Madeleine McCann: Duarte Levy, Clarence Mitchell And The Daily Mirror
DUARTE Levy writes on the case of Madeleine McCann. He alleges that that Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ PR adviser, is “using the Government’s services to keep watch on journalists and forum participants.” Says Mr Levy:
Clarence Mitchell, the McCann’s PR adviser and spokesman, continues to make use of the British government’s services despite having officially resigned from his position as director of the Media Monitoring Unit*. The accusation comes from a Home Office source who has stated that the outgoing director had called upon his former service to keep a watch not only on several journalists but also on the behaviour of participants in a list of forums and blogs considered to be “highly detrimental to the image of the McCanns and that of the British government”.
Can what Mr Levy alleges be true? And if it is, why would it be a big deal for the McCanns’ spokesman to keep an eye on the web, and get what help he can? Mr Levy continues:
Clarence Mitchell, a former journalist for the Daily Express and the BBC, was seconded by the Foreign Office to act as a liaison officer between the media and Madeleine’s parents. Through the intermediary of the respective British embassies, it was he who organised the McCann’s visits to the Vatican, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam and Rabat.
Since the very early days, media monitoring has been an important part of Clarence Mitchell’s work. While the McCann’s were in Praia da Luz, it was he who decided to separate journalists according to nationality: the British first, and the Portuguese last.
Today, the McCann’s PR campaign relies more than ever on monitoring public opinion: over the past few days several UK forums and blogs have been shut down due to “anti-McCann” comments. Amongst them is the Mirror newspaper’s forum, which erased all comments about the case without warning when the participants started to debate Home Office interference.
No response from Mr Mitchell is quoted in Mr Levy’s email to us. But why did the Daily Mirror close its forum? Anyone from those forums care to tell us what they know?
Anorak’s monitoring team try to read all reader comments - of which there are thousands.
Posted: 27th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (741) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
January 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
104 what an absolutely highly educated chap you are, even your DeVitto correspondence course should tell you, never confuse morality with law, perhaps the seat of your trousers covering that well trained eye of yours, is preventing you from seeing that.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
108
Sledgehammer
There you are again distorting the truth
To answer you properly ,i would be banned from this site ,and i know some would like it, but i wont give you that pleasure for now
January 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
102 Sally
Sadly the UK has never been a free country, we are all ’subjects’ to a morally bankcrupt monarchy and a failed pseudo-democratic system heavy with legislation developed by self serving overpayed people who have no value and so keep changing anything to prove they are ‘essential’.
Corporations and finance, often foreign controlled, hold the power in the UK. We even sell our jobs to the very countries who are the real perpetrators of environmental damage whilst we play at being ‘green’ - because it suits the corporations and lets them put up retail prices and fleece the proletariat on the basis of ‘carbon footprints’!
An overly simplistic outline, but not untrue.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
109
Trismegistus
January 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
107
Châtelaine
Sorry
That’s from a comment ,and is not the full issue
Did you read all ??
January 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Here is the latest image of The Evil Abductor…
http://s256.photobucket.com/albums/hh193/Trismegistus47/?action=view¤t=abductor.gif
Please note that the above is meant as satire and reflects my opinion only…
January 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
can’t say no, you have an extremely jaundiced view of this case, it is your Authorities, who are responsible for allowing this case to develop into a circus and to let it continue, why bother with letters of rogatory, why not just apply for a Euro warrant direct, question them and then either charge them or let them go, simple. By the way if what Amaral is alleged to have wanted in arresting KM is true, it only compounds the incompetence of the prosecutors.
————————–
Mods and Admin
Sledgehammer,
Back in May of last year the parents of Madeleine MCCann were advised by the PJ NOT to go down the route of publicity as it could be detrimental to finding her , if indeed she was abducted.
They went ahead with the media circus anyway.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am
00
can’t say no Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Autre chose. Le RU, est -il ou non un pays démocratique ?
***
The U.K., is it or is it not a democratic country?
——————–
Mods and Admin
It claims to be democratic yes, but how much is whitewash/hogwash.
But with sites like Anorak debating the issue, yes, it must be.
We should have TO BE silenced, we shall never shut up of our own accord, so while we have have a voice, there is hope
January 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
101
jo
Thank You dear
January 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Anyone wonder why the ground may be being prepared for a PJ climbdown?
