Agencies come clean over Natwest Three PR campaign - sort of

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.

Comments

[David]

It was pro-bono.

[Simon Collister]

How jolly decent!!