Mitchell, the mole in the hole, true colour.

by jeanmonroe 16.03.13 12:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So there we have it!
Those dumbass Conservatives, Cameron and May, completely DUPED by their 'mole in the hole' Clarence Mitchell.
Mitchell, hired by Cameron, in run up to last election, now turns out to be a full blown supporter member of Hacked off.
Accompanies his paymaster McCann to deride, and threaten, Tory press regulation plans.
Mitchell, the mole, was, imo, passing on to the McCanns everything he could glean from Tory Central office, about any investigations into them, to his real paymasters, the McCanns.
JUST HOW DUMB ARE THE TORIES?
This is how dumb:Fiercely Conservative, Clarence has hopes of becoming a Tory MP
Clarence Mitchell was on the approved Conservative Party list in the run up to the 2010 election but "didn't have time to find a seat". He is now back on the list and the candidate selection list begins next year ahead of applying for a seat.

"Central Office have told me that they see me as a potential south-east/metropolitan candidate.
REALLY CLARENCE?
Conservative Central Office would just love to have you, a staunch supporter of the Hacked off campaign, their nemesis, as one of their MP's!
WOULD THEY REALLY?
No, Clarence has now revealed his TRUE colour, by his outright support for z lister celebrity McCann around the studios yesterday, and it's not Tory blue!
Those dumbass Tories, May and Cameron, totally conned, hook , line and sinker!
And it's only cost them at least £2,000,000. to date ("review") to find out!

Could someone actually get the picture to show up please?
i don't know how to display picture Sad

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

by jd 16.03.13 13:32

Mitchell went to Frien Barnet school, and was also a reporter for the Hendon/Finchley times in 1982

Finchley (Frien Barnet) being the constituency of a rather well known former lady PM!! (she who was also very best friends with a certain white haired tracksuit wearing clown who smoked cigars)

by jeanmonroe 16.03.13 13:46

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

by jd 16.03.13 14:03

Though the photo below is going a bit off topic of the thread, this does show quite clearly the real connections and how it really works. After working at the Finchley Times, mitchell then went to work for the BBC and in Leeds and covered virtually all the high profile stories, then suddenly left to join the government...Then the mccanns. Doesn't take much figuring out!

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

by Guest 16.03.13 15:59

Sorry, jd: which photo?

by **Nina** 16.03.13 16:03

Is this all for real, or a spoof. Very damning if for real, but eh, who is reading it, too few.

by margaret 16.03.13 20:09

Mitchell is a chancer like the people he represents. He does what's best for HIM at any particular moment.

Maybe, because of the revolt David Cameron's faced this week Mitchell thinks he's backing a winner but Cameron isn't going to let Levesons findings become law so some people appear to be pissing in the wind. big grin

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 12:53

margaret wrote:Mitchell is a chancer like the people he represents. He does what's best for HIM at any particular moment.

Maybe, because of the revolt David Cameron's faced this week Mitchell thinks he's backing a winner but Cameron isn't going to let Levesons findings become law so some people appear to be pissing in the wind.

What I find strange about Clarence Mitchell is his fickle alliances with political parties.. 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 is now about to stand for parliament for the Conservatives.

What drives him or should I say, who drives him? Is he really just someone who thrives on media attention, status and money? Not sure who this guy is....

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.14 14:09

HelenMeg wrote:
margaret wrote:Mitchell is a chancer like the people he represents. He does what's best for HIM at any particular moment.

Maybe, because of the revolt David Cameron's faced this week Mitchell thinks he's backing a winner but Cameron isn't going to let Leveson's findings become law so some people appear to be pissing in the wind.
What I find strange about Clarence Mitchell is his fickle alliances with political parties.. 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 is now about to stand for parliament for the Conservatives.

What drives him or should I say, who drives him? Is he really just someone who thrives on media attention, status and money? Not sure who this guy is....

I have explained in the past that, many years ago, two journalists separately told me that Clarence was a top employee of MI5, maybe even the No. 2 there.

All of the above appointments and moves, including the latest one, and of course his apppointment as the McCanns' reputation manager, are easily explicable by his doing the bidding of his colleagues at MI5.

We need to 'think outside the box' when it comes to Clarence

by Guest 03.04.14 15:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
margaret wrote:Mitchell is a chancer like the people he represents. He does what's best for HIM at any particular moment.

Maybe, because of the revolt David Cameron's faced this week Mitchell thinks he's backing a winner but Cameron isn't going to let Leveson's findings become law so some people appear to be pissing in the wind.
What I find strange about Clarence Mitchell is his fickle alliances with political parties.. 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 is now about to stand for parliament for the Conservatives.

