Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"

by galena 06.10.14 12:28

notlongnow wrote:So reporting a womans opinion all day Thursday is more important than reporting anything of her death?
British media sets a new benchmark in the word gutter.

It's trending on facebook. The days are gone when TV/newspapers were all powerful ...

by stillsloppingout 06.10.14 12:28

The Rooster wrote:I really hope someone rings in and give a balance viewpoint...

The last ten mins have been a waste of time , some silly woman on now . and a bloke from Birmingham who cannot think for himself . its about brenda this show not some girl who is still on the bloody radio .

by jeanmonroe 06.10.14 12:29

Just on BBC news.

"now Scotland Yard say they received a file of documents relating to abuse online of the McCanns. They say they didn't interview Brenda Leyland and haven't interviewed anyone at all in connection with this investigation, so far"

ONLY 'ABUSE ONLINE'?

SO NOT 50 ABUSIVE 'TEXTS' a DAY TO THEIR PHONES?

So, there was an 'investigation' by Scotland Yard, but they hadn't 'interviewed' anyone?

"The dossier, which includes 80 tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages, was handed to the Metropolitan Police by members of the public who feared for the McCann's safety.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on September 9 which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family."
Operation Grange is the name for the Metropolitan Police's involvement in the search for Madeleine."

So, OG/SY HAD the 'dossier/file' on the 9th of September, 2014..

Sky news 'trolled' the 'troll' on October 2nd, 2014.

(23) TWENTY THREE DAYS AFTER SY/OG 'RECEIVED' A 'FILE OF DOCUMENTS.'

WHAT WERE SY/OG 'DOING' WITH THE 'FILE' BETWEEN 9th SEPT/2nd OCT?

COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THAT URGENT OR DANGEROUS FOR, OR TO, THE MCCANNS/TWINS COULD IT?

OTHERWISE SY/OG WOULD HAVE HAD THE MCCANNS 'OUTTA THERE' ON THE 9th SEPTEMBER, 2014, WOULDN'T THEY?

DID SKY NEWS HAVE 'TACIT APPROVAL' FROM OG to 'EXPOSE' BL AFTER 'THEY' HAD 'RECEIVED A FILE' BUT BEFORE THEY HAD 'INTERVIEWED' ANYONE, IN CONNECTION, WITH 'ANYTHING'?

WHEN DID SY/OG SUPPOSEDLY 'BEGIN' AN 'INVESTIGATION'?

PRESUMEABLY, ON THE 9th SEPTEMBER, WHEN THEY HAVE ADMITTED, TO HAVING 'RECEIVED' A FILE OF 'ONLINE ABUSE' AGAINST THE MCCANNS.

If, IF, AN 'INVESTIGATION' WAS UNDERWAY BY SY/OG FROM THE 9th SEPTEMBER, 2014, THEN SKY NEWS HAVE 'INTERFERRED' WITH AN ONGOING 'INVESTIGATION'

AND THERE ARE, IN LAW, HUGE REPERCUSSIONS, TO COME FROM THAT.

"INTERFERRING' WITH POSSIBLE 'WITNESSES, DEFENDANTS, ACCUSED" SPRINGS TO MIND.

So, imo, OG/SY have 'questions' to answer.

What were they 'doing' to 'protect' the McCanns from 'threats' directed at them, so we're told, between the dates of 9th Sept 2014 and Oct 2nd 2014?

I'll post about WHO 'posed' the GREATEST 'threat' to the McCanns, themselves, and their 'twins', shortly.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.14 12:29

sallypelt wrote:
I am going to post this here for those who are interested. I have attended two inquests, and family members and close friends of the deceased may be given permission to speak if they have anything to add, but the judge will cut you off, and remind you that it's an inquest not a court trial. So, anyone who doesn't know Mrs B Leyland personally, or [who doesn't have] any information directly connected to her death, they won't be heard.

That's not quite correct, sallypelt, speaking as one who has attended several inquests or part of inquests in various capacities.

The Coroner has complete discretion to admit anyone who might be a relevant witness.

In this case, for example, an inquest jury (Coroner can decide according to various guidelines whether there is a jury or not) may need to see Brenda Leyland's full record of tweets, e.g. to see if Brunt and his bosses were justified in the grotesque and very public monstering of Brenda.

There might be a 'Twitter' friend that she got to know who can give relevant evidence.

