended Appleton Hall County Grammar School.
Kate -  Michelle and I both passed the Eleven-Plus and went on together to Everton Valley (Notre Dame Collegiate School)

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

1soapy wrote:I don’t see how or why the McCann’s would NOT ask for a review or investigation. Why?


Others (parents in other cases that is) have campaigned for years (without success). No need to think they would be any more successful, especially if they don’t put too much effort into it (GA said all they needed to do was ask the PJ).


Especially being (one time) suspects, it would be odd if they did not campaign. Do you not think it would be MORE odd to quietly forget about it (in the eyes of the public)? They have to seem to be still looking and wanting help to do so. Superficially, it might be better to quietly forget it all, but the public interest forbade or negated that.


Money.


Power and confidence over authorities to show that even with demands (to find the truth), it will not be found.

Fame?

IMO

Dee Coy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I think the McCanns were squealing 'review' with tongue firmly in cheek never dreaming it would come to fruition because of the knowledge they held pertaining to the political cover-up in the first place. They thought they were on rock solid ground. They could publicly request what which would be expected of them as desperate parents thus generating a re-focus on the fund (at that time they were admitting they needed more money to continue an independent search as the nasty governments of Portugal and the UK had done nothing proactively to find Madeleine for two years) whilst secure in the knowledge their request had no chance of being granted.

I think Brooks called their bluff. I'm not sure what her motives were but I am convinced she, like most of the media, knows what really happened.

I've asked this a few times and it's a purely hypothetical question: "If the truth of what happened in a major case, after years of corruption and cover-up designed to mislead the people, was finally brought to the public as a result of evidence obtained by phone hacking, would that public view phone hacking in a more tolerant light? A necessary evil to a justifiable end?"

I am not insinuating for one minute that hacking did take place. I do find it noteworthy that apparently the only important people that definitely weren't hacked were the McCanns.

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

ultimaThule wrote:

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

I have no doubt that Rebekah Brooks was instrumental in facilitating the McCanns' request for a UK-based review and that she personally made a case to convince David Cameron that it should take place, but I very much doubt that it was her intention for any such review to confine itself to exonerating them from any complicity in their eldest daughter's disappearance.

It occurs to me that those who claim that RB wields enormous power over policitians and the like may be best placed to explain why she was unable to spare herself, her spouse, and others, the ignominy and the expense of appearing as defendants at the Old Bailey in a time-consuming trial which is yet to conclude. .

HelenMeg wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I think the McCanns were squealing 'review' with tongue firmly in cheek never dreaming it would come to fruition because of the knowledge they held pertaining to the political cover-up in the first place. They thought they were on rock solid ground. They could publicly request what which would be expected of them as desperate parents thus generating a re-focus on the fund (at that time they were admitting they needed more money to continue an independent search as the nasty governments of Portugal and the UK had done nothing proactively to find Madeleine for two years) whilst secure in the knowledge their request had no chance of being granted.

I think Brooks called their bluff. I'm not sure what her motives were but I am convinced she, like most of the media, knows what really happened.

I've asked this a few times and it's a purely hypothetical question: "If the truth of what happened in a major case, after years of corruption and cover-up designed to mislead the people, was finally brought to the public as a result of evidence obtained by phone hacking, would that public view phone hacking in a more tolerant light? A necessary evil to a justifiable end?"

I am not insinuating for one minute that hacking did take place. I do find it noteworthy that apparently the only important people that definitely weren't hacked were the McCanns.

I agree that the Mc Canns may have been vocal about wanting a review in the knowledge that it would never happen. If RB pushed for a review (and I'm not aware of how she went about this?) but it was perhaps either because 1. she believed the Mc Canns were innocent and genuinely wished to help 2. She wanted a review knowing it would lead to selling endless newspapers 3. She had it in for someone - and re-opening the case would lead to whoever was being protected being outed...related to Labour party.

What other motives would there be?

HelenMeg wrote:and Clarence Mitchell :

BBC website profile:
Clarence Mitchell is back in front of the camera again - this time as the spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of missing four-year-old Madeleine. Former colleague Laurie Margolis recalls his time as a BBC journalist.
My first memories of Clarence were when he joined the BBC as a regional reporter in Leeds.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Clarence Mitchell worked on several high-profile cases as a reporter

Then he made it down to London, first on Breakfast News, then as one of the team of reporters who worked for the main news bulletins on national TV and radio.
I was another in that reporter pool in the early 1990s, and it was a difficult time for many of us, because the BBC bosses of that era became obsessed with specialists, people who may well have known their topic, but were often poor at turning that into watchable TV News.
General reporters like Clarence were highly skilled TV journalists, able to get their heads round any subject at short notice. But such people were out of fashion, and I think Clarence found it frustrating.
Nevertheless, he became a major figure in several big domestic stories.
He was closely involved with the Fred and Rosemary West case, where a murderous couple had killed young girls and buried the bodies under their patio in Gloucester.
Royal coverage
He was one of the first reporters to arrive at Gowan Avenue, Fulham in south west London, when the immensely popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead in a murder many feel has never been satisfactorily explained.
And more recently, in a story he worked on right up to the day he left the BBC, Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002. The case has never been solved.
Towards the end of his BBC career Clarence became heavily used on royal stories. He was deeply involved in coverage of the post-Diana era and the death of the Queen Mother.
Clarence was also a presenter on various BBC news programmes, and may have been looking to make that the main plank of his career.
But the presenting world is a precarious and capricious one, and he never quite made it.
One night, when I was working through the night, Clarence was presenting hourly bulletins on BBC News 24.
He did the 1am, and the 2am, but at 3am a slightly dishevelled looking producer appeared doing the news. It turned out Clarence had closed his eyes, and had slept through the 3am programme.
Madeleine maelstrom
Clarence left the BBC quite suddenly, making a move into the Labour government as director of its Media Monitoring Unit. His salary was widely reported to be £70,000 a year.


He was a failed presenter at the BBC with a lot of contacts - at the end of his BBC career he was used on the royal stories - suddenly left to work within Labour government and then
" as the Madeleine McCann story exploded this summer, it became clear that a high level of control and organisation would be needed to cope with the media maelstrom.
Clarence was plucked from his job, and sent out to handle the media, rather than be part of the media, on a massive crime story. Now he's left his government job and gone in with the McCanns full-time."

In my opinion, Clarence Mitchell took various opportunities as they arose - made a name for himself as PR for Madeleine case, (he likes presenting and having his face in the limelight). He is now standiong for conservative party so has switch alliances yet again- ....

He may have acquired some sort of power through what he knows about both parties - but in my opinion he appears to switch alliances as opportunities come along and he sees how it can benefit him. No more no less.