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
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- Nomadic View on Bolivian Police Release Video Of World’s Worst Photo-Fit Killers’ Capture
- June on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- Katie Norman on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- THENTHEREWERE4 on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
January 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
379 val
Perhaps they might be experiencing something nearly as bad as a child who has awoken in the night but knows that she must not go to her parents for comfort for fear of losing a ’star’?
A child who has woken in the night to find herself alone?
I do hope so, oh I do so hope so!
January 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#
379
val Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Don”t know what more evidence the PJ can produce at this late stage, we are becoming
more and more impatient so think how the McCanns must be feeling!!!!
*******************************
I would imagine the defence in this case will be formidable so I can understand if the authorities are determined to get the case to be presented as solid as possible. As I understand it they will be firming up on existing evidence whilst leaving open the possibility of new evidence. I think I read somewhere that the arguido status can be for as long as 20 years.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
380
Grande Finale
True.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
378
Amused Bystander
The problem is, I dont have much time and your posts are too LONNNNNGGGGGG and too OLD!
The debate moves on.
I listened again to the Womans Hour audio but unfortunately got sidetracked from the reason you had sent me back there! Also I didnt go back to check the points I’d been making and the sources for each section.
Hows about this for a deal, we start again - clean slate?
I ahgree entirely with you about getting those who agree to re-agree doesnt prove a lot! I have not found anyone who can actually hold up against a debate which refutes abduction.
So, if you are agreeable, would you like to start us off afresh on the debate, what is there which supports stranger abduction (briefly please!).
January 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
371
RedRooster Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I agree Ian but if someone thinks they have infomation of any significance do you think we should be made aware of it ???
******************************
I concur but…… if they have information which relies on taking the other side by surprise then it can’t be revealed on a public forum can it ? it would defeat the purpose.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
361 Increasingly incredulous
I may be wrong but I thought after 8 months as Aguidos there was a limited time for the
person to be charged, otherwise the case is dropped. The PJ apparently asked for a 3 month extension to the eight months so would eleven months be the time limit now? The Law in
Portugal was recently changed to streamline procedures, bu I understood the MCanns did
not qualify because they were made Aguidos before the new Law.
Don”t know what more evidence the PJ can produce at this late stage, we are becoming
more and more impatient so think how the McCanns must be feeling!!!!
January 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Ian 447 January 24
Ian, unless I missed something, I don’t think I have yet had a considered reply from you to my post 447 from Thursday (=Jan 24).
You did say you “could rebutt easily (my) argument”. So why not do so? Isn’t it true that an argument is only shown to be tenable when that person is able to logically and rationally refute the opposing argument? And isn’t it all too easy to build up a (false?…?) sense of confidence by sharing and reinforcing one’s views (prejudices?) with those who agree with one? Also, easy to resort to ad hominem arguments against those with whom you disagree? Does not the real and acid test come when you are prepared to logically and rationally engage and rebut those who hold strongly differing views from your own?
To remind you of my points:
Back in late October and early November, I felt I was getting to the very heart of the issue by challenging you and other Anorak posters with the question:
WHAT IS THE RATIONAL AND EVIDENTIAL BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT MADELEINE DIED BY ACCIDENT AT THE HANDS OF HER PARENTS (neglect or whatever), AND THAT THEY ARE NOW COVERING THIS UP?
Stig had presented well the “pro-McCann” case back in his post 700 of Sep 25 but at the time of writing I had seen NO-ONE from the “anti-McCann” camp do likewise.
Sadly, few posters took up my challenge. You however, to your credit, were one of those who did. You gave two slightly different answers in two different posts. I was addressing your second in post 1234 of Nov 2. In that answer, you gave three reasons for your position:
1. In the BBC Woman’s Hour interview, Kate used the word “we” and not “I” to describe the discovery of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Did her words inadvertently betray collusion by a group of people in a cover-up regarding Madeleine’s disappearance?
2. In the same interview, she used the word “taken” and not “gone”.
Might this indicate a third party collaborating with Kate and Gerry in the secreting away of Madeleine’s body?
3. On the night of the “abduction”, she phoned her mum asking to be put in touch with the local priest in Rothley.
Such behaviour, you felt, was strange from a mother whose child had supposedly been abducted mere minutes or hours ago.
I addressed each of these points, albeit VERY belatedly (see note about this at the end of this post *), in my Jan 24 post.
I went on to say that I thought the way you used “facts” and “logic” in this post mirrored an exchange we had had in the blog of Oct 31 (posts 879, 911, 955, cf. posts 471, 482).
I finished by expressing the view that the poster going by the name of “Thesaint” summed up well in his posts 577 and 561 of Oct 9 the malaise of those that allow such (mis-)use of “facts” and “logic”. You will need to read very carefully my argument to understand how and why I come to this conclusion.
I very much hope you will respond to my post. However I do have a problem: I must confess that constraints of time and other priorities have forced me to drastically reduce my time on the Anorak blog. So would it be possible for you to send your posts to my e-mail address?? Here it is:
keithDOTmillsATils-internationalDOTbe
(dot’s and at’s converted to text to avoid automatic spam search engines)
I am not at all suggesting that we should not post our exchanges on the Anorak blog. Rather, also sending those posts by e-mail just makes sure I won’t miss them!!
Another point: I feel the need to keep strictly to the issues raised in my post and not stray from or expand on them, also for the reasons of constraints of time. I hope you won’t mind this?