There may be a church member, for example, who knew of her frustration with the (IMO) obvious cover-up of the truth that Operation Grange always was and knew of her doubts about the McCanns.

She might well have had some issues with mental ill-health or depression - in which case her doctor might be a significant witness, and so on.

Also, if Brenda's death was suicide, the jury has the power these days to bring in a 'narrative verdict'. Juries often use narrative verdicts to make strong observations about the background causes or reasons for an early or sudden death

by Rogue-a-Tory 06.10.14 12:29

I'm wondering if the Brunt interview was a follow up to the Theresa May announcement at Tory Conference. Part of a wider public operation to show the sceptics and dissenters as haters. Then Government moves to close down internet sites, FB pages, Twitter feeds etc that have an anti-TM theme under new anti-hater legislation. Another big strand of Operation Sandtex completed.

As stated, just wondering.

by Guest 06.10.14 12:30

But what was said,"it is not clear what the lady in question actually tweeted"

by The Rooster 06.10.14 12:31

Just sent this to Jeremy, hope it makes the show...

Hi Jeremy

Kate McCann said in her book “Madeleine” that the Detective in charge of the search for her daughter…” He deserves to be miserable and to feel pain”. So is the whole argument about putting your real name to a statement or about the content of the statement made". Hope this gets to you in time.

Regards

by Angelique 06.10.14 12:31

The Rooster wrote:I really hope someone rings in and give a balance viewpoint...

Perhaps they are but they are not getting through.

If the excuse is that comments have to be moderated on twitter and the death of this lady is collateral in that - it is despicable and desperate measures.

by inspirespirit 06.10.14 12:31

Of the thousands of tweets, they pick on one sweet lady who looked like she might have had a bob or two and would be completely mortified by being 'outed'. bloody cowards.

R.I.P. Brenda. xx

by Angelique 06.10.14 12:36

inspirespirit wrote:Of the thousands of tweets, they pick on one sweet lady who looked like she might have had a bob or two and would be completely mortified by being 'outed'. bloody cowards.

R.I.P. Brenda. xx

Oh, I have just realised what you mean!

It would have/could have been the fact that money was a consideration?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.14 12:36

jeanmonroe wrote:A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on September 9 which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family."

So what did the McCanns say to Scotland Yard? Was it:

A. 'Look, let Twitter deal with this, I don't want anyone prosecuted, these are mostly people with too much time on their hands and no-one takes much notice of them'

or was it

B. 'Charge them, the swine! Make public examples of them! Let's make sure they suffer and learn their lesson!'

by j.rob 06.10.14 12:37

The press don't just pluck people out of thin air. They do a bit of research first. These days it is possible to get masses of information about people usually. You can find out all sorts of things pretty quickly. So IF this lady was not well either psychologically or physically, for example, that would probably not be too difficult to establish. WHAT is the back history here? WHY was she feeling angry (if indeed that is what is suggested by the alleged tweets - personally I don't believe a word that comes from the media or TM or the Govt for that matter....sadly). People get upset for a reason, if she was indeed upset.

What the heck was Martin Brunt up to? I found the footage of his 'doorstepping' most disturbing. It had a hideous 'bullying' quality to it. It was savage.

Not remotely comparable with someone tapping on a key-board a few expletives or ranting on about how much they 'hate' someone or something that they feel passionately about. But, whatever they write in cyber-space, they would never act on. Simply venting.

There is a world of difference between tapping angrily on a key-board and turning up outside someone's home unannounced with a television crew. Threatening that person that they have been reported to the police. Recording it for national television.

What the HELL are Sky up to?

This has all gone too far, imo.

Crazy, and not in a good way.

Deeply disturbing. But then this case always has been, in my opinion.

by galena 06.10.14 12:39

inspirespirit wrote:Of the thousands of tweets, they pick on one sweet lady who looked like she might have had a bob or two and would be completely mortified by being 'outed'. bloody cowards.

R.I.P. Brenda. xx

I would like to know how many of the 'vile' tweets were actually generated by the McCann machine. They like the media to focus on 'troll's and 'vile threats' instead of what people are actually saying. Notice there is never any comment on the serious discussions of the case which take place on this - and once on other websites as well.

