The Lib Dem MP and the Russian spy who loved him

AN MP’s researcher suspected of being a Russian spy had a string of “honeytrap” affairs with senior diplomats, a deportation hearing was told yesterday.

Pretty Ekaterina Zatuliveter, 26, is said to have bedded a Dutch official and a European Nato worker in addition to turning her charms on Lib Dem backbencher Mike Hancock, 65.

She allegedly targeted the married MP and began a four-year affair with him to gain sensitive information after they met at a conference in St Petersburg in 2006.

Home Office lawyer Jonathan Glasson said Mr Hancock was known to have had a number of extra-marital affairs.

He told Miss Zatuliveter: “You knew that Mr Hancock’s private life might make him potentially vulnerable.”

She replied: “I did not know of his private life until our relationship.”

But Mr Glasson accused her of singling him out as “an influential man in the world of British politics and a member of the Defence Select Committee”.

He added: “You are lying when you repeatedly deny that you have worked for the Russian intelligence services.

“You have been reporting from the heart of British democracy.

“You have ensured that the Russian intelligence services have eyes and ears in the House of Commons.” Miss Zatuliveter is also said to have had sex with a Dutch diplomat, who quickly became suspicious of her. She allegedly had a fling with a Nato worker after her affair with Mr Hancock ended last year.

But she denies spying on the MP or any of her high-flying lovers. She told the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in London: “I am innocent and I should not be deported simply because someone has made a mistake.”

Miss Zatuliveter said she volunteered to be a chaperone at international conferences because she found it “interesting” and could improve her English.

She claims that she at first refused the MP’s advances and turned down his alleged offer of a CD and cash. It was revealed that in Autumn 2009 she was interviewed by MI5 because she was a Russian citizen working in Parliament.

She was finally arrested in August 2010 at Gatwick Airport and grilled by two British spies, who played “good cop, bad cop”, the hearing was told.

Mr Hancock, in his second spell as an MP for Portsmouth South after first being elected in 1984, has been married to wife Jacqui, a councillor in Portsmouth, for 43 years. They have a son and a daughter.

He did not attend the hearing yesterday and is not due to give evidence.

In a statement, handed out at his constituency office in Southsea, Hants, Mr Hancock did not refer to the claims of an affair. But he confirmed: “Miss Zatuliveter was an intern for me in 2006 and started working for me full time in 2008.

“On both occasions she was vetted by Commons authorities and given a pass.”

He added that she had no access to classified information. He said that he had asked MI5 several times if he should end her employment but they “re-assured me that it was not necessary”.

The hearing continues.

DSK: what a spin doctor shouldn’t do!

Was Dominique Strauss Kahn, on his return to France to protest his innocence (right), but subtly and through his “people” (wrong). A spin doctor lesson… of what you shouldn’t do.

Telling It Like he Wants it Believed

Clearly imagining himself to be “The Great Communicator”(wrong), and bursting with the hubris particular to public figures who have committed a big “NO-NO,” DSK decided he alone would attempt damage control (wrong).

His televised mea culpa succeeded only in giving stand-up comedians more original material, and opposition politicians more ammunition (as if any more was needed).
Promoted as an “interview,” the great seducer’s humility rant was clearly a heavily scripted public relations spin. “Interrogated” with the ferocity of a purring cat by a pal of his wife’s — Claire Chazal, the major “News Blonde” on France’s TF1 channel — DSK continued to amaze and astound.

Just The Facts

One of his major points being that whatever his “moral error(s),” both in New York and France, there was “no violence” involved. He “unscored” this assertion by referring repeatedly (12 times) to the New York prosecutor’s report.

This would have a chance of being halfway believable, were it not for the physical evidence. Bruised shoulder, torn clothing, vaginal redness, etc.

OK — He did admit to being a bad boy. Which he did also at the IMF — for which they didn’t fire him… and from which he still gets a six-figure pension for life. However, when the great (imagined) communicator maintained that the sex was consensual, I was immediately reminded of the wise words of H.L Mencken , the late and respected editor of the Baltimore Sun newspaper: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

While there may be some French people among the 13 million DSK-SPIN viewers who have just fallen off the back of a turnip truck, the majority can smell squirrel dookie when it’s in their face. They can tie their own shoelaces. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.

