Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"

by stillsloppingout 02.10.14 22:46

BlueBag wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:It did look as if it wasn't a surprise to her. Perhaps she was contacted for an interview, or was forewarned. Or perhaps that woman isn't really sweepyface.

I already easily found lots of details on the net about Sweepyface, including her address (Google street view of Burton Overy) and the church she goes to (Church newsletter) and her phone number.

She's real.

But I think the confrontation is not what we are supposed to believe due to lack of curiosity about camera.

Sorry not up to speed on al this yet [ just back up north from the Soap Awards, and working since ] but firstly if the press want to find somebody's address it takes five seconds , once you go online twitter /facebook etc with comments game over .
Secondly she probably does not look at the camera because, she has being " fronted", rather stressfull .

Ok my point , again a tactic to this time dis -credit all the [ Mad Posters } who think the McCann's had something to do with the disappearance . throw in Carter Ruck have again successfully sued the Times of all papers , and Gerry with his usual push for Leverson to be implimented , then its been a busy day in Rothy towers .
But from all this we can be sure something is about to happen and MORE IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO SHAPE WHATEVER IT MAY BE , IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC .as they always pre empt stuff . which then neutralises any adverse story . so work backwards for an answer . possibly the result of GA's trial is imminent and the likely outcome has been leaked . who knows .

But we now know Murdock is heavily behind all this stuff .

Finally off topic, can posters stop saying in comments THE DOORS WERE UNLOCKED they would only have you believe that point, it has IMO no basis in fact .

by Guest 02.10.14 22:47

I want to know if Brunt "tracked her down" illegally.

by Guest 02.10.14 22:51

stillsloppingout wrote:Sorry not up to speed on al this yet [ just back up north from the Soap Awards, and working since ] but firstly if the press want to find somebody's address it takes five seconds , once you go online twitter /facebook etc with comments game over

An anonymous account on Twitter?

How?

Secondly she probably does not look at the camera because, she has being " fronted", rather stressfull .

She doesn't look that stressed to me, she doesn't even look at the camera as they are approaching or when it's in her face later.

by stillsloppingout 02.10.14 22:59

BlueBag wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:Sorry not up to speed on al this yet [ just back up north from the Soap Awards, and working since ] but firstly if the press want to find somebody's address it takes five seconds , once you go online twitter /facebook etc with comments game over
An anonymous account on Twitter?

How?

Secondly she probably does not look at the camera because, she has being " fronted", rather stressfull .

She doesn't look that stressed to me, she doesn't even look at the camera as they are approaching or when it's in her face later.

Again the Twitter account , people on here can deduce who people are using secondary names, writing style, slip ups replying to people by PM s etc etc maybe clues in phrases etc , and then put two and two together .

i have not seen the footage yet , maybe embarrassed not stressed , i doubt she would allow herself be " cast " as the troll to represent all the evil anti McCanns out there .as she is bound to now get plenty of grief .

by aiyoyo 02.10.14 23:03

In addition to knowing her identity, they would have had to be stalking her to know when and where to waylay her, and have a camera man already on stand by to photo her and then plaster her picture on the front page without regard for the law, or concern for her privacy and safety.

Can they out her, expose her, and effectively put her at risk of all sorts, taking the law into their own hands, even before the police has started the investigation? How were they sure they got the right person?
Did they ask her to confirm her identity or did they identify themselves and tell her why they accosted her?
Did she not protest to being harassed in the public?

She did not appear to be raffled or resent the harassment - very strange. Even her response that "she is entitled to" is very strange.
She lives in Leicestershire, same as the Mcs - coincidence ?

All very surreal.

by whatsupdoc 02.10.14 23:04

missbeetle wrote:

What's she carrying with her left hand?

The stills were taken at a different time to the video with Brunty IMO. The clothes are different and the hair is different so it is not just a short confrontation as we may have gathered from the video.

A new low for Sky News.

by Guest 02.10.14 23:07

stillsloppingout wrote:Again the Twitter account , people on here can deduce who people are using secondary names, writing style, slip ups replying to people by PM s etc etc maybe clues in phrases etc , and then put two and two together .