Personally I would never ever comment on the McCann case on Facebook or Twitter. Especially not Twitter which I hate with a passion :angryred:

by .Guest.. 06.10.14 12:40

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I'm wondering if the Brunt interview was a follow up to the Theresa May announcement at Tory Conference. Part of a wider public operation to show the sceptics and dissenters as haters. Then Government moves to close down internet sites, FB pages, Twitter feeds etc that have an anti-TM theme under new anti-hater legislation. Another big strand of Operation Sandtex completed.

As stated, just wondering.

Indeed Rogue-a-Tory. This was my post a few dys ago after listening to T May at the Tory party conference.

Extremist strategy
anon357 on Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:10 pm

Opinions please on how far these proposals of Theresa May will go if implemented. As anyone who dares to question TM`s version of events is designated a "hater" we could find that our right to speak out on open forums is severely curtailed.
The tip of the iceberg?

by Angelique 06.10.14 12:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on September 9 which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family."
So what did the McCanns say to Scotland Yard? Was it:

A. 'Look, let Twitter deal with this, I don't want anyone prosecuted, these are mostly people with too much time on their hands and no-one takes much notice of them'

or was it

B. 'Charge them, the swine! Make public examples of them! Let's make sure they suffer and learn their lesson!'

Yes indeed. But think - they have just settled with The Times!

It could have been money was the reason it happened.

by Smokeandmirrors 06.10.14 12:41

What we have witnessed over the last few days is mind-blowing hypocrisy. We are being shown in no uncertain terms that freedom of speech is not a privilege enjoyed by all on an equal footing, but that it is a dangerous game of Russian Roulette. There are no rules, just dirty tricks and even dirtier agendas. The general public are treated with contempt by the gutter press, and even more contempt by the ruling elite. They will continue to mess with our minds until we fall into silent, impotent obedience. We are living in a totalitarian state.

by j.rob 06.10.14 12:42

inspirespirit wrote:Of the thousands of tweets, they pick on one sweet lady who looked like she might have had a bob or two and would be completely mortified by being 'outed'. bloody cowards.

R.I.P. Brenda. xx

Good grief! Of course The Fund is running dry. The Sheeple have lost their faith in TM (those that ever had any in the first place). Who else can be sued?

by The Rooster 06.10.14 12:42

I hope Sky is held to account in a court of law by BL's family. As you quite rightly point out JRobb, Martin Brunt was extremely harassing in his one sided bully boy approach, far more so that any of the tweets I have seen from Brenda. Sad days.

by DonNewbery 06.10.14 12:42

stillsloppingout wrote:Listened to Vine , he was balanced Gamble mentioned trolls and steps must be put in place to prevent abuse . i here stupid things said about the McCanns .
ive had abuse myself this morning .
BBC Leicester , reporter was questioned , and said the village is in shock , as they have been out and about , her son lives in the USA she visits him , dresses , well quiet , THe BBC reporter , would not say what posts she wrote .

Lord suger has tweeted that the press should be poss charged . somebody has stated they know her and she was not well .

Lord Sugar's sharp questions on Twitter today certainly give some grounds for hope.

by haroldd2 06.10.14 12:44

ChippyM wrote:
MarcoG wrote:I'm shocked. Just found out about this whole story. The Daily Mail writes that this woman's death has not been treated as suspicious. How is this not suspicious?
What year is it? 1984?

A death is technically suspicious if they think the person was killed by some unlawful means, ie. another person actually physically put an end to someones life or forced them to take drugs etc.

from wiki : "A death is suspicious if it is unexpected and its circumstances or cause are medically or legally unexplained. Normally, this occurs in the context of medical care or suspected criminal activity.^[1]''

Someone who has killed themselves or taken an overdose purely by there own hand and regardless of the reasons ie. there was definitely no-one else there at the time, the death is explainable and not suspicious, the explanation is that legally they were responsible for the act and medically the overdose ( or what ever) ended their life.

Of course people may see the circumstances leading up to the death as odd or suspicious in their minds but the actual legal definition of a suspicious death is different. I doubt there will be an inquest for Brenda Leyland's death based on this criteria.

I'm afraid you are mistaken, here, chippy, as well as jumping to conclusions.

I have no idea whether there is any evidence of suicide. But if there is then there must be an inquest, because suicide counts as "unnatural" in law.