So — when a wealthy man in his 60′s tells them that he had consensual sex at 11am in the morning, in his $3000 a night hotel suite, with a hotel maid in her 30′s… and that no money was exchanged… how many of those French people are thinking of the cartoon character whose nose kept getting bigger? (hint: first three letters are: “PIN”, ends with “O.”)

Don’t Walk This Way

Sadly for DSK, the political result of his “Kahnfomercial”, is increased distance. Especially from those in his own party. While not uttering a negative word, politicians of every stripe are taking their marching orders from the three wise monkeys : “See no evil.” “Hear no evil.” “Speak No evil.”

So who’s the monkey here?

Rupert Murdoch is to use PR firm Edelman

Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corporation has called in PR and lobbying specialists Edelman to help the embattled company handle mounting public anger and political pressure over the phone-hacking scandal in the UK.

The PR company will report directly to Will Lewis, general manager of News Corp subsidiary News International, the publisher of Murdoch’s British newspapers.

The appointment of Edelman comes after 11 days of sustained coverage of the phone-hacking scandal, which has forced News International to close the News of the World and News Corp to abandon its BSkyB takeover.

Robert Phillips, chief executive of Edelman’s Europea, Middle East and African operations, said the company had been providing News International with “ad hoc” advice since 20 June – before the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone was made public – and was formerly appointed to provide “communications and public affairs support and counsel” to its management and standards group on Tuesday. This group is handling the internal inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.

The Edelman team will be run by Alex Bigg, its managing director for corporate affairs, and James Lundie, its managing director of public affairs. Lundie is the long-term partner of David Laws, the former chief secretary to the treasury.

Edelman will report to News International’s new management and standards committee, which consists of Lewis, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph who joined NI in 2010, Simon Greenberg, the director of corporate affairs who arrived in January, and general counsel Jeff Parker.

Edelman recently hired Ed Williams, the BBC director of communications, to head its UK operation. Williams is due to join Edelman on 31 October and it is understood he will not be involved in the company’s work for News Corp.

However, the BBC confirmed on Thursday that he will be leaving the corporation immediately.

Edelman last year hired the BBC’s former director of news, Richard Sambrook, to head up its “crisis and issues practice”. It is unclear whether he will be part of the firm’s News Corp team.

 

Edelman, the world’s largest PR firm, handles the reputations of brands including Starbucks, Pepsi and Burger King. The company, which has 51 offices around the world, was founded by Daniel J Edelman in 1952 and is currently led by his son Richard Edelman.

The public announcement of Edelman’s appointment comes after rumours suggested that Matthew Freud, founder of PR firm Freud Communications and husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth Murdoch, had been advising News Corp on the phone-hacking scandal.

On Thursday a spokeswoman for Freud Communications denied this. “Neither Matthew Freud or the agency was advising NI on this issue, nor had Freud advised on the closure of the News of the World.”

UK: is it the end of Murdoch’s media empire?

Rupert Murdoch is under intense pressure in the UK where Members of Britain’s Parliament plan to come together Wednesday across party lines to urge him to drop his bid to acquire British Sky Broadcasting, saying the purchase would not be in the national interest as investigations into phone hacking by the media baron’s papers continues.

The three major parties in the House of Commons have all voiced support for a motion calling on Murdoch to back away from his bid for the company, often called BSkyB. The motion was put forward by the Labour party and has gotten the backing of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, BBC News reported Wednesday.

Though the measure is nonbinding, it adds another hurdle to the path toward approval of Murdoch’s attempt to buy up 61 percent of the company’s stock for $19 billion. The bid has been delayed for several months by the Competition Commission, which reviews potential mergers for monopoly concerns, and comes as other key British players have asked Murdoch to give up his efforts to buy BSkyB.

