Re: Amal Clooney's work in supporting ex-Maldives president Nasheed

by Katiedot Fri 29 Jan 2016, 23:06

Bullshit, bullshit, great steaming piles of bullshit in those articles! But well done team Amal: you got your screaming headlines scaring the tourists away from a country that depends entirely on tourism. Barely a word about your client's predicament, but I guess he got what he wanted: economic meltdown in the country he can't run any more.

by party animal - not! Sat 30 Jan 2016, 00:32

Just a note of caution, guys.

Both of these articles were published almost six months ago and are not a result of the case Amal is working on.

In fact. according to one article the present government, who appear to disregard international laws when it suit them and are in theory signed up to the United Nations charter, were calling on the US to help!!

I find it very difficult to believe that the international community are going to such lengths as considering sanctions for nothing to be perfectly honest

by annemarie Sat 30 Jan 2016, 00:45

True Pan there has to be something to everything that Amal and Nasheed have said.

by LizzyNY Sat 30 Jan 2016, 02:33

If Nasheed is the hero of the Maldives that Amal claims he is, wouldn't he be aware of the effect this fear-mongering strategy could have on the Maldivian economy? Wouldn't he ask his legal team to tone it down? Or is he more concerned with his own situation?

I'm just wondering out loud. I have no answers. I just think it's sad that there are no real heroes anymore. They all seem to have feet of clay.

by carolhathaway Sat 30 Jan 2016, 09:14

LizzyNY wrote:If Nasheed is the hero of the Maldives that Amal claims he is, wouldn't he be aware of the effect this fear-mongering strategy could have on the Maldivian economy? Wouldn't he ask his legal team to tone it down? Or is he more concerned with his own situation?

I'm just wondering out loud. I have no answers. I just think it's sad that there are no real heroes anymore. They all seem to have feet of clay.

Lizzy,
are you sure that there ever were real heroes?
I don't know any. I made the experience that if you dig deep enough you will find skeletons in everybody's closet...
Sorry if this sounds sarcastic - but I don't think anybody can always act heroic - and there are always different views...

It's just that we now have more sources of information than ever before - but that doesn't mean that we are informed better...

by Katiedot Sat 30 Jan 2016, 12:47

LizzyNY wrote:If Nasheed is the hero of the Maldives that Amal claims he is, wouldn't he be aware of the effect this fear-mongering strategy could have on the Maldivian economy? Wouldn't he ask his legal team to tone it down? Or is he more concerned with his own situation?

Everyone has feet of clay, yep. Nasheed's feet are less clay-ier than the other Maldivian politicians if that's of any comfort.

Personally - and this really is just my opinion - he's perfectly happy for his country to be dragged through the mud. If tourists stop travelling to the Maldives, this will immediately cause dire financial consequences to the millionaires who own the resorts (and are also, usually, the ones running politicians or actually in politics themselves). It's a small coutry so a small number of people wear a number of hats: there's no reason why a person can't be in parliament as well as a full time businessman running several resorts and own a small airline too (anyone who knows Maldivian politics will be able to guess which politician I'm referring to here - in the last legal election he offered free flights on his airline to anyone who promised to vote for him; thousands of free flights later, the election results rolled in and he didn't get many votes, hahahaha!). Those millionaires are, in many ways, Nasheed's enemies (obviously not all are, but a surprising number of businessmen are/were against Nasheed).

I don't know if Nasheed is taking revenge against his enemies by ruining the tourism business, or if he's just so caught up in getting back into power again that he's not even noticing the damage his campaign can do. I like the man, so I like to think it's the latter, but I'm open to the idea it may be the former.

It may seem contrary for Nasheed to allow the trashing of the country's reputation to happen. Sadly, Maldivian politicians have form in this behaviour. You may have read a few years ago that the Maldives banned alcohol and closed all spas in the country in order to become more islamic. This is complete bullshit reporting by international journalists who couldn't be bothered to understand the situation. Alcohol wasn't banned and no spas were closed. What happened was that a politician, playing to the audience of conservative muslims for votes, put a motion through parliament to ban alcohol and spas. Had that motion been made law, the entire tourism industry of the Maldives would have collapsed overnight. The politician who requested the motion was also a businessman who owns a large number of resorts and whose entire wealth depended on tourism. It looked like he was shooting himself in the foot but of course he knew as well as anyone that the motion would never be ratified and made into law. It was just posturing. Unfortunately, it was mis-reported worldwide as an actual law and to this day most people think that at some point the Maldives did ban alcohol and spas.

