Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

10 comments from readers

Cybertiger
05 December 2007 at 12:08

It seems that Bailey is a prominent Catholic. I have long been of the belief that the Catholics, Zionists and Americans represent a thoroughly fateful triangle.

dsquared
05 December 2007 at 13:31

What on earth do you mean? By the way, "Zionists" is a really bad use of language here - Martin thinks that the Abrahams/Heifetz story was a Jewish conspiracy theory, I think it looks more like an Israeli government conspiracy theory and the word "Zionist" is totally ambiguous between the two.

Great, now we've got the Daily Telegraph on ill-sourced Jewish conspiracies, Martin on ill-sourced Muslim conspiracies and you on ill-sourced Catholic conspiracies. Let's chuck in the Hinduja brothers and we can have a full house.

jamesquinn
05 December 2007 at 14:21

Marftin, assume you might need to be a little careful in your comments since legal proceedings are being issued to the Mail on Sunday if I understand the Eligo International website which deal with many of the Mail's and your comments and unfounded attacks on Anthony Bailey. Below is the text on their site

Eligo International has made legal representation to the editor of the Mail on Sunday for the publication of a wholly inaccurate, misleading and defamatory news story printed on its front page on 2 December 2007 relating to Eligo International Chairman, Mr Anthony Bailey.

The inaccuracies are as follows:

1.Mr Bailey is not and has never been the PR representative of Mr Mahmoud Khayami. This was clearly stated to Mr Jonathan Oliver, Deputy Political Editor on Friday afternoon by Mr Bailey’s Private Secretary, Matthew Leng, and also by Mr Ahmed Sulieman, Company Solicitor in the discussions with Mr Oliver on Saturday.

2.Mr Bailey has not and does not act in any capacity for President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or his regime. In 1994 Mr Bailey organised at the request of the UK Government during his time as an executive of PR firm Burson-Marsteller, a UK Government Trade Forum held at the Zimbabwe High Commission. This event was held under the auspices of the then Conservative Government and presided over by the then President of Board of Trade, the Rt Hon Michael Heseltine, MP. This official event was also held as part of the 1994 State Visit of the Zimbabwean President to Britain at the personal invitation of Her Majesty the Queen.

3.Mr Bailey has not and does not act in any capacity for former President Alberto Fujimori of Peru. Similarly to above, Mr Bailey was involved in the co-ordination of an Official Visit to Peru in 1994 by a member of the British Royal Family. From 1993-1994 additional tourism and trade promotional work was undertaken whilst Mr Bailey was an executive of PR firm Burson-Marsteller for the Peruvian promotional agency, PromPeru.

4.Mr Bailey has not and does not act in any capacity for President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. Similarly to above, Mr Bailey who is a well known and respected interfaith campaigner for greater harmony and peace in the troubled region, professionally assisted in the 2003 UK DTI and British Embassy sponsored Women in Business International conference held in Damascus. In addition an inter-religious conference held in the presence of Mr Al-Assad for Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders was organised by Mr Bailey on behalf of the Constantinian Order.

Also I see on their site the following statement the following which is clearly a rarity among PR companies:

Unlike all other PR companies, Eligo International prides itself on being publicly transparent in providing the dates and the level of involvement with all its clients, as well as partners, which Eligo International have been engaged with on behalf of those clients. Also included in these lists are activities which current Eligo executives have undertaken prior to the establishment of Eligo International in 1997.

Within their lists there is no mention of Nadhmi Auchi whatsoever. So what are your facts in this case Martin?

dsquared
05 December 2007 at 14:57

I agree that Martin's blog post is much too thin on evidence and much too thick on assertion, but Eligo does say on its website that

"Client or client partners have included in recent years official authorities of PERU, BULGARIA, SAUDI ARABIA, LEBANON, BRAZIL, ***SYRIA***, YEMEN, CZECH REPUBLIC, BAHRAIN, PORTUGAL, VATICAN CITY STATE, MONGOLIA, SLOVENIA, EGYPT, PANAMA, COSTA RICA, ANDORRA, THE PHILIPPINES, THE GAMBIA, TUNISIA, CHILE, MALAWI, MAURTIANIA, PAKISTAN, GUYANA, RUSSIA, SWAZILAND, SRI LANKA, VENEZUELA and MOROCCO.", without mentioning that these relationships might only extend to the organising of a single conference, so to a very large extent it looks to me like they're the authors of their own misfortune.

Furthermore, while googling around, I discovered that someone called "James Quinn" was posting on the UK Indymedia board back in 2005 on the subject of a Sunday Times article about Anthony Bailey. In the interests of total openness here, do you have an interest to declare? I realise that's going to sound pretty confrontational, so I'll say that as far as I'm aware I have no particular axe to grind of my own (other than a general history of making similar criticisms of Martin Bright's blog posts), and I promise that I'll take you at your word.

jamesquinn
05 December 2007 at 15:08

No connection. I have an interest in faith matters particularly in the Middle East and know from from one of my friends their what important work Bailey has been up to especially in a country like Syria on faith matters. I get very uncomfortable about quotes like "several controversial figures" or that someone should or should not be involved with Labour. Either they should put up facts or refrain from such comment. What proof does Martin have that Bailey received money from either Auchi or Assad?

Cybertiger
05 December 2007 at 15:50

@dsquared

"Great, now we've got the Daily Telegraph on ill-sourced Jewish conspiracies, Martin on ill-sourced Muslim conspiracies and you on ill-sourced Catholic conspiracies."

I agree! I'm no fan of high octane religionists of any pursuasion.

jamesquinn
05 December 2007 at 18:10

The confusion I think is that some medias dont understand the difference from a client and a client partner who they are engaged with on behalf of their client. I think the website is clear enough and that Martin, much like some of the Tory press, have decided to add 2 and 2 together to make 16

Martin Bright
06 December 2007 at 23:32

jamesquinn -- Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I'll get our lawyers to look at the issues you raise tomorrow. I will, of course, remove any inaccuracies or correct ambiguities as necessary.

I found your tone a refreshing change for the usual hectoring.

It is, of course, possible that Mr Bailey was working for Nadhmi Auchi for free when he acted as his spokesman. I spoke to him at least once in this capacity when working for the Observer. I must say I do think Mr Bailey is a curious cove. But it is, of course, possible that he is a Labour man to his core and that his association with Auchi was a minor aberration.

jamesquinn
07 December 2007 at 13:25

I think your response and amendments are correct. Just I get a little tired of so much press speculation about individuals and whilst the Mail on Sunday is only used in our house for the bottom of the cat litter tray, I expect more from the New Stateman.

Also I see in your text you also state that Khayami is not able to vote in Britain. This is not true as even the Mail on Sunday admits that he can vote in Local and European elections but not general elections. I think you should also consider amending your text about this also!

Martin Bright
07 December 2007 at 15:33

I think you've made my point for me. But thanks