What drives him or should I say, who drives him? Is he really just someone who thrives on media attention, status and money? Not sure who this guy is....
I have explained in the past that, many years ago, two journalists separately told me that Clarence was a top employee of MI5, maybe even the No. 2 there.

All of the above appointments and moves, including the latest one, and of course his apppointment as the McCanns' reputation manager, are easily explicable by his doing the bidding of his colleagues at MI5.

We need to 'think outside the box' when it comes to Clarence

Really Tony? I am gobsmacked - not least that such an apparent buffoon could work for MI5 - but as we know appearances can be very deceptive.

If this is true then it just confirms my darkest fears about this case - that it could involve the highest levels of British establishment (and I mean the very highest political and institutional levels) possibly CEOP, and possibly other players like Murat and assorted freemasons from the Mccann's home area/Scotland.

All in my own opinion, my theories have no factual basis of course.

by DIBarlow 03.04.14 16:16

I think Mitchell makes Johnny English seem like James Bond.

Part of the problem with the 'establishment' is the 'public perception' that the human beings that fill supposed positions of importance are in some way superior to the 'average Joe'.

They are not.

The difference with this instant information age that we live in is that the inadequacies of many of these idiots are revealed at a greater rate than they can be covered up.

We can only hope that good continues to prevail over evil.

by Mirage 03.04.14 20:40

I recall reading ages ago that GM had been overheard on the plane coming home in Sept 2007 asking whether MI5 had sent a car to escort them home. Does anyone remember this?

by TheTruthWillOut 03.04.14 20:46

Mirage wrote:I recall reading ages ago that GM had been overheard on the plane coming home in Sept 2007 asking whether MI5 had sent a car to escort them home. Does anyone remember this?

I remember vaguely about being escorted back home from EMA. Sky followed them home in the Sky copter IIRC, but can't remember if there were one or two vehicles.

by jeanmonroe 04.04.14 3:34

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Mirage wrote:I recall reading ages ago that GM had been overheard on the plane coming home in Sept 2007 asking whether MI5 had sent a car to escort them home. Does anyone remember this?

I remember vaguely about being escorted back home from EMA. Sky followed them home in the Sky copter IIRC, but can't remember if there were one or two vehicles.

It was Special Branch Officers and SBO's had to fetch and carry!

REMINDER: 'madeleine', pages 259-264 by Kate McCann:

Monday 10 September: "A Special Branch officer drove us to Rothley...

Monday, September 10, 2007

McCanns get Special Branch treatment

If this report is accurate: "There was some help with their four large black suitcases from the Special Branch officers who had chauffeured them the 16 miles from East Midlands airport to Rothley. But only Mr McCann seemed to have the know-how to unfasten the two child seats from the unmarked police car". Perhaps, the current Home Secretary, who is Jacqui Smith, can explain why the Special Branch is involved in the first place? And, secondly, why officers who are normally employed as guardians of our security have been employed as chauffeurs to two self confessed child neglectors?

No neglect = no 'abduction'

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

But the break in Gerry McCann's voice as he spoke in the heat of the apron at East Midlands airport, his son Sean in his arms, provided a different perspective on quite what it meant to leave Britain with three children and return with two.

"Despite there being so much we wish to say, we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine," he said.

'the disappearance' Gerry?

'ABDUCTION' ol' boy 'ABDUCTION'

by ultimaThule 04.04.14 11:19

'Disappearance', Gerry? Would that be when your lovely daughter disappeared prior to the Easter gathering of clan McCann in Donegal 3 weeks before your idyllic family holiday to Luz, or her more recent disappearance when you and your spouse told the world she had been 'abducted'?

by Liz Eagles 04.04.14 11:43

ultimaThule wrote:'Disappearance', Gerry? Would that be when your lovely daughter disappeared prior to the Easter gathering of clan McCann in Donegal 3 weeks before your idyllic family holiday to Luz, or her more recent disappearance when you and your spouse told the world she had been 'abducted'?

???

by **Tony Bennett** 04.04.14 11:49

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Really Tony? I am gobsmacked - not least that such an apparent buffoon could work for MI5 - but as we know appearances can be very deceptive.

REPLY: Some members here regularly call him a 'buffoon'. On the contrary, I suggest he has been highly effective. I despise his trade. But IMO he is extremely good and well practised at it

If this is true...

