Re: Game over?

by jeanmonroe 31.03.14 13:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Re Clarence Mitchell
....re the McCanns paying for his services? No. He has been employed by one of their wealthy backers and will continue to work for that person after the Madeleine case is over.

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

so who does he work for?
Well, 'who does he (really) work for?' is certainly one question.

Another good question is the one you've raised - who has paid him for all his McCann-related work?

Can anyone point to any one unambiguous quote from anyone which informs the public exactly who is paying him?

On top of that, there are contradictory statements about who is paying him. The Times quote above conflicts with other stories.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone point to any one unambiguous quote from anyone which informs the public exactly who is paying him?
-------------------------------------------------------

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

By Cole Morton Sunday 01 March 2009

These days Mitchell gets 40 per cent of his former salary as a retainer from the Find Madeleine Fund.

(at least 28,000.00p pa!)

And i have never heard that this is NOT the case, right NOW!

LOTS of kiddies and OAP's 'donations', to the Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned (private fund, controlled by McCann family 'members' including board members K&GM) going straight into CM 'pockets' as a 'retainer'

by TheTruthWillOut 31.03.14 13:35

Reading that list by Tony just confuses me. After Mitchell did such a splendid job over almost three years why was this all dragged back up again by the Mcs/Brooks and ultimately the SY review/investigation?

Maybe I'm just too dumb to see it? lol

by tiny 31.03.14 13:35

Theres no words that can describe this low life

by Liz Eagles 31.03.14 14:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Re Clarence Mitchell
....re the McCanns paying for his services? No. He has been employed by one of their wealthy backers and will continue to work for that person after the Madeleine case is over.

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

so who does he work for?
Well, 'who does he (really) work for?' is certainly one question.

Another good question is the one you've raised - who has paid him for all his McCann-related work?

Can anyone point to any one unambiguous quote from anyone which informs the public exactly who is paying him?

On top of that, there are contradictory statements about who is paying him. The Times quote above conflicts with other stories.

Then there was the private jet from Sir Philip Green to whisk the McCanns to Rome for their Papal visit.

Snipped from Wiki

In May 2007, after the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in Portugal, Green donated £250,000 as a monetary reward for any useful public information.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} He also provided the McCanns with the use of his private jet to allow them to fly to Rome for a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}

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

by **tigger** 31.03.14 14:14

i've always thought the £ 70.000,- Mitchell allegedly got paid to PR the M.canns was a risible amount for someone who'd been in charge of the Media Monitoring Unit and who decided what comes out in the news.

by Liz Eagles 31.03.14 14:16

tigger wrote:i've always thought the £ 70.000,- Mitchell allegedly got paid to PR the M.canns was a risible amount for someone who'd been in charge of the Media Monitoring Unit and who decided what comes out in the news.

Me too tigger. It's a bit of a pittance really.

Perhaps there's a need for a new topic on the forum 'things you'd like to ask Clarence'.

by jeanmonroe 31.03.14 14:20

Zelebrities/NOTW ONLY 'pledged' to the (knowingly?) NEVER to be claimed 'reward' (£2.6 MILLION)

John McCann, GM's brother

'"ORDINARY members of the public can still 'donate' to the McCann 'family' private Madeleine Fund, NOT the 'reward'.

by Casey5 31.03.14 14:23

Might be a risible amount to some - an absolute fortune to many, myself included- and it's more than an MP receives.

by j.rob 31.03.14 14:37

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Woofer wrote:
You could be right HM, but the most plausible reason for cover up I`ve come across so far is that GM has proof that Princess Diana was murdered by MI5.
***
You're extracting the urine, aren't you?

Indeed he is! Most amusing post really. Serves as a useful reminder too showing how easy it is for informed speculation to veer off into the absurd. Of course as the recent textusa article tells us, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between woofer's irony and another poster's "stink bomb" (a so-truth-is-not-known diversionary tactic).

It's not necessarily absurd. I think there probably were some dark forces at play surrounding Diana's death. Why not? Ditto Kelly. The timings are interesting. There is no doubt that the supposed 'abduction' of a little girl in a foreign holiday resort was a band-wagon that a great many people wanted to jump on for all sorts of reasons.

by ultimaThule 31.03.14 14:44

It appears to me that the vast majority of those 'all sorts of reasons' had more to do with self-aggrandisement than the fate of the British child who was allegedly 'abducted' from her bed in a foreign holiday resort, jrob.

by HelenMeg 31.03.14 15:02

PeterMac wrote:
Cristobell wrote:He reports the news, he speaks on behalf of those in the public eye.

