Was Lord Bell really paid £500,000 to keep the Maddie story front page news?

[Brietta]

Does that mean he lied about the half a million?

His conviction wasn't for perjury ... it was for something entirely different and I am sure his lawyers would have put up a spirited defence in court at the time.

However ... I have seen the quotation attributed to the man himself by others, complete with quotation marks ... but nowhere have I seen him saying it direct to camera, so to speak.  Have you?

[Carana]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0;nowap

He is actually quoted by the author a guardian journalist
Its also a thread you read and posted on
Have you any evidence owen jones lied?
What evidence do you demand? Sight of bank statements?

It doesn't bother me if they did indeed pay that amount to Bell Pottinger.

And, no, I'm not suggesting the author lied.

Lord Bell may well have said it. I'm not suggesting that he was lying, either, but he could have been confused.

Bell Pottinger was indeed involved in the beginning, but paid for by Mark Warner.
 


14.34 Martin Evans tweets:

Twitter McCanns took media advice from Bell Pottinger and PR man Clarence Mitchell which they found invaluable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8911828/Leveson-Inquiry-as-it-happened-November-23.html

Back in September 2007, Hanover was brought in for a couple of months to handle the media crisis.
http://www.prweek.com/article/768338/hanover-calls-time-mccanns

Stories about Madeleine increased media revenue, and the tabloids were tripping over themselves trying to get their own "Maddie" blurb written by the deadline, so I don't see why they would have needed to pay to keep her in the news.


I'm not sure of the source for the moment, but Gerry was apparently advised that it would be better if the media actually cut back on its coverage until there was something newsworthy.

I've found this, though:

The McCanns open by saying that it has not been helpful for information about Madeleine to be in the public eye constantly, as it has led to "misinformation" and "confusion".

Kate McCann says there was one stage when their daughter was on the front page of every national newspaper every day. Gerry adds:

Quote We have acknowledged that the media have been very helpful on occasions, particularly when we have launched appeals.


And the McCanns later famously sued the Express papers in March 2008, which eventually calmed down the lurid half-truths in the tabloids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7303801.stm

So... I'm still left scratching my head as to which year he may have been talking about.


NB: Lord Bell says some strange things sometimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/15/bbc-adrian-chiles-germanwings-joke-lord-bell

[Brietta]

It doesn't bother me if they did indeed pay that amount to Bell Pottinger.

And, no, I'm not suggesting the author lied.

Lord Bell may well have said it. I'm not suggesting that he was lying, either, but he could have been confused.

Bell Pottinger was indeed involved in the beginning, but paid for by Mark Warner.
 


14.34 Martin Evans tweets:

Twitter McCanns took media advice from Bell Pottinger and PR man Clarence Mitchell which they found invaluable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8911828/Leveson-Inquiry-as-it-happened-November-23.html

Back in September 2007, Hanover was brought in for a couple of months to handle the media crisis.
http://www.prweek.com/article/768338/hanover-calls-time-mccanns

Stories about Madeleine increased media revenue, and the tabloids were tripping over themselves trying to get their own "Maddie" blurb written by the deadline, so I don't see why they would have needed to pay to keep her in the news.


I'm not sure of the source for the moment, but Gerry was apparently advised that it would be better if the media actually cut back on its coverage until there was something newsworthy.

I've found this, though:

The McCanns open by saying that it has not been helpful for information about Madeleine to be in the public eye constantly, as it has led to "misinformation" and "confusion".

Kate McCann says there was one stage when their daughter was on the front page of every national newspaper every day. Gerry adds:

Quote We have acknowledged that the media have been very helpful on occasions, particularly when we have launched appeals.


And the McCanns later famously sued the Express papers in March 2008, which eventually calmed down the lurid half-truths in the tabloids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7303801.stm

So... I'm still left scratching my head as to which year he may have been talking about.


NB: Lord Bell says some strange things sometimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/15/bbc-adrian-chiles-germanwings-joke-lord-bell

I find the issue incomprehensible.

• why on earth would it have been necessary to pay Bell- Pottinger to keep Madeleine front page news?
• whether true or not ... what on earth is the objection to the McCanns taking action to find their missing daughter?

[Robittybob1]

I find the issue incomprehensible.