Murdoch and his son James have were asked Tuesday to testify before a Parliament committee, as was Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News International, the branch of News Corporation that oversees its British newspapers, including the now-defunct News of the World. The company said that senior executives “will cooperate” with the request for the appearance, set for July 19, although it remains unclear whether the Murdochs will appear in person.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s office announced Tuesday that it would support the resolution. That came after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on Monday asked Murdoch to “do the decent and sensible thing and reconsider: think again about your bid for BSkyB.”

On Tuesday night, three leaders of the Liberal Democrats wrote to Murdoch asking him to drop his bid. “News International is simply no longer respected in this country,” they said. His company is tainted “by a history of completely unacceptable journalistic practices,” they continued, and instead of trying to expand his empire, he should focus on cleaning it up.

Oil spill in Montana: Exxon learnt from BP PR mistakes

The Exxon Mobil oil spill in Montana’s Yellowstone River is minor in comparison to the BP Macondo spill as far as environmental disasters go but there are still some lessons for investors that apply regardless of the number of barrels of oil spilled.

In fact, the number of barrels of oil spilled is a good place for investors to begin in terms of assessing the risk for Exxon Mobil.

Exxon Mobil estimates that the total amount of oil released is between 750 barrels and 1,000 barrels.

In the early days of the BP oil spill, former BP CEO Tony Hayward estimated that 5,000 barrels of oil a day was being spilled, and uttered the line, “a guesstimate is a guesstimate, and 5,000 barrels is still the best guess.” The subsequent estimate for the flow rate from the BP spill was 3.2 million barrels, or roughly 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.

The lesson here is that investors should at least take heed that the earliest estimates of oil spills can be underestimated. Indeed, by Tuesday afternoon, Exxon Mobil said its original estimate of the oil spill may have underestimated its size, and the extent of its geographic spread, too.

In addition to its 750 to 1,000 barrel spill estimate, an Exxon Mobil spokesman originally said that the spill had been fairly well contained and that there is “very little soiling” of stream banks beyond 10-miles. On Tuesday afternoon, ExxonMobil conceded that the spill could have extended by the original 10-mile area.

The ruptured pipeline is submerged at the bottom of free-flowing river. Flooding of the Yellowstone river continues to be a fear for spreading the spilled oil over a greater range, as well as the high water level being cited as a potential cause of the pipeline rupture.

If the Exxon Mobil estimate does stand, this spill woulod be 3,000 times smaller than the BP spill.

Maybe of equal or greater relevance is headline/political risk. As Raymond James noted on Tuesday, “From a PR standpoint, the Silvertip spill comes against the backdrop of elevated scrutiny of the industry’s environmental track record…Memories of Exxon’s Valdez disaster in Alaska (1989) may also come to the surface. While the cause of Exxon’s spill has not yet been established, we would not be surprised to see some heated political rhetoric, particularly from Montana’s state and local officials. The bottom line is that Exxon investors should brace themselves for a few days (perhaps weeks) of adverse headlines.”

Exxon Mobil has existing public relations issues in Montana. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the larger Yellowstone Pipeline (of which Silvertip is a component, and co-operated by ConocoPhillips) has leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons of petroleum into the state’s rivers and lands over a 55-year history (the Silvertip pipeline is 22 years old). In particular, the NRDC estimates that, by the mid-1990s, the pipeline had spilled at least 71 times on the 1.2 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation. In one high-profile case, after a163,000 gallons leak into a reservation creek, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes opted to not renew a lease to run the pipeline through tribal land.

After the spill on Saturday, press reports noted that the U.S. Department of Transportation notified Exxon Mobil in July 2010 of seven potential safety violations and other problems with Silvertip. Exxon Mobil said the notifications were unrelated to the spill events and effectively dealt with by the company.

How shocking: Nick Clegg’s £250k spin doctor bill!

Huge scandal in the UK. Punchbag Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is spending £250,000 on a team of spin doctors to fix his image. How can he get out of this mess?

The Deputy PM is hiring five press and PR aides as he tries to win back public trust after his string of broken election promises.