Nonsense.

GCHQ maybe.

by Woofer 02.10.14 23:10

As she has deleted her twitter account, there`s no knowing what she tweeted now. The Daily Mail only state she tweeted `miserable for the rest of their lives` - the really bad ones are from someone else. If she has tweeted sick threatening tweets then of course she should be challenged but it seems to me she`s not that bad. Why have they picked on her? There are some really sick low life`s that tweet and post anti-McCann filth and I can only describe it as coming from the gutter and they are nothing to do with the skeptical tweeters that keep above the `vile` levels. The vilest, most ignorant tweets stem from the Pros.

by Guest 02.10.14 23:18

Woofer wrote:As she has deleted her twitter account, there`s no knowing what she tweeted now. The Daily Mail only state she tweeted `miserable for the rest of their lives` - the really bad ones are from someone else. If she has tweeted sick threatening tweets then of course she should be challenged but it seems to me she`s not that bad. Why have they picked on her? There are some really sick low life`s that tweet and post anti-McCann filth and I can only describe it as coming from the gutter and they are nothing to do with the skeptical tweeters that keep above the `vile` levels. The vilest, most ignorant tweets stem from the Pros.

That's the bit I don't get, Woofer. Why innocuous her? And if she's been a 'pro plant' all this time she's not a very good one, imo. Far too inoffensive.

by Woofer 02.10.14 23:31

This is why the skeptics should always keep their tweets inoffensive - then if they`re confronted by anymore Martin Brunts in the street they can say `yes and if you journos did your job properly, we wouldn`t have to`. They wouldn`t braodcast that. Leave the offensive tweets and posts to the Pros - it`s all they`re capable of.

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 0:15

Dee Coy wrote:Crumbs. They've made her look hard-faced in that photo.

I thought it was an aging Leonard Nimoy at first glance.

It's news, Captain, but not as we know it.

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 0:17

Dee Coy wrote:
Christ. How? Are we all as vulnerable?

Honestly?

Yes!

by Silverspeed 03.10.14 0:21

Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 By-ni714

I see it's made it's way onto the front page of The Daily Star next to a rather peculiar story about ghost children. huh

Whatever next.

by Lance De Boils 03.10.14 0:58

This being in the headlines today is really odd.

Why today, of all days?
Why should it even be the top story on the Sky News website? (It was earlier today - don't know if it still is.)
Why select that particular lady for 'exposure'?

I wonder who compiled and handed in that 'dossier' of 'abuse'?
We know that the McCanns 'team' have members 'monitoring' the internet - who was it now? MW?
We also now know that the authors, S&S, of the recent book have made comment on this story today.
So has Jim Gamble.
One of them, perhaps? Who knows - but I'm not sure that really matters, anyway.

I'm more interested in understanding what message is being sent out by all this? What is the purpose?

In my view, anyone who posts direct threats of violence against any other person or people should, of course, be questioned by the police.

But I haven't come across anything that serious, myself. Not from people asking questions about this case, anyway.

My initial thought is that it's designed to instil fear in everyone who posts about the case - with the aim of people backing away from sites such as this.

But maybe not.

Simply discussing a story that's been constantly in the media for more than 7 years can't be a crime. Nor can asking questions about it, or challenging the veracity of what we've been told, including pointing out and querying the vast number of inconsistencies (and at times, blatant lies) that have emerged from the various media outlets and the PJ files. Having an informed opinion cannot be a crime. And Gerry said he had no problem with people 'purporting theories', didn't he?

So what else can all this be about?

Has there been some major development in the case?
Are they next going to attempt convincing the world that the 'abductor' is an 'internet troll'?
Is it linked to S&S's book release?
Is it another sympathy/marketing ploy?
Is it linked to the libel trial?

Remind me, when was it we had front pages about 'threats' to the twins? Was it at about the same time as Kate being 'threatened' - before the London Marathon some time, wasn't it?