• why on earth would it have been necessary to pay Bell- Pottinger to keep Madeleine front page news?
• whether true or not ... what on earth is the objection to the McCanns taking action to find their missing daughter?

Sorry but I haven't followed your questions fully, but "why on earth would it have been necessary to pay Bell- Pottinger to keep Madeleine front page news?" is a little bit like exposing the conflict of interest.

It could be an advantage for Mark Warner to have the focus on the McCanns rather on itself so they pay the fee not the McCanns.  One would think whoever is paying the fee is getting the advantage.   If the publicity was damaging the search for Madeleine why would the McCanns keep paying for a service that is no longer wanted.
We tend to think it was Clarence Mitchell "controlling what comes out in the media" but maybe it was really Bell Pottinger just keeping the heat on the McCanns and keeping the Mark Warner company looking "most helpful".

It seems to be the thing I notice is the way the Ocean Club 'support' the McCanns with accommodation and creche services presumably on the house (without cost to the McCanns) for the next few months.

[mercury]

It isn't really a question of doubting Owen Jones' veracity, more about wondering if the title "Lord" in front of Tim Bell's name necessarily verifies his ...

Quote
On 19 November 1977 Bell was fined £50 for indecency. He had exposed himself while masturbating at his Hampstead bathroom window on 21 October in full view of female passers-by.
End quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Bell,_Baron_Bell

Elsewhere described as ... a conviction for ‘wilfuly, openly and obscenely’ exposing himself ‘with intent to insult a female’ under Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act.

Have the Mccanns denied giving him 500 k for this reason? Ive not come across any reference to them doing so. Have the Mccanns or anyone rlse criticised him or accused him of lying (internet posters with no proof do not count) .So why did you think it appropriate to take it upon yourself to answer the conundrumrum with a reference to MR Bells (if his title offends you because of his past acts) conviction....but thanks for enlightening us all about something probably most of us knew nothing about. Does it matter? Is it relevant to the truth in any particular case? If it is then some might argue david cameron sticking his willy into extremely questionable places (which surely is more disgusting) must surely suggest that he is a cinsummate liar, no?

 

Btw his comments were related to discussion of hacked off's campaign and not about the mccanns specifically....whenhesaid he doesnt care what they think (as they were prime
members andgerry mccann very vocal about it) because they proceeded to pay him half a million quid to keep their story in the news every day (ergo hypocritical one assumes).....it does belie that this actually happened

[mercury]

It doesn't bother me if they did indeed pay that amount to Bell Pottinger.

And, no, I'm not suggesting the author lied.

Lord Bell may well have said it. I'm not suggesting that he was lying, either, but he could have been confused.

Bell Pottinger was indeed involved in the beginning, but paid for by Mark Warner.
 


14.34 Martin Evans tweets:

Twitter McCanns took media advice from Bell Pottinger and PR man Clarence Mitchell which they found invaluable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8911828/Leveson-Inquiry-as-it-happened-November-23.html

Back in September 2007, Hanover was brought in for a couple of months to handle the media crisis.
http://www.prweek.com/article/768338/hanover-calls-time-mccanns

Stories about Madeleine increased media revenue, and the tabloids were tripping over themselves trying to get their own "Maddie" blurb written by the deadline, so I don't see why they would have needed to pay to keep her in the news.


I'm not sure of the source for the moment, but Gerry was apparently advised that it would be better if the media actually cut back on its coverage until there was something newsworthy.

I've found this, though:

The McCanns open by saying that it has not been helpful for information about Madeleine to be in the public eye constantly, as it has led to "misinformation" and "confusion".

Kate McCann says there was one stage when their daughter was on the front page of every national newspaper every day. Gerry adds:

Quote We have acknowledged that the media have been very helpful on occasions, particularly when we have launched appeals.


And the McCanns later famously sued the Express papers in March 2008, which eventually calmed down the lurid half-truths in the tabloids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7303801.stm

So... I'm still left scratching my head as to which year he may have been talking about.


