section needing referenced
I've taken out the piece below as I can't find the source for it to reference. Feel free to have a look...
Byrne, who as Labour's head of press appointed Ms Jo "bury the bad news" Moore in the 1980s, very nearly replaced Mandelson as Labour’s Director of communications. Much to Kinnock’s fury, the Labour Party NEC refused to give the job to the Leader’s choice, Mandelson’s deputy, Colin Byrne, "preferring to appoint John Underwood who was then systematically undermined by Mandelson and Byrne before quitting in despair in 1991".
 unable to access link (goes to main page)
this has been badly editted —again — for instance even the opening line has been carelessly altered
Colin Byrne is CEO, Weber Shandwick UK and Ireland. He was Chief Press Officer of the Labour Party in 1988, but Byrne has hung around the party and — this has come to typify New Labour — even when in 1996 he became a Director of Shandwick Consultants was also an ‘Election Consultant’ with the Labour Party. He worked for Labour’s election manager, and former flatmate, Peter Mandelson, on a number of strategic projects connected with Labour’s press campaign for the general election. Condemned to spend four years travelling the world with The Prince of Wales helping organise parts of HRH’s overseas PR programmes, managing international media teams to promote HRH’s interests in business and sustainable profit taking.
Colin Byrne is CEO, Weber Shandwick UK and Ireland. He was Chief Press Officer of the Labour Party in 1988. Even when in 1996 he became a Director of Shandwick Consultants was also an ‘Election Consultant’ with the Labour Party. He worked for Labour’s election manager, and former flatmate, Peter Mandelson, on a number of strategic projects connected with Labour’s press campaign for the general election. He also worked for The Prince of Wales helping organise his overseas PR programmes for four years.
The line in bold there dosn't make sense — why fuck up someone's writing like this? Answers please... It just makes the whole thing look inarticulate right from the start and misses the point of what i was saying — I can't even be bothered going through the rest of it.
This para / section could use a bit more of an intro
Although thought of as somewhere between business and government simple analysis of their reports  (http://www.webershandwick-eu.com/pdfs/american_report.pdf) reveal Shandwicks position as suggesting an action plan that US multi-nationals “emphasise local roots... Stress corporate responsibility in light of the anti-globalisation movement’s scepticism of large, multi-national companies... Avoid political messages — or use only with great care given the divisiveness domestically of the U.S. war against Iraq and its widespread unpopularity abroad" and that "U.S.-based brands should avoid strongly linking themselves to U.S. foreign policy... Stress positive universal values over materialism ...The phenomenon of anti-Americanism and its impacts is expected to last three to five years." This just drips with duplicity.