Oh, you know what? I'm not sure I can even be bothered right now. Whatever.

coffee

by Constablekid 03.10.14 1:03

To the best of my knowledge, it is illegal to feature the image of someone in a broadcast unless
A) you are filming them in the act of a crime
B) you are filming them admit to a crime
C) they have been convicted of the crime
D) They have signed a consent form (although if you are accusing them of a crime in the footage, you still wouldn't show their face or street etc. you'd have to blur everything because they are innocent until proven guilty)

You also cannot mislead the audience into thinking a contributor is genuine if they are not.

You cannot reveal details that could lead to 'jigsaw identification'.

So she probably could complain.

by Brian Griffin 03.10.14 1:50

Lance De Boils wrote:My initial thought is that it's designed to instil fear in everyone who posts about the case - with the aim of people backing away from sites such as this.

Bingo!

And they're pissed off that the new book ploy didn't pan out, partly because it's crap and partly because there are people on sites like this willing to point out that it's crap. I suspect the 'anti' faction is growing and the 'pro' faction is starting to run out of ammo, so it's time for the nukes!

The book was shot down before it even managed to take off. I bet they weren't expecting that.

In my opinion.

by Bishop Brennan 03.10.14 3:25

Brian Griffin wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:My initial thought is that it's designed to instil fear in everyone who posts about the case - with the aim of people backing away from sites such as this.
Bingo!

And they're pissed off that the new book ploy didn't pan out, partly because it's crap and partly because there are people on sites like this willing to point out that it's crap. I suspect the 'anti' faction is growing and the 'pro' faction is starting to run out of ammo, so it's time for the nukes!

The book was shot down before it even managed to take off. I bet they weren't expecting that.

In my opinion.

I would also vote for this explanation. This is part of the coordinated attempt to shut down / discredit anyone who speaks against the McCanns. A high-profile, particularly nasty "troll" is paraded to the crowds so that the crowd will assume that ALL who speak against them are the same.

It is no coincidence that the following 3 things have happened simultaneously:

1. Release of the Summers book
2. High-profile outing of the "vicious troll"
3. Winning of the libel action against the Sunday Times

The Summers book was designed to be the public Closing Report - and as predicted it clears the McCanns, discredits the dogs and makes fun of the "haters". The Times have had to settle based on a technicality and are now being reported as "irresponsible" haters. And the "troll" is outed to publicly ridicule anyone who speaks against the McCanns. This particular woman was chosen specifically because she can be their pantomime villain in the red-tops.

It's important to remember the goal of the whitewash - it is to put on public record (official news media / books / SY) the complete innocence of the McCanns and replace the guilt suggested by the PJ with a new SY narrative: a shadowy (but never identified or caught) burglar(s) abducted and killed Maddie.

ALL activities during the End-Game are designed with this in mind. Scaring off other dissenters is a small bonus, but discrediting existing ones is the number one objective. It is likely to continue or even increase.

by tiredofthebs 03.10.14 3:38

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:My initial thought is that it's designed to instil fear in everyone who posts about the case - with the aim of people backing away from sites such as this.
Bingo!

And they're pissed off that the new book ploy didn't pan out, partly because it's crap and partly because there are people on sites like this willing to point out that it's crap. I suspect the 'anti' faction is growing and the 'pro' faction is starting to run out of ammo, so it's time for the nukes!

The book was shot down before it even managed to take off. I bet they weren't expecting that.

In my opinion.

I would also vote for this explanation. This is part of the coordinated attempt to shut down / discredit anyone who speaks against the McCanns. A high-profile, particularly nasty "troll" is paraded to the crowds so that the crowd will assume that ALL who speak against them are the same.

It is no coincidence that the following 3 things have happened simultaneously:

1. Release of the Summers book
2. High-profile outing of the "vicious troll"
3. Winning of the libel action against the Sunday Times

The Summers book was designed to be the public Closing Report - and as predicted it clears the McCanns, discredits the dogs and makes fun of the "haters". The Times have had to settle based on a technicality and are now being reported as "irresponsible" haters. And the "troll" is outed to publicly ridicule anyone who speaks against the McCanns. This particular woman was chosen specifically because she can be their pantomime villain in the red-tops.

