There’s a story on page 5 of this week’s UK edition of PR Week which I find slightly odd, if not unsettling.
Under the headline M and Bell Yard outline Natwest Three strategy,[pay-walled… if only there was an alternative!] David Quainton reports that the PR agencies acting for the Natwest Three (also, Wikipedia entry here with all its limitations) have ‘revealed their strategy’ for trying to prevent the men from being extradited to the US on fraud charges.
It would be naive of me to think that PR/PA isn’t used to influence legal decisions… but to actually publically congratulate yourself on doing so?? According to the article, M senior consultant, Adrian Flook, said:
"Most people see that this [one-sided extrdition laws with the US] is wrong and it needs correcting."
Well, fair enough but a legal expert on Radio 4 said that even under the UK’s previous extradition system there was stacks of inciminating evidence which would have been enough to secure a removal.
The big question I want answered is: just who has paid for two big agencies to carry out PR for the ‘Natwest Three’? PR Week doesn’t give me the answer.
It was pro-bono.
How jolly decent!!
July 28th: This weeks top 5
There was a ton of excellent content in the blogosphere this week, so whittling my faves down to just five was a challenge. But I managed and here they are (in no particular order).
1. In New Millennium PR, Andrea Weckerle looks at the Coalition for C…
NatWest Three: burning question answered
I think we have the answer to my earlier question about the NatWest Three. In last weeks Top 5 I tipped Simon Collisters post about who paid for the NatWest Threes PR prior to their extradition.
Todays Telegraph covers the…