The URL links to all the threads I refer to in my post of Jan 24 are given there. However, here they are again:
1. Nov 2 blog:
wwwDOTanorakDOTcoDOTukSLASHmadeleine-mccannSLASH177323DOThtml?cp=all
2. Oct 31 blog:
wwwDOTanorakDOTcoDOTukSLASHcelebritySLASH177273DOThtml?cp=all
3. Oct 9 blog:
wwwDOTanorakDOTcoDOTukSLASHmadeleine-mccannSLASH176815DOThtml?cp=all
**ALSO added here (for Stig’s post):**
4. Sep 25 blog:
wwwDOTanorakDOTcoDOTukSLASHmadeleine-mccannSLASH 176547DOThtml?cp=all
And here is the link to my post of Jan 24:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/179785.html?cp=all (post 447, 1:32 pm)
Btw you will notice from my e-mail address that I live in Belgium. Please feel free, if you are ever over here, to pass by so we can make proper acquaintance. It would be a pleasure.
* Why so belated a reply? I gave my reasons in the post of Jan 24 (last sentence of block paragraph 2, and all of block paragraph 10). These were genuine, gut-felt reactions.
But I also remembered you had said that you thought “pro-McCanners” often did a “cut and run” when under pressure. So I felt that not to answer you would only confirm your prejudices—particularly since I had repeated on numerous occasions that I WAS going to reply to you!! Therefore I decided: “better late than never”
PS. 168 Marie Nicholas Sat Jan 26 12:24 pm
Good post!
——————
Mods and Admin
My word! imagine! the sauce of it ,a 3 day delay in replying.
How many months was your reply to Ian, and your parting shot that you might drop in to see?
January 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Val - Pleased you like it
January 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Stevo - did you see this?
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj15/just_meme5/rifcopy-5.jpg
January 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
358 Just_me
I”m very flattered, looks even better lol
January 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
371
RedRooster
Of course! Thats what this place is for isnt it! Theres enough people suppressing stuff in this world!
January 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
368 I find sledgehammer very annoying - but I suppose he or she does inspire many of us…after all, inspiration is often born of pain and suffering isnt it?
January 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Tony Bennett
Hope it went ok yesterday.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
370
Ian Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
——————————
I agree Ian but if someone thinks they have infomation of any significance do you think we should be made aware of it ???
January 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
367 Thank goodness for that! Theres anough side shows generated by the pro-McCanns!
I wish we could all be neutral!
January 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
360
Tony Bennett Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Love the lymeric Tony, if you have a minute would you have a look at my earlier post about the fund please.
311
Grande Finale Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
366
Ian Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
—————————-
obviously NOT a very good judge of character or the baffoon wouldnt be so defensive of the Mctwisted
January 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
365
Grande Finale Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
——————————-
in that case i shall refrain from further attacks on your good self as you say we are on the same side.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
335
RedRooster
He or she thinks they are a judge. Of course, many judges have lsot it, so he or she might be!
Only kidding, they do tend to be able to see in more than 2 dimensions - I think sledgehammer struggles a bit with one. To be fair though, he or she has mettle - imagine exposing ones shortcomings like he or she does, such a simple soul.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
358
RedRooster Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
i asked you a prefectly reasonable question,
*****************************
You did.
8888888888888888888888888888
you were too ignorant to answer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I gave an answer in 340………. and also stated that( I couldn’t say any more) in my original post.
XXXXXXXXXXX
so i responded accordingly. Whats you problem with that??
***********************
No problem at all and I also appreciate that we are essentially on the same side, I’m just entering into some of the banter as it is Sunday and a satirical site after all I didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers
January 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
360
Tony Bennett
Love it.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
361
Increasingly incredulous
But there isnt a criminal charge - just noticed red said the same thing.
Besides, the European Court of Human Rights has a 5 year waiting list I believe. Of course, in the McCanns case the politicians would put them in front of ordinary legal personalities - somewhere below a monarch.
—————
M and A
below?
January 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
361
Increasingly incredulous Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
============
but no one has been charged yet so surely that article wouldnt count ???
January 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“What is the time scale for police enquiries to be completed in? We are not even footing the bill, the Portuguese nation is.
Its blindly obvious the PJ are not finished yet, so shall things just be allowed to happen in the time it takes”
Well, there’ll be a limit sooner or later - and I’d be amazed if the ECHR in Strasbourg said it was over a year…
From The European Convention on Human Rights..
“ARTICLE 6
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…..”
And the Portuguese have previously conceded at the ECtHR that Arguido status is a “civil rights” issue - indeed, that’s why they brought in their new law about secrecy ending after eight months, that they’ve been wriggling round to avoid (incidentally, that itself is challengable under the convention, as the Judge sits without hearing a case from anyone but the prosecutor.)
So, come April expect a petition to Strasbourg.
————————
Mods and Admin
So when should the PJ stop looking for Madeliene McCann, and we expect the release any moment now of Robert Murat?
There are more people involved in this enquiry than the good doctors, granted they aren’t making such a song and dance of it, but in the rush to ‘clear’ the good doctors what about justice elsewhere?
January 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The McCanns said Maddie was abducted -
But then the PJ delved and detected;
They examined the scene,
Asked where they’d been
And concluded the girl was neglected.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Val - great idea - ive been using photoshop.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj15/just_meme5/rifcopy-5.jpg
the latest edition
January 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
356
Grande Finale Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
———–
i asked you a prefectly reasonable question, you were too ignorant to answer so i responded accordingly. Whats you problem with that??
January 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
349
RedRooster Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
given you plenty of time to respond…you’re obviously talking bollocks then ????
************************************
Isn’t there a warm pot on the oven or somethin? you should be sitting in ? Maybe ?
Or maybe your preference is a nice comfy spit to sit on ?
Get your little pecker out of here
January 27th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
350 Just_me
Looks Great, what you going to do with it?
January 27th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
341
Ade
Just remember, life begins at 40. (Unless you are in prison).