It's important to remember the goal of the whitewash - it is to put on public record (official news media / books / SY) the complete innocence of the McCanns and replace the guilt suggested by the PJ with a new SY narrative: a shadowy (but never identified or caught) burglar(s) abducted and killed Maddie.

ALL activities during the End-Game are designed with this in mind. Scaring off other dissenters is a small bonus, but discrediting existing ones is the number one objective. It is likely to continue or even increase.

Good post but the bit in bold hasn't worked out too well for them.

Sweepyface actually came across as very calm and intelligent and she articulately pointed out that she was entitled to her opinion. I get the feeling that Brunty was hoping for some thug that would confront him and get irate. He was out of luck.

by jeanmonroe 03.10.14 5:30

Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 By8gAC_IMAAyX8b

"Ok Guv, found it. That sweepyface lives in a little village. Hope we get there before that little creep, we have to keep moving on from standing outside the Yard, pretending he's one of us"

by Guest 03.10.14 6:15

Dee Coy wrote:
Woofer wrote:As she has deleted her twitter account, there`s no knowing what she tweeted now. The Daily Mail only state she tweeted `miserable for the rest of their lives` - the really bad ones are from someone else. If she has tweeted sick threatening tweets then of course she should be challenged but it seems to me she`s not that bad. Why have they picked on her? There are some really sick low life`s that tweet and post anti-McCann filth and I can only describe it as coming from the gutter and they are nothing to do with the skeptical tweeters that keep above the `vile` levels. The vilest, most ignorant tweets stem from the Pros.

That's the bit I don't get, Woofer. Why innocuous her? And if she's been a 'pro plant' all this time she's not a very good one, imo. Far too inoffensive.

I don't wish to be unkind, but her hairstyle a bit Adams family... she makes a good "hater" image.

I think we are seeing the equivalent of Derren Brown television, there is more going on than what we see but it's crafted for the viewer.

by **sharonl** 03.10.14 6:17

Silverspeed wrote:

I see it's made it's way onto the front page of The Daily Star next to a rather peculiar story about ghost children.

Whatever next.

Shock rise in sightings around the world?

Advertising the McCann hashtag?

Which side are these journos really on?

by Guest 03.10.14 6:17

aiyoyo wrote:Can they out her, expose her, and effectively put her at risk of all sorts, taking the law into their own hands, even before the police has started the investigation? How were they sure they got the right person?
Did they ask her to confirm her identity or did they identify themselves and tell her why they accosted her?
Did she not protest to being harassed in the public?

She did not appear to be raffled or resent the harassment - very strange. Even her response that "she is entitled to" is very strange.
She lives in Leicestershire, same as the Mcs - coincidence ?

All very surreal.

All excellent questions.

by Guest 03.10.14 6:28

I'm still interested in the way Brunt could track down an anonymous Twitter account.

Obviously Brunt didn't, but how did the organ grinder do it?

And was it legal?

by **tigger** 03.10.14 6:37

Perhaps someone can find the original Brunt murder/Madeleine tweet.

It was copied on a topic here or it was a screenshot. Iirc around the first time SY went to Portugal, June 2013.

Found this:

twitpic.com/crdgq9 - #Brunt #McCann murder tweet was up there for at least half an hour (& 25 RTs) before deleted
5:42pm - 16 Jun 13

It's from:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7062p40-latest-on-sy-review-19-may-mail-on-sunday-maddie-uk-cleaners-are-suspects

candyfloss wrote:
Oh dear Martin Brunt has just tweeted this.......

martinbrunt‏@skymartinbrunt18m

#mccann Scot Yard says it has identified "more than a handful" of suspects for murder of Madeleine McCann in its review of Portuguese case
TOO LATE BRUNTY, SCREENSHOT SAVED, in case G&K want me to go to court and testify against you.

by .Guest.. 03.10.14 6:58

loopzdaloop wrote:They gave her name as Brenda Leyland

If she's reading this: Offer to give Martin Brunt an interview!
See if he'll publish the truth of the lie.

We all know the truth, Brenda may have gone further than most with the language etc but dogs don't lie.

Take a look at her FB page. She is articulate and loves animals. Not a bit like the way she is portrayed in the MSM. Hmm.

Log in for more topics