The civil service team comes on top of five Liberal Democrat special advisers he brought in to Government to fight his corner.

Another six people are being hired to work for a new Government communications unit, despite the Coalition’s promise to end spin.

Adverts on the Civil Service’s internal website admit Clegg is in trouble, saying his team is “constantly learning to improve”.

Former Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson said yesterday: “His career is on life support so it’s no wonder he’s hiring spin doctors.

“But it is not going to fool anyone – advisers can’t undo the damage he has done.”

Craig Oliver blasts Cameron’s coalition

Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s spin doctor has torn the coalition apart by blundering into the war over voting reform.

Craig Oliver flouted a pact under which Government advisers promised not to get involved in the fierce mud-slinging between the Tories and Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems over the alternative vote referendum.

He tried to use his influence as a former BBC editor when he called the corporation to moan about its reporting of the issue, insiders there have revealed.

Mr Oliver, Downing Street’s director of communications, may have also broken strict rules on what politically-appointed special advisers can do, it emerged.

They are only supposed to work on Government policy – which does not include the AV referendum because the coalition is divided. One senior Lib Dem source said yesterday it sounded like “a clear breach of the rules”.

A spokesman for Mr Oliver admitted he had spoken to the BBC about the referendum but denied that the rules had been broken.

He added: “Part of the director of communications’s role is to ensure the Prime Minister’s opposition is properly understood.

“In doing so he operates within the special advisers’ code.”

BBC insiders, meanwhile, say Mr Oliver has been bombarding the Beeb with complaints since he moved to Number 10.

One said: “He spends more time speaking to former colleagues than he did when he worked here.”

Another added: “Craig knows who to call, who is editing at the weekends. He has all their extension numbers.”

Most Lib Dems back AV but the Tories oppose it and the coalition faces lasting damage after both sides accused the other of lying.

Mr Oliver’s actions came to light after coalition in-fighting got worse than ever yesterday.

Mr Cameron claimed hugely expensive vote-counting machines would be needed for AV, where voters can rank candidates in order of preference instead of just picking one.

But Deputy PM Mr Clegg accused opponents of AV of peddling “bilge” and Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne insisted the claim was a Tory lie.

The AV poll was demanded by Mr Clegg as the price of putting the Tories in power.

But polls show the “No” campaign heading for a convincing win.

Putin kicks Medvedev’s spin doctor out

The Kremlin has dropped prominent adviser Gleb Pavlovsky over his publicly stated preference for Dmitry Medvedev in next year’s presidential vote, highlighting sensitivities over apparent rivalry with Vladimir Putin, Vedomosti reported Wednesday.

Pavlovsky had “openly bet on Dmitry Medvedev, offering to discuss his modernization agenda within the election campaign,” an unidentified Kremlin official told the daily.

Pavlovsky runs the Foundation for Effective Politics, a think tank that advised the Kremlin in an unofficial capacity. Kremlin officials told the paper it would no longer be working with Pavlovsky’s foundation, effectively severing ties with him.

In the lead-up to State Duma elections in December and next year’s presidential vote, political figures have not shown preference for any one member of the ruling duo but expressed growing nervousness over the uncertainty.

Pavlovsky threw his weight behind President Medvedev over the past year in interviews with several media outlets. He first broke a taboo two years ago when he speculated about a possible coup against Prime Minister Putin from within.

A Kremlin official on Wednesday denied a political motive behind Pavlovsky’s departure, telling Interfax that he had played a minor role in drafting Kremlin policies and resigned voluntarily.

“He did not provide any special political consulting lately,” the unidentified official said. “His responsibilities were mainly limited to reviewing regional media, which, in the age of the Internet … is hardly a unique service.

“He was kept in the job mainly because of his past achievements,” the official added.

But Pavlovsky insisted that he was removed from the Kremlin for his vocal support of a second term for Medvedev. The tandem’s refusal to announce their candidate “has dragged on for too long and weakens the whole party of power,” Pavlovsky told Rusnovosti.ru.

“Putin has done all he could, and now he has to help Medvedev with his future presidency,” Pavlovsky said.