I was working for a resort in the Maldives at the time and we consulted our lawyers to see if the alcohol and spa ban was legal and if so, did we have to close our spas and stop serving alcohol to our guests. The lawyers just shrugged their shoulders and said it didn't look legal to them. We continued business as normal.

by Donnamarie Sat 30 Jan 2016, 15:08

I can't speak personally to the accuracy of the articles I posted. Maybe they are hyped up bullshit. Maybe not so much. But Nasheed's legal team can't be responsible for what was written last summer.

I don't see why I should question the way Amal's team is handling Nasheed's legal case. His team has access to people, information and are studied in this case that we are clueless to. Nasheed's case has the support of the UN, other international leaders, the U.S. State Department and the ears of some Members of the U.S. Congress.

And the issue of terrorism is not the crux of their case. It's a part of it. If there is a terrorism presence in the Maldives, albeit a small one, I think it is incredibly important to acknowledge it. Especially if the current government is not willing to recognize it in a serious way. That "turning a blind eye" could have serious consequences down the road. Yes, it could hurt the Maldives economy by scaring some tourists away but it's irresponsible not to talk about it IMO.

It amazes me that Amal's legal judgement and expertise continues to be questioned. Not only on COH but from annoymous commenters on a variety of media sites. As far as I can tell none of these critics are lawyers themselves. And there has been no evidence that Amal has not handled her cases in the most professional and intelligent way. Before she even knew George Clooney. She's is an accomplished lawyer. Her resume bears that out. That's good enough for me.

by fava Sat 30 Jan 2016, 15:24

Donnamarie wrote:I don't see why I should question the way Amal's team is handling Nasheed's legal case. His team has access to people, information and are studied in this case that we are clueless to. Nasheed's case has the support of the UN, other international leaders, the U.S. State Department and the ears of some Members of the U.S. Congress.
......

It amazes me that Amal's legal judgement and expertise continues to be questioned. Not only on COH but from annoymous commenters on a variety of media sites. As far as I can tell none of these critics are lawyers themselves. And there has been no evidence that Amal has not handled her cases in the most professional and intelligent way. Before she even knew George Clooney. She's is an accomplished lawyer. Her resume bears that out. That's good enough for me.

I am a natural skeptic, so I question the way everyone does everything! There is very little if anything I take on faith and I know that even the people I most admire are less than perfect and are sometimes thoughtless and motivated to some extent by self-interest.

by party animal - not! Sat 30 Jan 2016, 15:35

Yes, a degree of cynicism is always good, but in this case the evidence must be there for so many high end politicians around the world to be taking this case so seriously..........

by LizzyNY Sat 30 Jan 2016, 17:02

Donnamarie wrote: 1) I don't see why I should question the way Amal's team is handling Nasheed's legal case. His team has access to people, information and are studied in this case that we are clueless to. Nasheed's case has the support of the UN, other international leaders, the U.S. State Department and the ears of some Members of the U.S. Congress.

2) And the issue of terrorism is not the crux of their case. It's a part of it.

3) It amazes me that Amal's legal judgement and expertise continues to be questioned. And there has been no evidence that Amal has not handled her cases in the most professional and intelligent way. Before she even knew George Clooney. She's is an accomplished lawyer. Her resume bears that out.

1) There are many reasons, IMO mostly political, why Nasheed is getting so much support. That he has that support does not mean that his legal team's strategy can't be questioned.

2) Insinuating that tourists are in danger in the Maldives and that somehow keeping Nasheed out of jail will resolve that problem is disingenuous. I doubt that the resolution of his case will have much effect on the situation.