NB: Lord Bell says some strange things sometimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/15/bbc-adrian-chiles-germanwings-joke-lord-bell

Why would he be confused? Does he have alzheimers?
And no, I dont care a jot either what the mccanns spent their donations on, if theyre honest about it

[Brietta]

Have the Mccanns denied giving him 500 k for this reason? Ive not come across any reference to them doing so. Have the Mccanns or anyone rlse criticised him or accused him of lying (internet posters with no proof do not count) .So why did you think it appropriate to take it upon yourself to answer the conundrumrum with a reference to MR Bells (if his title offends you because of his past acts) conviction....but thanks for enlightening us all about something probably most of us knew nothing about. Does it matter? Is it relevant to the truth in any particular case? If it is then some might argue david cameron sticking his willy into extremely questionable places (which surely is more disgusting) must surely suggest that he is a cinsummate liar, no?

 

Btw his comments were related to discussion of hacked off's campaign and not about the mccanns specifically....whenhesaid he doesnt care what they think (as they were prime
members andgerry mccann very vocal about it) because they proceeded to pay him half a million quid to keep their story in the news every day (ergo hypocritical one assumes).....it does belie that this actually happened

If it actually happened ... when did he say it and where is the cite for that?  I have looked and have seen others making the allegation, but not him.

[mercury]

If it actually happened ... when did he say it and where is the cite for that?  I have looked and have seen others making the allegation, but not him.

The fact that he is QUOTED should be evidence enough, whoever he said those conments to will be the source of the quote

Not sure what your problem is with either provenance or subject

If YOU think its a lie, go find the evidence, as I said, no one has ever denied Owens book 
Content

And have a think why you think it might be a lie ...ordinarily youd be praising the mccanns for paying for publicity to find their child, so Im a bit confused

[Brietta]

The fact that he is QUOTED should be evidence enough, whoever he said those conments to will be the source of the quote

Not sure what your problem is with either provenance or subject

If YOU think its a lie, go find the evidence, as I said, no one has ever denied Owens book 
Content

And have a think why you think it might be a lie ...ordinarily youd be praising the mccanns for paying for publicity to find their child, so Im a bit confused

In other words ... you are unable to point the way to a cite which shows unequivocally that McAlpine made the statement attributed to him.

[Robittybob1]

I have feeling it is real crucial to find out whether it was the McCanns or Mark Warner on behalf of the McCanns paying the fee.  It would seem not to be impossible to see the accounts showing the payment,date and the source, but I'm unsure how to go about it. But surely SY can look into it if in the last resort we can't work out how to do it.
I'm not saying he is lying but he may have made a Freudian slip attributing the payment from the wrong source.

[Robittybob1]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0;nowap

He is actually quoted by the author a guardian journalist
Its also a thread you read and posted on
Have you any evidence owen jones lied?
What evidence do you demand? Sight of bank statements?

I think this is the level of proof I would like: "bank statements"  showing the transfer dates amounts and origin (payor).

[mercury]

In other words ... you are unable to point the way to a cite which shows unequivocally that McAlpine made the statement attributed to him.

You would need to write to the author of the book to ask for proof NOT ME

And why are you talking of Mcalpine!! Wasnt he talked about vis a vis child abuse? Wtf

Brietta its LORD BELL under discussion and how mich money the mccanns paid him deary me

[Carana]

I have feeling it is real crucial to find out whether it was the McCanns or Mark Warner on behalf of the McCanns paying the fee. It would seem not to be impossible to see the accounts showing the payment,date and the source, but I'm unsure how to go about it. But surely SY can look into it if in the last resort we can't work out how to do it.
I'm not saying he is lying but he may have made a Freudian slip attributing the payment from the wrong source.

Why?

I don't see why it's of any importance whatsoever whether they did or they didn't.

My only point is that I doubt that it ever happened, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

[Robittybob1]

Why?

I don't see why it's of any importance whatsoever whether they did or they didn't.

My only point is that I doubt that it ever happened, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

Will we be able to see the motive of why someone determined at an early stage it was important to keep Madeleine on front pages of the newspapers for a year?  Was this to find Madeleine or was there ulterior reasons?

[mercury]

I think this is the level of proof I would like: "bank statements"  showing the transfer dates amounts and origin (payor).

In that case youd also have to ask for all the mccanns bank statements

Cant accuse people of lyng or being confused unless they prove they werent either of those

Likewise cant accept what the mccanns say about their financial affairs either just cos they said so, works both ways