Neither Putin nor Medvedev has commented on the issue.

But Putin said Tuesday during a trip to Denmark that the tandem would not take Western advice into account when deciding on the candidate.

“Future candidates for president of the Russian Federation do not need support from abroad,” Putin said when asked by a reporter about calls by some in the West for him to stay out of the election.

“Future candidates for president of Russia need the support of the Russian people,” he said, without elaborating.

In a poll released this week, 39 percent of Russians believe that Putin will become president in the 2012 poll, while 28 percent are predicting a victory for Medvedev, Vedomosti reported, citing the independent Levada Center.

Twitter storms into Welsh politics

The Welsh party  Plaid Cymru discovered this weekend the power of Twitter. Theparty wasn’t quick enough to snaffle the Twitter handle @plaidcymru.

Plaid opted for the name @plaid_cymru. And while the “unofficial” tweeter appeared to be a Plaid supporter at the conference, the tweets were not, er, entirely helpful in terms of image.

“Still a bit quiet here – but sure more people are on the way – it’s still early! #plaidconf,” came the first tweet, at the start of the day, indicating a perhaps disappointing turnout at the Wales Millennium Centre.

“We should aim to put @IeuanWynJones in the top job and that means have a Plaid/Tory/LD coalition,” it said later. This is not, as it transpires, official party policy going into the election.

“Ieuan is here – Small but very vocal crowd to meet him at Millennium Centre!,” came a later tweet.

But what caused most trouble was the tweet: “After Japan, #plaidconf will be able to reaffirm opposition to ALL nuclear power. #plaidcymru can settle the debate once and for all.”

This, of course, is not Plaid policy, what with Ieuan Wyn Jones’ constituency being Anglesey and nuclear being quite popular there in terms of employment. Obviously not true, then?

Er… not if you’re Shadow Economic Development Minister Darren Millar, who took it at its word and instantly issued a press release attacking Mr Jones for “actively campaigning for what would be a massive blow to his Anglesey constituents and have a negative impact on the economy of North Wales”.

“I am appalled that Plaid would seek to use the disaster in Japan for political advantage… To imply that Wylfa could pose a similar risk to people in North Wales is a disgrace.”

Whoops! Still, Mr Millar was not the only one taken in. Welsh-language current affairs website Golwg360 also believed it, running the story until a furious Plaid press officer rang to inform them it was all a hoax.

But who’s behind it? All fingers are pointing towards a certain member of Labour staff at Westminster known for his online shenanigans…

JOINED-UP Plaid Cymru thinking.

March 24, 2011: Leader Ieuan Wyn Jones contrasts the message which Plaid is campaigning on in the Assembly Election with that of Labour, whose Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has said the election should be used to “send a message to David Cameron”.

Mr Jones says: “If you frame it in that way you accept there’s nothing else you can do. Labour are hardly going to make the Conservatives and Lib Dems reduce the cuts. It’s about, what do you do in the next few years? You’ve got to look at innovative ways. Just standing up for Wales isn’t enough.”

March 25, 2011: Director of Policy Nerys Evans sums up the campaign. “I hope the people of Wales send a clear message to the Tories and Lib Dems in this election.”

PLAID has sought to make education the key plank of its Assembly Election platform.

Indeed, Ieuan Wyn Jones pledged to put “raising standards in education at the heart of the party’s manifesto for the 2011 Welsh General Election”.

Before adding the baffling: “We will aim to have illiteracy rates by the end of the next Assembly term.”

Things are so bad, it is even affecting the people who write the Deputy First Minister’s speeches.

How Internet can ruin your life… or launch a revolution

It did not require theoreticians to answer the questions whether access to information can lead to a revolution or is a revelation. At the India Today Conclave 2011 session, Wael Ghonim, the Internet activist who rallied the tens of thousands that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, had one emphatic answer: information is a revolution.