3) I don't for a minute question Amal's legal judgment. She is obviously a professional with an extensive resume. What I question is the ability of all lawyers to put blinders on and think only of their client's position. The old adage is "There are three sides to every story his, hers, and the truth." If you're wearing blinders is the truth really served?

by fava Sat 30 Jan 2016, 18:08

Lizzy-- You are right about lawyers. I have worked with many of them (and I am married to one). Their job is to present the best case for their client. That is not always in the best interests of others--few or many. Sometimes the strategy is "scorched earth" and although your client may get what they want, there are others harmed.

I think they do not see them selves as "serving the truth." That is the job of the judiciary. Lawyers are serving their client. This becomes tricky when they are also courting public opinion--where truth is often the last thing folks care about. If people cared about the truth, or even morality, Trump would not have lasted this long in the presidential race!

by Alisonfan Sun 31 Jan 2016, 00:59

Still why Amal scaremonger italy? If not to win case only.

by Donnamarie Sun 31 Jan 2016, 01:12

party animal - not! wrote:Yes, a degree of cynicism is always good, but in this case the evidence must be there for so many high end politicians around the world to be taking this case so seriously..........

Yes. This case and the support it has received goes beyond just Nasheed and his lawyers. Lots of interested and concerned parties on the sidelines.

I am also married to a lawyer. Lawyers run the gamut in the tactics they use in the pursuit of justice. Some are more scrupulous than others. And from what I know at this point I don't think that Nasheed's lawyers are being disingenuous in presenting their case.
They want Nasheed released because he did not get a fair trial and charges brought against him were bogus brought by a corrupt government .... a corrupt government that is by the way apathetic to a terrorism presence in their country. That's pretty straightforward IMO.

Obviously others here completely disagree with my take on this and I guess we will just have to see how it plays out over the next few months.

by LizzyNY Sun 31 Jan 2016, 01:32

Donnamarie - You said it yourself. "...a corrupt government that is by the way apathetic to a terrorism presence in their country." "By the way" is the key phrase. The terrorism is a side issue, not really relevant to whether or not Nasheed has been treated fairly - and that's the issue his case is supposed to be about.

I do see how in reality all the different issues are interrelated (government corruption, Nasheed's treatment, terrorism, the Maldivian economy) but I don't see the relevance of most of it to his court case.

by annemarie Sun 31 Jan 2016, 01:43

I think bringing up the terrorists shows how the government is not going after the one's they should. They are putting
innocent people in jail , while the terrorists come and go as they please. I don't think this if fear mongering just a way of showing the facts.

I also think that those who can afford to go there will continue to go. Many wealthy people don't concern themselves
with other countries problems. I just saw where a royal princess and a few celebrities have been there recently. All while
Nasheed's case has been in the news.

by Hebe Sun 31 Jan 2016, 02:16

I agree with you Annemarie. I think that Nasheed may be genuinely concerned about the rise of IS in the Maldives and the present government appear to be allowing them to flourish rather than dealing with them. I personally don't believe that Amal and Nasheed are scaremongering. I think that if they were, Cherie Blair or one of her team would be complaining about it. She was quick to complain when Amal first spoke about sanctions.

by Katiedot Sun 31 Jan 2016, 09:57

Donnamarie wrote:Obviously others here completely disagree with my take on this

Not sure where you're getting that from. Certainly not from any of my posts. I've said very clearly several times and will say it again that I support Nasheed's case. There is no doubt that he was unfairly imprisoned in a joke trial and that this injustice needs to be corrected. What I do disagree with - strongly - is the way Amal is going about her case and the effects it will have on the Maldives as a country.

annemarie wrote:I think bringing up the terrorists shows how the government is not going after the one's they should. They are putting
innocent people in jail , while the terrorists come and go as they please. I don't think this if fear mongering just a way of showing the facts.

OK, then if that's the fact, why is it not mentioned that under Nasheed's rule, this would also have happened? Plenty of Maldivians were openly supporting Al Qaeda under his presidency without fear of punishment. The only reason they're supporting Daesh now is that Al Qaeda seems to be a spent force. I know it's difficult to argue what could/would have happened but I do believe that had Nasheed remained in power, he wouldn't have done anything differently from the current regime. That's because he was dependent on the votes of the relious parties to shore up his coalition and this is why he opened the doors to extremism in his country. The only difference between Al Qaeda and Daesh is that Daesh are excellent at recruiting and they're fighting actual, physical wars. Al Qaeda were the ruling terrorist force while Nasheed was in power so he didn't have to deal with the dangers that Daesh represent. I think it's disingenuous of him to pretend now that this is all the doing of the regime that (illegally IMO) replaced him 18 months ago. This was already happening under his watch.