REPLY: Who knows? All I am saying is that if those two journalists were right, it all fits with all that we know about Clarence Mitchell

by Liz Eagles 04.04.14 11:54

I love the way everyone believes his salary was £70,000. No-one knows what Mitchell's salary was/is.

You're right Tony, he's good at what he does.

Here's an article from the Independent dated 2009.

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

by coco 04.04.14 12:40

I'm not saying Mitchell doesn't lie well, and with as many teeth as he has in his mouth, but the McCanns crimes and post gaffes, took a lot more than his slimey presence and MMU connections, to keep sanitized and buried. Mitchell success as far as the McCanns are concerned, is down to the powers behind him rather than him personally. The entire fiasco would have blown up in all their faces long ago, if not constantly cauterised by dark forces within the Home Office (imho). I agree with Tony's journalist associates, it's likely he has MI5 connections.

by ultimaThule 04.04.14 14:03

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:'Disappearance', Gerry? Would that be when your lovely daughter disappeared prior to the Easter gathering of clan McCann in Donegal 3 weeks before your idyllic family holiday to Luz, or her more recent disappearance when you and your spouse told the world she had been 'abducted'?
???

In the interests of keeping this thread on topic, if you have another question to ask me may I suggest you add it to the other thread you disrupted but haven't, as yet, returned to, aquila: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Watching 04.04.14 14:48

jeanmonroe wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Mirage wrote:I recall reading ages ago that GM had been overheard on the plane coming home in Sept 2007 asking whether MI5 had sent a car to escort them home. Does anyone remember this?

I remember vaguely about being escorted back home from EMA. Sky followed them home in the Sky copter IIRC, but can't remember if there were one or two vehicles.

It was Special Branch Officers and SBO's had to fetch and carry!

REMINDER: 'madeleine', pages 259-264 by Kate McCann:

Monday 10 September: "A Special Branch officer drove us to Rothley...

Monday, September 10, 2007

McCanns get Special Branch treatment

If this report is accurate: "There was some help with their four large black suitcases from the Special Branch officers who had chauffeured them the 16 miles from East Midlands airport to Rothley. But only Mr McCann seemed to have the know-how to unfasten the two child seats from the unmarked police car". Perhaps, the current Home Secretary, who is Jacqui Smith, can explain why the Special Branch is involved in the first place? And, secondly, why officers who are normally employed as guardians of our security have been employed as chauffeurs to two self confessed child neglectors?

No neglect = no 'abduction'

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

But the break in Gerry McCann's voice as he spoke in the heat of the apron at East Midlands airport, his son Sean in his arms, provided a different perspective on quite what it meant to leave Britain with three children and return with two.

"Despite there being so much we wish to say, we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine," he said.

'the disappearance' Gerry?

'ABDUCTION' ol' boy 'ABDUCTION'

"Despite there being so much we wish to say, we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine," he said.

They wish they could say more, they are unable to do so, except to say they played no part in the disappearance of their lovely daughter Madeleine?

Parents who are unable legally to say much if anything about the disappearance of their child would not choose to bang on about their innocence in that disappearance. Legal restrictions would not have prevented Mr & Mrs voice their concern for little Madeleine. Speak of how they were worried beyond belief as to what might be happening to her, of how much they loved and missed her. How they regret with all their hearts their actions which caused the child to be wherever she is. They didn't! They thought only of themselves. An opportunity to speak lovingly of this child - they allowed to pass in favour of announcing their innocence. Terribly, terribly sad.

by plebgate 04.04.14 18:24

DIBarlow wrote:I think Mitchell makes Johnny English seem like James Bond.

Part of the problem with the 'establishment' is the 'public perception' that the human beings that fill supposed positions of importance are in some way superior to the 'average Joe'.

They are not.

The difference with this instant information age that we live in is that the inadequacies of many of these idiots are revealed at a greater rate than they can be covered up.

We can only hope that good continues to prevail over evil.

I like this post. thumbup

by TheTruthWillOut 04.04.14 18:39

jeanmonroe wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Mirage wrote:I recall reading ages ago that GM had been overheard on the plane coming home in Sept 2007 asking whether MI5 had sent a car to escort them home. Does anyone remember this?

I remember vaguely about being escorted back home from EMA. Sky followed them home in the Sky copter IIRC, but can't remember if there were one or two vehicles.

It was Special Branch Officers and SBO's had to fetch and carry!

REMINDER: 'madeleine', pages 259-264 by Kate McCann:

Monday 10 September: "A Special Branch officer drove us to Rothley...