But in this case, he has NEVER said he was speaking on behalf of the McCanns. He has always insisted that he KNEW the facts.
He was said they are innocent, that if Madeleine was dead it was not by their hands, that the Fund was not going to be used for legal fees,and so on.
He has thus placed himself deeper inside any conspiracy which may emerge, and may live to regret that he did not say "On behalf of my clients" or "My clients wish me to say that . . "

Yes and it is for that reason that he is such a mystery. He has not merely acted as a media spokesman for the Mc Canns, he has offered his own opinions as to their innocence.
Almost as if he could have said exactly what he liked knowing nothing would ever happen to them. Similar to how the MC CANNS would often speak, as if they were above the law.
That is what is so intriguing about CM. He appears to be nothing but a jumped-up buffoon yet extremely useful to one and all. I think perhaps that through his BBC career he has acquired so many contacts that he is useful - he also knows how media works etc . I think he a useful tool that every party should have in their shed. But why state from his opinion that the Mc Canns are innocent when he could so easily have
talked as a spokesperson on their behalf without portraying them as anything.

by Mirage 31.03.14 16:55

HelenMeg wrote:

'I think he's a useful tool that every party should have in their shed.'

Preferably one with a padlock on. big grin

by **tigger** 31.03.14 17:21

Mirage wrote:HelenMeg wrote:

'I think he's a useful tool that every party should have in their shed.'

Preferably one with a padlock on.

'i'm a decent human being' . That's from the man himself, well - perhaps he was waiting for someone else to tell the world but waited in vain.

So now we know. He added something like: 'If I can help, I will'. He did too, telling the good people of Britain to put money in an eveloppe and send it to Gerry and Kate, Rothley. It will get there.

Gosh they must miss that daily avalanche of cash..... laughat

by **Tony Bennett** 31.03.14 18:47

tigger wrote:
'i'm a decent human being' . That's from the man himself, well - perhaps he was waiting for someone else to tell the world but waited in vain.

So now we know. He added something like: 'If I can help, I will'.

This sounds like a faint echo of Tony Blair's comments, soon after being elected in 1997:

++++++++++++++++++++

"I think most people who have dealt with me think I am a pretty straight sort of guy, and I am." [Speaking on the BBC's On The Record programme, November 2007, after the disclosure that Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone would be made a Lord, soon after donating £1 mlilion to the Labour Party]

by Monty Heck 31.03.14 18:48

PeterMac wrote:
Cristobell wrote:He reports the news, he speaks on behalf of those in the public eye.

But in this case, he has NEVER said he was speaking on behalf of the McCanns. He has always insisted that he KNEW the facts.
He was said they are innocent, that if Madeleine was dead it was not by their hands, that the Fund was not going to be used for legal fees,and so on.
He has thus placed himself deeper inside any conspiracy which may emerge, and may live to regret that he did not say "On behalf of my clients" or "My clients wish me to say that . . "

He was certainly overly fond of the royal "we", as though he, K & G were a trio in complete accord rather than referring to them as clients on whose behalf he was speaking.

by Monty Heck 31.03.14 18:50

tigger wrote:
Mirage wrote:HelenMeg wrote:

'I think he's a useful tool that every party should have in their shed.'

Preferably one with a padlock on.

'i'm a decent human being' . That's from the man himself, well - perhaps he was waiting for someone else to tell the world but waited in vain.

So now we know. He added something like: 'If I can help, I will'. He did too, telling the good people of Britain to put money in an eveloppe and send it to Gerry and Kate, Rothley. It will get there.

Gosh they must miss that daily avalanche of cash.....

As the saying goes, if it needs to be pointed out, it's patently not true. It's like saying, "I'm a cool human being" - if it needs said, then you're not.

by The Rooster 31.03.14 20:33

Personally I can't attribute any skill set to CM. He took the Faustion 70K income which must have excited him, it must have been an improvement on his then position or at least some improvement with prospects. Cheapskate. How do you sleep at night?

by canada12 31.03.14 21:30

Do we know where Clarence Mitchell was during the week that the McCanns were on holiday in PDL, up until the night of May 3?
Since we're having a new look at all possibilities, and who was staying there, and who might have made a quick departure?
Just a thought.

by XTC 31.03.14 21:49

The Rooster wrote:Personally I can't attribute any skill set to CM. He took the Faustion 70K income which must have excited him, it must have been an improvement on his then position or at least some improvement with prospects. Cheapskate. How do you sleep at night?

Hi Rooster

Clarence Mitchell is only one of many PR people who embody the art of presenting black as white.

The likes of Blair and his ilk who present a lie as a truth are ten a penny these days and how they can look themselves in the mirror
each day I don't know. Most journalists and editors are only one step behind as well.

Mrs Thatcher was accused - possibly by Jim Prior? - as knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing but to be fair to her- despite my dislike for her and her policies - what you saw was what you got.

The startling thing about these types of people is that they believe they are worth the money paid for their services. Self decievers come with a high price tag I think. Personally I wouldn't pay them in washers and would put them to real work such as cleaning the toilets at Euston Station. They live in a different world than all of us whether you are Conservative or Labour.

by The Rooster 31.03.14 22:49

Nice one XTC, Mitchell is a ****

by The Rooster 31.03.14 22:56

Tony, Nelsonian, well maybe! I'm trying to look at the the thing in an empirical way. Nontheless a fair comment dear boy.

by lj 05.04.14 15:14

sharonl wrote:We should consider the reason that this review was set up in the first place. Remember that Theresa May was against the idea to start with and only agreed to it under pressure from David Cameron who was told by Rebekah Brooks that he would be exposed in the headlines every day if he didn't comply with her request.