Hebe wrote:I agree with you Annemarie. I think that Nasheed may be genuinely concerned about the rise of IS in the Maldives and the present government appear to be allowing them to flourish rather than dealing with them.

Everyone's entiteld to their own opinion, but please understand that the rise of religious extermism in the Maldives came under Nasheed's presidency. HE was the one who opened the door to support of Al Qaeda in the Maldives (which has now morphed to support for Daesh/IS). THe current government are only dealing (or not) with what he allowed to happen.

I find it ironic, because Nasheed was the one to try to change the country to an open, democratic one. This meant that he allowed the extreme religious parties to exist and then to flourish. Under the dictatorship before him, religion was very tightly controlled and extremism wasn't allowed. And I do mean controlled. Even what was being preached in the mosques had to be submitted for approval to the governement (imagine if every priest in your country had to get his sunday sermon approved by the government first); women were strongly encouraged not to wear veils or headscarves; and the president decided the date of the country's biggest religioius festival (imagine if the president of your country decided what date everyone was allowed to celebrate Easter).

One of the reasons Nasheed had so much support was because he allowed religion to be practiced freely. This, however, opened the doors to the likes of Daesh and other religious extremists. When I first came to the Maldives almost 15 years ago, women weren't wearing headscarves in the street. When I revisited in 2010, most of them are in full hijab with just a tiny slit for their eyes. A friend of mine who's not religious tells me she now gets hissed at and sworn at in the streets for going out without a headscarf. The Maldives used to be one of the most laid back and tolerant muslim coutries you could imagine, but not now. And that move to extremism happened under Nasheed's presidency.

The rise of Daesh supporters in the Maldives is a concern, as it is in every country. Acting a though it had nothing to do with him and wouldn't have hapened if he'd been allowed to serve his term is, IMO, extremely disingenuous.

It also has nothing to do with his false convinction for terrorism and doesn't belong in the debate. His lawyers have made it an issue becuase it gets them the publicity for his case they want. The more newspaper headlines screaming 'Terrorist attacks expected in the Maldives' we get, the more this damages the tourism industry of the country. It also damages Nasheed's enemies in the country who make their money from tourism. I'd like to think that this is an unintended consequence, but the realist in me says otherwise.

by party animal - not! Sun 31 Jan 2016, 10:25

Ever so complicated and I'll try to be brief, but a bit of background.

Daesh are Sunni Wahhabis (and many from the Republican Guard of Saddam Hussein). More extreme and going back to a 13th century prophet. The Sunnis (as broad group) were almost completely left out of the post Hussein government when the Allies (mostly) left and Shias dominated.

Al Queda are Sunnis and may be affiliated but oft times are not and battle it out with Daesh

But we're talking Sunni v Shia (another branch of Islam) here - Iran is mostly Shia, which by and large is less extreme........

So it's possible that the Maldives is a microchosm of all of this and that Nasheed is the world's best hope.........

by Katiedot Sun 31 Jan 2016, 11:06

party animal - not! wrote:Al Queda are Sunnis and may be affiliated but oft times are not and battle it out with Daesh

Yes, although Al Qaeda are largely seen as a spent force nowadays so many of their previous supporters are moving to Daesh.

All Maldivians are (must be by law) sunni muslims. They aren't allowed to be anything else legally: can't convert, can't be atheist either.

by Katiedot Sun 31 Jan 2016, 11:31

Also, I wanted to explain that in one of my posts above, when I wrote: "The only difference between Al Qaeda and Daesh is that Daesh are excellent at recruiting and they're fighting actual, physical wars" what I meant is that under Nasheed's presidency, Al Qaeda supporters went unpunished while under the current government, it's Daesh supporters going unpunished but in effect, there's no difference between the two.