And he said this with the assertion born in the actual cauldron of revolution in Egypt. Corroborating this view, with caveats, were the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners Lee, and technologist-hacker Joshua Klein. Over video from Cairo, Ghonim recalled how technology not only provided a platform for millions of Egyptians at a time when they wanted their voice heard, but also catalysed a social unity that eventually ended a three-decade-old regime under which people lost their rights and dignity.

“Even before Tahrir Square, we all wanted change, but we disagreed on how to go about achieving this. Facebook gave us a platform on which we began with one simple idea of marching together silently in black for one hour.” In the event, miles-long queues formed and the revolution was well underway.

“But we also used Facebook to democratize the movement,” added Ghonim. “We shared ideas, discussed programmes and voted on how and when to do things.” Ghonim, who headed Google’s marketing in Egypt, felt that the single most important lesson from the events at Tahrir Square was that technology ensures that voices are heard.

It allows communication between masses and between individuals. “There is no mainstream media,” he said, “the media is the people.” Asked by Sir Tim how the Egyptians were using the tools offered by technology to strengthen their new-found democracy, Ghonim first thanked Sir Tim for inventing the WWW that facilitated the revolution.

He then pointed out that the new leaders in Egypt, namely the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Army Supreme Council all had Facebook pages. He remarked cheekily that the regime itself had announced the ouster of several ministers of the time on Facebook. “The government is now communicating online with the people.

The common man is in a position to give feedback to the government, while 1.5 million people have submitted ideas on development and economic initiatives post the revolution,” he said to applause. He added that the Internet was a tool that facilitated the collection of ideas and increased political awareness. While appreciating how the Internet was a tool of empowerment, Sir Tim talked about two issues that were crucial to the future of digital information.

He said that while online data and access to it would bring about transparency and could curb government corruption, he also said that it was important to progress towards the idea of the Internet as a neutral media that was not controlled by large corporates or governments or an international court. The Net allowed the user to be anonymous and this was important for a society. “Whistle-blower rights are important for democratic functions,” said.

However, the same right to anonymity could also be abused and used for spying, to control and for commercials gains. Sir Tim felt it was increasingly the need of the people across the world to consider access to the Internet a right as much as any other civil right. “Already, Finland has accepted the right to the Internet as a human right, as has Estonia,” he said.

But he also stressed that the debate of how much and who should control the Net must continue since he had no definite answer to those questions at the moment. Joshua Klein, with a reputation for being able to break down anything and redesign it, spoke about how the digital information came coded with democracy.

The Net allows a two-way communication, but when this flow was impeded by governments or companies, hackers stepped in to destroy such walls, he said. While also warning that anonymity on the Net can be anarchic, he said that “despite these frightening trends, there is a huge opportunity of governments and leaders to leverage technology for the good of the people”.

He pointed out how data made available over the Internet can become the bricks for public service edifices, as happened in New York’s subway system. The company that runs the city rail had no resources to create a system of alerting users to train timings or the expertise.

But once it opened up its data online, several applications were created using this information. Klein was emphatic that spying on the Net and audience intelligence gathering was worrying, but he chose to turn the argument on its head. “They can profile users, but they themselves can also be profiled,” he said. Profiling , therefore, can also be used positively. The Internet compiles information and shares this indiscriminately, said Klein.

And its reach can be used to take specific services to data groups that required them. Also referring to the issue of invasion of privacy, Sir Tim said, “I am okay with my agent spying on my needs and acts, but when someone else, a third party, accesses that information, I am definitely not okay with that.”

Asked how technology can be leveraged to resolve social challenges, Sir Tim said that choosing what to do with technology was a crucial decision. Different places need different answers to how to employ technology for development, he said, citing the example of farmers in Sahel who used information technology to learn how to green their desert fields instead of being herded as a group in a truck to an urban location for training in farming.

Sir Tim brought the debate on whether the Internet should be controlled and by whom to a conclusion by saying that decentralization was the best way forward. Control can be advantageous or a bane depending on the impetus for it, he pointed out. Don’t forget, control can often lead to the nabbing of the “bad boys”, he said.

But eventually a system of checks and balances in a decentralized set-up was what would help the information revolution bring about positive changes in the world, he said.