Well, it’s now nearly three weeks since the supposed Rogatory letters were claimed to have been submitted to EuroJust - and no sign of siezures of property, interviews. Portuguese detectives on their way to the UK, etc. etc. etc…..
So what are the options:
1 - the supposed letters were not actually sent, or, rather than being specific, they were phrased as some general request…
2 - They were sent, but they’ve been held back by EuroJust - having done a little reading about what EuroJust’s role in cases like this is (and the limits of their jurisdiction in terms of what putative crimes must be involved), a possibility.
3 - They’ve arrived in the UK, and are being sat on by the Home Office.
4 - They’ve arrived, and been rejected outright as lacking sufficient “reasonable cause” for them to be acted on under English Law.
5 - They’ve arrived and been acted on in secret.
OK, what else do we know. Well, the Portuguese Police and press have been remarkably quiet on the issue - scarcely a word said in three weeks.
A EuroJust spokesman has comented, but the phrasing was interesting - saying they’ve been asked to be a “go between” between the Portuguese and British legal systems, but not saying whether letters, etc. had actually been recieved or transmitted. They also didn’t say whether or not they’d agreed to the request.
So, reviewing the possible scenarios…the probability that the Portuguese Police and media would have kept if quiet had the requests either been acted on (4 & 5), or rejected by the Home Office seems pretty slight. And given that things like seizures require Police action, and a Court Order, which can’t be granted “in camera”, makes the latter pretty unlikely.
“3″ also seems unlikely - the Home Office states three weeks is the maximum time it would take to respond to a legitimate request, and they would normally be actioned immediately. Plus, again, I can’t imagine the Portuguese Police wouldn’t be briefing like fury to their pet outlets, on the basis of performance to date.
“1″ also would be very, very high risk for the Prosecutor, if the story subesquently broke in portugal.
So, what seems consistent with observed fact….
“2″ looks pretty good. EuroJust has an obligation to ensure that any request it gets through complies with the international standards - and that requires a degree of evidence to support “reasonable cause”, and the demonstration of how the proposed questioning relates to the “nexus” of the case. They’re specific that generalities like “progressing the investigation” are insufficient grounds.
It’s also questionable that EuroJust would see itself as having jurisdiction here - it has the same jursidcition, in terms of type of crime as Europol, which is about terrorism, drug trafficing, people trafficing etc.
It would also be consistent with the quietness from the Portuguese. The embarrasment factor of EuroJust having kicked out their paperwork would be rather high, to say the least. Of course, when it did finally emerge, it would be very hard for them to continue to claim they has a case against the McCanns….
Speculation, of course, but speculation that’s consistent with what little’s in the public domain.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
99 correction…
You insist that *no* opinion…
should be
You insist that *any* opinion…
January 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
80 Sledgehammer
Political interference, nothing to do with strength or otherwise of evidence.
We all know your view that evidence only exists when you choose to accept it and that you believe that we should accept only the boundaries of law and morality and only their accept the overlap which you define.
Perhaps it would be a cleaner debate if you understood when posters here were discussing morality and legality and when the jurisprudence was Portuguese, English, Scottish, European or United Nations?
That way no one could accuse you of either seeking to introduce confusion and break up linear debate, avoid presenting your own debating framework or simply being a 2 dimensional and plagiaristic idiot?
January 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Wow, the British Gov shutting down web sites, and I thought the U.K. was a free country. So much for free speech. And also the Gov is keeping an eye on journalists and blogs and behavior of certain participants.
From the article:
The accusation comes from a Home Office source who has stated that the outgoing director had called upon his former service to keep a watch not only on several journalists but also on the behaviour of participants in a list of forums and blogs considered to be “highly detrimental to the image of the McCanns and that of the British government”.
The mccs are doing a perfectly fine job on being personally detrimental.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
94
can’t say no Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
*************
Gimme time…must translate as well
January 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
96
Châtelaine
On the subject of government control over Forums?
Autre chose. Le RU, est -il ou non un pays démocratique ?