In the Maldives, it's largely the same supporters who've just switched from Al Qaeda to Daesh. Daesh are much better than Al Qaeda ever were at getting recruits and this explains their rise in popularity in the Maldives. It would have happened under any government because it's just a matter of timing. Daesh didn't really exist at the time of Nasheed's presidency they way they do now. Had he remained in power, and had he been reelected in last year's elections, Nasheed would also be having to deal with the 200-odd Maldivians who went off to fight for Daesh.

Obviously there are differences between the two terrorist organisations but wasn't not relevant to the point I was making. Sorry for not making that clearer.

by Donnamarie Sun 31 Jan 2016, 17:16

Katiedot just want to make clear that my comment that
"others here completely disagree with my take on this" was referring to the specific issue of terrorism in the Maldives and whether or not it should be part of Nasheed's defense.

by Alisonfan Mon 01 Feb 2016, 00:29

Italien tourist have have no thing to do with case l can see?So why why Italy ?

by melbert Mon 01 Feb 2016, 00:57

Because Amal's husband owns a home in Italy.

by Katiedot Mon 01 Feb 2016, 10:28

Donnamarie wrote:Katiedot just want to make clear that my comment that
"others here completely disagree with my take on this" was referring to the specific issue of terrorism in the Maldives and whether or not it should be part of Nasheed's defense.

Ok, understood and thanks for clarifying.

---------------------------------------------

This was in the Sydney Morning Herald today.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Moral mercenary Amal Clooney works both sides of the human rights contest
Date February 1, 2016 - 6:09AM

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Paul Sheehan

Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney meets with former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed in an island prison as she works to secure his release.
Amal Clooney is a moral mercenary. She's a lawyer. As the fiancée and then wife of George Clooney, she was thrust into a global spotlight, where she has been cast as a moral paragon, a human rights crusader for the downtrodden.

Clooney is also Amal Alamuddin, Oxford-educated, fee-charging lawyer who works both sides of the human rights contest. None of these selections from Clooney's resume should be read as an affront to her character. All accused are entitled to a robust legal defence.

Acting for the defence of her latest client, Clooney has engaged in some questionable advocacy. It is one thing to proclaim your client's innocence, it is quite another to misrepresent the facts.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Amal Clooney, legal counsel to Mohamed Nasheed, speaks during a press conference in October 2015. Photo: AP
In an opinion piece published in The Guardian on April 30 last year, Clooney wrote that one of her clients, a former president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, had been removed from power by an armed coup: "His presidency was cut short in February 2012 when he was forced to resign at gunpoint."

This is a central plank in the case that Nasheed is a martyr for democracy.

But the Commission of National Inquiry that examined Nasheed's departure from office found no evidence that he was deposed in a coup. The commission was advised by a former judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, a former judge of the Singapore Supreme Court, and a professor of human rights law at the University of Ottawa.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
George and Amal Clooney at the Golden Globe Awards in January 2015. Photo: Getty Images
The commission found Nasheed had voluntarily tendered his resignation at 1.43pm on February 7, 2012, and that his resignation was not coerced. His replacement was sworn in later that day by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the constitution.
The next day, Nasheed, a former journalist, told the media: "I was forced from office at gunpoint."

The commission found this inflammatory claim to be a fabrication: "Rather, it is evident that President Nasheed [had] lost the support of the coalition … which had brought him to power … There was no illegal coercion or intimidation nor any coup d'état. The commission received no evidence supporting or to substantiate these allegations."

Also damning is a taped phone conversation in which Nasheed, on the night of his resignation, calls for violence from his supporters:
"If we are able to find people willing to fight, we should let them loose. Find some young people in Male who are ready to fight the police. I am not sure we can get them. But I want to let them loose on the police tonight."

In other words, there is no substance to the foundation of the martyrdom narrative that Clooney has been propagating.
Among critics of her conduct is Dr Michael Kennedy of Western Sydney University. Kennedy, a former police detective, has spent the past three years delivering a degree program in the Maldives for police, customs and immigration officers.