Monday, September 10, 2007

McCanns get Special Branch treatment

If this report is accurate: "There was some help with their four large black suitcases from the Special Branch officers who had chauffeured them the 16 miles from East Midlands airport to Rothley. But only Mr McCann seemed to have the know-how to unfasten the two child seats from the unmarked police car". Perhaps, the current Home Secretary, who is Jacqui Smith, can explain why the Special Branch is involved in the first place? And, secondly, why officers who are normally employed as guardians of our security have been employed as chauffeurs to two self confessed child neglectors?

No neglect = no 'abduction'

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

But the break in Gerry McCann's voice as he spoke in the heat of the apron at East Midlands airport, his son Sean in his arms, provided a different perspective on quite what it meant to leave Britain with three children and return with two.

"Despite there being so much we wish to say, we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine," he said.

'the disappearance' Gerry?

'ABDUCTION' ol' boy 'ABDUCTION'

Thanks for digging that one out. Special Branch. Why in the world would they be used in such a situation!? Has to be very high level...but what/who? confused

by ultimaThule 04.04.14 18:46

Watching wrote:< snip >
"Despite there being so much we wish to say, we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine," he said.

They wish they could say more, they are unable to do so, except to say they played no part in the disappearance of their lovely daughter Madeleine?

Parents who are unable legally to say much if anything about the disappearance of their child would not choose to bang on about their innocence in that disappearance. Legal restrictions would not have prevented Mr & Mrs voice their concern for little Madeleine. Speak of how they were worried beyond belief as to what might be happening to her, of how much they loved and missed her. How they regret with all their hearts their actions which caused the child to be wherever she is. They didn't! They thought only of themselves. An opportunity to speak lovingly of this child - they allowed to pass in favour of announcing their innocence. Terribly, terribly sad.

I can't recall any occasion on which her parents or any other members of her family have spoken 'lovingly' about Madeleine, Watching, and there have been no tears of sorrow, no fears expressed for her welfare, and no moving appeals to other parents to never leave their children home alone.

When Madeleine has been spoken of by those who should love her best, it's very often been by way of an afterthought and it appears for all the world as if her aunt Philomena's view that 'nothing of value was taken from the apartment' is one shared by the child's family.

This lamentable state of affairs is, as you say, terribly, terribly sad.

by **tigger** 04.04.14 19:10

Lovely and Beautiful are part of the Unique Selling Point of the TM Product: Madeleine McCann.

It ignites a fierce anger in me every time it's used.
Kate has even said 'Please look for Madeleine- she's lovely'.

As I believe Nina said about this: 'so's my scarf'.

We miss her dreadfully, we don't know what's happening to her, we want her back. No. She's lovely and she was 'stolen'. Funny. That happened to a scarf of mine....

by Guest 04.04.14 19:16

That only confirms to me, that they had no "script". That they had to improvise on a situation, which wasn't real and therefore all of their utterings aren't real either. Their "emotional roller-coaster" resembles in no way the classical order of loss, denial, bereavement, anger and grief. Why? I think we know why ...

by Cristobell 04.04.14 20:30

Châtelaine wrote:That only confirms to me, that they had no "script". That they had to improvise on a situation, which wasn't real and therefore all of their utterings aren't real either. Their "emotional roller-coaster" resembles in no way the classical order of loss, denial, bereavement, anger and grief. Why? I think we know why ...

Yes, they seemed to skip the first steps and went straight to anger and grief. Anger, is an emotion I don't understand at all on that first night - when I would have though there was still hope of finding Madeleine alive. Imo, those fierce bruises on Kate's wrists and arms have much to do with whatever happened imo, and I simply do not accept Kate got them through battering the rail and walls. If someone was hysterical to the point of self harming, surely one of the doctors might have suggested a sedative? The police need to discover what caused those bruises, and therein, will lie the answer to what happened to Madeleine McCann.

by Trajan 05.04.14 0:24

If think Mitchell is one of the main actors and a possible clue to the case and the protection of the McCann's.

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

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 05.04.14 2:07

Clarenzio sure is an enigma.

I have long held the opinion that he controls the McCANNS.

by kimHager 05.04.14 2:37

Cristobell the bruises have often bothered me.. I can only speculate but it would seem that she may have been restrained? Perhaps GM was taking the brunt of her anger or maybe he caused it? Too many questions but the answers are there... In GM reminding km on how she got those bruises is a red flag.. Some abusive husbands and men have reminded women in public of how they really got the bruises.. A warning sometimes not to say anything differen... All speculation of course.