January 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Sledgehammer…
“Trismegistus, perhaps you can show me when and where I ever stated that [the statements of the McCanns should not be questioned]”
You refer to anyone who questions the statements of the McCanns as “the barmy brigade.” You insist that no opinion which is not in agreement with the statements of the McCanns must be supported by “evidence”, yet you do not apply that same standard to opinions which are in agreement with the statements of the McCanns. You use weasel words and semantics in order to disrupt and prevent genuine exchange of ideas. You constantly engage in ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You are applying one standard to arguments that support your point of view, and another to those who express an opinion in opposition to yours.
If you are doing these things deliberately, then shame on you.
If you are doing them because you don’t know any better, then I hope that you will learn from your experience here and will become a better debater and more able to present your point of view in a manner that will persuade others.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
90
Sledgehammer Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Answer to honest for you jo.
*********
This is a “non answer”.
Only dishonesty scares me…so go on,please
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
47
Sledgehammer Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Carmen, whatever are you ranting about, disrupt discussion because I refuse to condemn people without evidence, thats a novel way to cut the cake, my view that the McCanns are responsible for neglect is well documented. If you think that asking the anti’s to offer up evidence is disruptive, and that I will let your pet posters insult me with impunity you can think again, I have kept well within AGW’s guidelines and if you think I have not , say so.
=================================
But you don’t refuse to condemn people without evidence, do you?
I have never seen you write a post based on evidence, construct an argument or discuss anything raised by another poster.
All you do is announce that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest way is an idiot.
That looks very much like condemning people without evidence.
In short your pontifications here on the blog has all of the righteous fervour of ‘J’accuse’ without any of the substance of that great work.
And whenever I read you I am reminded of what Martin Bell so accurately defined as the stupidification of the news…
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Can’t Say No:
Which part of the Lena2 comment do you mean? On the subject “everybody knows where she is, but nobody can find her”? On the subject of government control over Forums?
January 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
It’s puzzling to understand why, if the McCs expect us to believe in a straightforward abduction in which they claim to have had no involvement (beyond serious child neglect), they would engage in so much which arouses suspicion.
Why would they need Clarrie?
Why would they be allocated Clarrie?
Why would they have swiftly in place so many marketing ploys?
Why, after accumulating a huge amount of money, would they employ a detective agency
with no experience of finding missing children,
and continue to employ them after their ludicrous, failed ’sightings’? (thus giving the
impression of money laundering) IMHO.
Why do they constantly create so many inconsistences in their accounts of events?
Why don’t they present a much more convincing picture of grieving parents who are
remotely serious about finding their daughter?
Why didn’t they respond to the questions asked by the Portuguese police?
All their actions and non co-operation appear incriminating, IMHO.
WHY does Government seem so eager to support the McCs, to the extent of applying pressure
on the authorities in Portugal, effecting a suppression of independent media coverage
and allowing one of the biggest frauds to continue?
WHY aren’t the auditors and solicitors presently and transparently accountable to the
public for the dispersal of the money accumulated, supposedly to find Madeleine?
WHY do they think they can get away with it?
WHY do the powers behind the scenes want them to succeed, and
WHY are they being so ably assisted to continue with this charade?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
92
jo
Have you cliked to read the coments ?
You know i can’t put the link here
January 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
80
Sledgehammer
Like the team mcclier ,you really know how to twist the truth
January 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
88
can’t say no Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
******************
Cant find it
January 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
84
sabrina
January 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Answer to honest for you jo.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
86
jo
I don’t give much credit to Daniel Krugel
January 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
86
jo
Yep
But did you read the comment made by ” lena2 “ ?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:51 am
84
sabrina Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:47 am
*****************
January 27th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Can”t say no
SOS Madeleine
There is a report about Mari Luz and witnesses of her abduction who didnt make a great deal(unfortunalety about it when it was happening,thinking it was her parents putting her in the car.Mari Luz was crying and screaming….poor little mite.The spanish cops are actively loking for the white Renault scenic which did NOT go to the motorway but instead headed towards a neighbouring area….
Very interesting what was said yesterday
Daniel Krugel has said today 26/01/08 where Madeleine”s body can be found….900 meters away from the mcfools”s flat……
January 27th, 2008 at 10:48 am
jo
I think you know French ,when you have time please read the “SOS Madeleine McCann”site.
Also pay atention to the com. made by ” lena2 “