He believes Clooney has used her celebrity to engage in media manipulation: "An inquiry by the Commonwealth secretariat supported none of Nasheed's claims that he was forced to resign after a military coup. It's seldom reported that in his pursuit of an old enemy, a Supreme Court Justice, he ignored the constitution and bypassed the Police Service. He and his legal team are now calling for sanctions against the Maldives. This could cause widespread human rights abuses by way of hardship and unemployment."

Nasheed, who last March was convicted of contentious and dubious charges of terrorism, is now in London to receive medical treatment.
He has been given a 30-day release from prison. He has said he will not return. Instead, he has used his time in London to traduce the Maldives as a country rife with Islamic fundamentalism, a claim calculated to inflict damage on a tourist-based economy.

Clooney has chimed in: "It may be famous for the pristine holiday beaches … but the Maldives has taken a dark authoritarian turn."
Kennedy, among others, disputes this as legal hyperbole. Nasheed's very freedom in London undermines his argument of sinister repression.
Clooney herself has taken work from the dark, authoritarian side. Her most notorious client was Abdullah Senussi, responsible for the murder or imprisonment of thousands of people as head of internal security for the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
He was convicted, in absentia, of having a key role in the bombing of a passenger jet in 1989 in which 170 people died. He is implicated in the 1988 bombing of an American airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 259 people were killed.
Another client of Clooney was King Hasan bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain. She acted as a legal adviser to the king during the Bassiouni Commission of Inquiry into the government's suppression of an uprising by Shiite Muslims in Bahrain in 2011.
The commission was set up by the king. It found that 46 people, including five members of the security forces, had been killed, that police had used excessive force, and 559 people had claimed they were tortured while in custody.

None of this should be read as an affront to her character. All accused are entitled to a robust legal defence. Barristers are ethically bound to mount a robust defence.

Last year, Nasheed's legal team filed a case with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, an advisory body to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Working Group issued an opinion stating that Nasheed's incarceration was a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The government of the Maldives rejected this legal opinion. It also contends it is not bound by this opinion. Nasheed, by abrogating the terms of his release, has in effect freed himself,. But he has done so with the help of a government he claims is oppressive.
There are no heroes in this story. The Maldives imbroglio serves as a reminder not to be blinded by stardust.
[/left]

by What Would He Say Mon 01 Feb 2016, 12:43

The Clooney name...was it not enough?.....Amal seems hell bent on making a name of her own....over, beyond the one she got from George....A Clooney, but not as we know it...

A fan is simply a friend you have not met, and may never meet....We all become tied by an invisible robe that binds....it's nice, it's a family....We proclaim and we protect....I think that is why this stings, cuts to the core, that the world stage has been taken by Amal in such a shocking way....Humanitarian?..... Sad

The Clooney name seems to serve as a Teflon coating on a frying pan, nothing sticks, the stardust.....George's name and his calling card of sincerely nice human being, serves to be pushed out to avoid the difficult questions, or to ignore this awful story altogether.....I imagine many editors saying we will drop this one, purely down to respect for George....Katie's post above got through ...

Amal is getting attention, the bad part of this story (iSIS) is not receiving the attention it might, because of respect for George....it's a thin line....George is a Guardian Angel in this instance saving her face from her own stupidity....

Many True Humanitarians are criticised because there actions are seen as doing so very little in the midst of insurmountable problems....and the usual retort is "It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"....

Amal, uses the candle....Pretends to light the candle, but in reality shouts about the darkness.....

Now time to think only of my friend George and Hail Caesar....Go Baby....X

by LizzyNY Mon 01 Feb 2016, 13:18

George and Amal have only been married for a little over a year and are still honeymooning. I think once they get used to being married and life becomes more routine, he'll stop "gushing" about her every move and she'll be looked at more critically by the public.

That doesn't mean people will stop thinking of her as an accomplished, successful woman. They just won't automatically praise everything she does. I'm sure she can handle it. Any woman married to George has to be able to cope with pretty much anything. And besides, she's a lawyer! Smile

by Katiedot Mon 01 Feb 2016, 14:23

What Would He Say wrote:The Clooney name...was it not enough?.....Amal seems hell bent on making a name of her own....over, beyond the one she got from George....A Clooney, but not as we know it.