Before the review was set, we had the McCann private detectives Metedo 3, Oakley International and Alphaig supplying the press with the latest nonsense on the case. We had sightings galore, witnesses galore and many other spoof articles about what the PI's were up to. Since the arrest or imprisonment of most of these clowns these stories seem to have dried up and we have had to make do with mystery men, un-named witnesses, sources and dead paedophiles..

So what has this review achieved?

1. It has kept David Cameron out of the headlines with whatever it is that Rebekah threatened to expose
2. It has provided the Rebekah and the press with numerous stories on the McCann case

Nothing else has been achieved, and if it had what could the Met police do about it? They have no jurisdiction in Portugal, they may not even be recognised as police officers in Portugal. To make an arrest they would need the assistance of the Portuguese Police, otherwise they may be seen as running a case alongside the official one or interfering, they may even get arrested themselves.

The British police have even stated that this is a case for the Portuguese Police, we are just assisting them.

Notice how there have been fewer sightings since the review started, the press now focus on what they say that the Met are doing. Notice how the press stories have changed from weekly sightings to weekly suspects.

For me, this review is nothing more than a PR exercise, set up to keep Rebekah Brooks happy and to protect Cameron from adverse publicity in the headlines.

Imagine if there was no review, the press would have no story to sell.

I have often wondered what the relation between these two is now. Do you think Rebekah Brooks still signs her messages with LOL, and David Cameron still thinks it means "lots of Love"?

If someone blackmailed me our friendship would be over. Apart from that I take to not have a lot in my life I can be blackmailed with.

by lj 05.04.14 15:18

Pershing36 wrote:I personally think that operation Grange is near the end, maybe just a few months, six at best.

The seeds have been sown in the red tops. SY will claim "We were closing in but the Sardine cops wouldn't play ball". "We kept sending requests but they followed different lines to us". Then the most recent David Cameron will intervene says just about it.

I can never be sure why it was ordered in the first place, but my own suspicion is to let certain people get their hands on anything the PJ hadn't released. Maybe I am totally wrong but the timings of all the releases of 'persons of interest' seemed to happen every time the libel trial might have caught some headlines.

Lets see if it all starts to fade away now.

Exavtly. The white wash only has to conclude they could not come to a conclusion and that's all Portugal's fault. Rooster Gerry will cackel again they are exonerated and Kate can resume her appearances.

by lj 05.04.14 15:20

Châtelaine wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Maria, are you AR in disguise?! Or just an ace hacker that got into his laptop and stole his script?! A worryingly plausible whitewash scenario. It doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny of course, but in the media it wouldn't have to!
***
Of course, it doesn't. It still doesn't explain the cadaver scent on Kate's pants of ganga and top, the children's t-shirt, cuddle cat, the car ...

Seabass, periods and leftover of the pre-vacation deceaseds.

by lj 05.04.14 15:33

ultimaThule wrote:On a point of information, Cristobell, AR said that 'Madeleine may not have left apartment 5A alive' which statement in itself does not equate to a "death in the apartment theory", nor does it indicate that your theory is one "they are now following".

There will of course be speculation here as to what alternative meaning may be read into AR's words, but IMO such speculation should not be disseminated on social networks by those who are known to be members of this forum as it can only serve to adversely reflect on the credibility of the membership as a whole.

So now you are even dictating what members from this forum can post elsewhere?

what

by ultimaThule 05.04.14 16:37

'Dictate'?! Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites. However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case.

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

by Seek truth 05.04.14 17:03

Well I'd like to hear the PJ say they have evidence and charge them, but I don't believe it'll happen. I hope I'm wrong. After 7 years, and Mr Amaral tried but he was pushed away. They've had lots of opportunities, but the English quickly come in and change things, just ask Mr Amaral!

The trial, stopped, and when things weren't working for them, things change and Tannerman is found etc.

by Cristobell 05.04.14 17:59

ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?! Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites. However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case.

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

As I am the one being spoken about, I was not disseminating information that was blatantly untrue. DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment - not alive = dead. I really don't see where the confusion comes from. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't want us to discuss the theory of death in apartment, which is something most of us have believed since this case first hit the news.

As for your suggestion that my discussing the theory of death in the apartment would reflect badly on this forum, I really don't understand your logic. Perhaps you could explain.

by Guest 05.04.14 18:10

Are you both sure to be in a "discussion"? Instead of repeating mantras? Launching "attacks"?
IMO better take this to the back in PM and come out again, when things are sorted.

Sorry, Mods big grin

I know, I should know my place, but ...

I do appreciate both members. And read their posts with interest - until - the bitch-fight starts again nah