I've got to say, I think she has every right to make a name for herself. She's clearly ambitious and wants to head to the top of her profession (and good luck to her with that, because I think that's one hell of a task she's set herself).

I quite like the fact that she does what she does and isn't greatly trading on George's name. Yes, it's a fair point that she also had the option of not changing her maiden name, but on balance I don't see how being married to George Clooney is in any way an advantage to her in the legal profession in terms of career development. It does work in terms of getting her publicity and maybe the occasional client but she still has to put the work in.

LizzyNY wrote: Any woman married to George has to be able to cope with pretty much anything.

LOL! I can only imagine. As much as all the advantages of being married to him are obvious, I think it must come with a lot of downsides too.

by party animal - not! Thu 04 Feb 2016, 10:26

Don't know if we have this but it's an explanation of the UN's legal decision on Nasheed's case delivered by Amal at a Doughty Street press conference

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by annemarie Thu 04 Feb 2016, 10:39

I think there are disadvantages to being George's wife and she has had to adjust and get on with it.
The name change to me is no big deal, even if she hadn't she would be called George clooney's wife in every article just like now.

by carolhathaway Thu 04 Feb 2016, 11:10

Annemarie,
I agree with you. By now I think everybody knows who her husband is, so they don't have to mention it in every article. I guess they wouldn't have to mention it even if she hadn't changed her name...

What I don't like is when they just write 'wife of George Clooney' when it's an article about her work. As if it was her job to be his wife and just a sort of 'hobby' to do law...

by Katiedot Thu 04 Feb 2016, 15:09

carolhathaway wrote:What I don't like is when they just write 'wife of George Clooney' when it's an article about her work. As if it was her job to be his wife and just a sort of 'hobby' to do law...

That must be so frustrating for her. She's the first partner he's ever that who has genuinely had a proper job and identity of her own, and the press STILL describe her that way.

by party animal - not! Wed 17 Feb 2016, 23:47

Well, well!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Donnamarie Thu 18 Feb 2016, 02:40

Very interesting PAN. To be continued .....

by carolhathaway Thu 18 Feb 2016, 06:40

Interesting article, thanks for the find, PAN!
Let's see if this is just a storm in a teacup or true - at least we're talking about the Daily Fail which is a total reliable source...

by Had.e6 Thu 18 Feb 2016, 11:38

The Blairs are facing a hard time, UK media has no chill, mocking Cherie and Toney whenever they get the chance. I read lately that Cherie gave up Maldive Government and her office published a statement criticizing the government of the Maldives . I hate the Daily Fail

by party animal - not! Thu 18 Feb 2016, 12:00

Well, bear in mind that there could be more than an element of truth in this - after all her (and it is hers........) company has pulled out, and this might be the reason.........the Fail can sometimes be right....... we'll see

by PigPen Thu 18 Feb 2016, 14:54

What Would He Say wrote:The Clooney name...was it not enough?.....Amal seems hell bent on making a name of her own....over, beyond the one she got from George....A Clooney, but not as we know it...

A fan is simply a friend you have not met, and may never meet....We all become tied by an invisible robe that binds....it's nice, it's a family....We proclaim and we protect....I think that is why this stings, cuts to the core, that the world stage has been taken by Amal in such a shocking way....Humanitarian?.....

The Clooney name seems to serve as a Teflon coating on a frying pan, nothing sticks, the stardust.....George's name and his calling card of sincerely nice human being, serves to be pushed out to avoid the difficult questions, or to ignore this awful story altogether.....I imagine many editors saying we will drop this one, purely down to respect for George....Katie's post above got through ...

Amal is getting attention, the bad part of this story (iSIS) is not receiving the attention it might, because of respect for George....it's a thin line....George is a Guardian Angel in this instance saving her face from her own stupidity....

Many True Humanitarians are criticised because there actions are seen as doing so very little in the midst of insurmountable problems....and the usual retort is "It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"....

Amal, uses the candle....Pretends to light the candle, but in reality shouts about the darkness.....

Now time to think only of my friend George and Hail Caesar....Go Baby....X

Bravo, Way 2!!!

by melbert Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:19

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

British Parliamentary Group: No sanctions necessary for Maldives

All-Party British-Maldives Parliamentary Group (APPG) has said that no sanctions were necessary against Maldives, and that it would be the common people who would suffer any such sanction.

Delegates from APPG are currently in Maldives to access the political situation in the country, and have met with high-ranking government officials as well as officials from opposition parties.

Speaking during a press conference held at Mookai Suites on Thursday, Chairman of APPG and Conservative Party representative for British Parliament David Amos said that they visited Maafushi Prison and found no issues with the place former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed is kept imprisoned in.

“We went to see the cell former President Mohamed Nasheed is kept imprisoned in. In our opinion, Nasheed is being kept in a very comfortable place compared to all the prisons we have visited in UK. It has a swing, a TV, and a quite comfortable bed. Nasheed was treated well when he was kept imprisoned,” said Amos.

APPG said that government was taking detrimental steps to improve the country’s economy.
And that everyone needed to support the government to execute the changes.

Amos said that Nasheed’s lawyer Amal Clooney was not providing accurate information on the real situation in Maldives. And that no one should make up stories and besmirch the image of the country.

by Had.e6 Fri 19 Feb 2016, 06:11

he was fine in prison , never heard his family nor Amal complaining about the cell, they were talking about not letting them visit him . Now When did Amal talked about the cell ?!! She talked about The government imprisoned dissidents, shut down the channels and harassment of journalists, uh I almost forgot, about lawyers getting knives in the heads . NEVER SAID HE WAS tortured in prison

by Had.e6 Fri 19 Feb 2016, 06:16

SO
British Parliamentary Group
Good Stupid job
No sanctions necessary for Maldives
Nasheed's lawyers did not ask for this also, my God

by starlove Fri 19 Feb 2016, 07:48

Amos said that Nasheed’s lawyer Amal Clooney was not providing accurate information on the real situation in Maldives. And that no one should make up stories and besmirch the image of the country

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

WOW ,i guess MN back is okay too ,just another lie!

by party animal - not! Fri 19 Feb 2016, 09:59

No mention of his long solitary confinement, tho.........and the Sun.mv is a Maldives government-backed newspaper

Now this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by party animal - not! Fri 19 Feb 2016, 10:29

This....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by annemarie Fri 19 Feb 2016, 13:00

It makes you wonder was Cherie Blair that stupid did she really think this would not come out. Money makes people do stupid things.

by Donnamarie Fri 19 Feb 2016, 19:01

So Amal Clooney and her team lied to David Cameron, John Kerry, U.S. members of Congress, the UN, and Amnesty International? No sanctions necessary. And now it sounds as if Nasheed had quite cozy and comfy quarters during his imprisonment?

And is it still the government's position that Nasheed received due process during his trial?

And Cherie Blair was contracted to improve the government's PR image and supposedly received dirty money for her services? Or not?

Well someone isn't being truthful.

by lelacorb Fri 19 Feb 2016, 20:35

All the women I know, myself included, that before marrying had already 'a working successes have not changed their last name to take her husband's surname!

by Had.e6 Fri 19 Feb 2016, 21:05

lelacorb wrote:All the women I know, myself included, that before marrying had already 'a working successes have not changed their last name to take her husband's surname!

you are successful , independent woman . your friends are successful independent women . Successful independent women don't take their husband's sure name . cheers

by annemarie Fri 19 Feb 2016, 21:11

If she hadn't changed her name she would still be known as George Clooney's wife. There are women who want their family to have the same name it is simply something traditional. The only thing that changed is her name she has continued to do the same work she has always done.
Taking your husbands name does not make you less independent and successful.

by Donnamarie Fri 19 Feb 2016, 21:57

I know many more woman who took their husband's last name than not. Or the last name is hyphenated.

Taking your husband's last name is a personal choice. I agree with annemarie. It doesn't imply that a woman is less independent or successful. In fact it seems unfair to claim that any woman who chooses to take her husband's last name is any less of her own person. Amal's choice to use Clooney as her last name is her personal decision.

by carolhathaway Fri 19 Feb 2016, 22:07

My husband took my last name.
What does that say about us?

by Sponsored content