And I should add that if someone is harassed to a point where they commit suicide, that is certainly a matter for the coroner to comment on. (And it may well also constitute a crime.) Here is a case from last year where a person who had undergone gender reassignment killed themselves after unwelcome media attention. Under the Coroners Rules 1984, a coroner may write a report to a person or organisation if he believes that actions should be taken to prevent future deaths.

In that case, the coroner said he would be "writing to the government to consider now implementing in full the recommendations of the Leveson report in order to seek to ensure that other people in the same position as Lucy Meadows are not faced with the same ill-informed bigotry as seems to be displayed in the case of Lucy."

He also said that had the person's suicide note made any reference at all to the press, he "would have no difficulty in summonsing various journalists and editors to this inquest to give evidence and be called into account".

But let's not jump the gun. We know Martin Brunt hassled Brenda Leyland. We do not know whether she committed suicide. Keep an open mind.

by tegan1973 06.10.14 12:44

I'm totally shocked. I've only just seen what's being going on. I saw the #askbrunt hashtag on twitter last week and wondered if he was up to something. It seemed obvious he would attract the very vocal crowd on there on the #mccann hashtag and that he was wanting reaction.

I notice a lot of the McCann tweets and I never came across Brenda.

I have millions of questions.

Why would Sky/Blunt blatantly harass someone without quoting exact evidence of their wrong doing? It is all inferred and under the 'troll' label. Surely they should pass evidence to the police and not just turn up vigilante style.

What on earth was Martin Blunt playing at? Surely you can't just go up to someone and accuse them of crimes like that? You need to give them evidence and a right to reply? Is he going to trace all of us who don't believe the dominant account of what happened and demand we appear on Sky News? Am I a troll for not believing the McCanns?

And suddenly the women turns up dead. It just doesn't ring true to me. All of it just sets off alarm bells. Who last saw her? Why would she 'commit suicide'? What happened between that interview and her death?

by The Rooster 06.10.14 12:45

Can anyone post Lord Sugar's tweets, I don't use twitter. Thanks in anticipation...

by j.rob 06.10.14 12:46

Smokeandmirrors wrote:What we have witnessed over the last few days is mind-blowing hypocrisy. We are being shown in no uncertain terms that freedom of speech is not a privilege enjoyed by all on an equal footing, but that it is a dangerous game of Russian Roulette. There are no rules, just dirty tricks and even dirtier agendas. The general public are treated with contempt by the gutter press, and even more contempt by the ruling elite. They will continue to mess with our minds until we fall into silent, impotent obedience. We are living in a totalitarian state.

Sadly, I am unable to disagree with this. The hypocrisy is extraordinary. But I think it is getting dangerously out of control.

by jeanmonroe 06.10.14 12:48

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I'm wondering if the Brunt interview was a follow up to the Theresa May announcement at Tory Conference. Part of a wider public operation to show the sceptics and dissenters as haters. Then Government moves to close down internet sites, FB pages, Twitter feeds etc that have an anti-TM theme under new anti-hater legislation. Another big strand of Operation Sandtex completed.

As stated, just wondering.

Which then 'opens up' the question: " What do T May and DC, actually 'know', if anything, about what happened to Madeleine McCann and have they 'known' all along?"

And all their 'efforts' to restrict 'discussion, about ANY aspect of the 'disappearance' is their way of possibly 'covering their ar*ses'

by sallypelt 06.10.14 12:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
I am going to post this here for those who are interested. I have attended two inquests, and family members and close friends of the deceased may be given permission to speak if they have anything to add, but the judge will cut you off, and remind you that it's an inquest not a court trial. So, anyone who doesn't know Mrs B Leyland personally, or [who doesn't have] any information directly connected to her death, they won't be heard.
That's not quite correct, sallypelt, speaking as one who has attended several inquests or part of inquests in various capacities.

The Coroner has complete discretion to admit anyone who might be a relevant witness.

In this case, for example, an inquest jury (Coroner can decide according to various guidelines whether there is a jury or not) may need to see Brenda Leyland's full record of tweets, e.g. to see if Brunt and his bosses were justified in the grotesque and very public monstering of Brenda.

There might be a 'Twitter' friend that she got to know who can give relevant evidence.

There may be a church member, for example, who knew of her frustration with the (IMO) obvious cover-up of the truth that Operation Grange always was and knew of her doubts about the McCanns.

She might well have had some issues with mental ill-health or depression - in which case her doctor might be a significant witness, and so on.

Also, if Brenda's death was suicide, the jury has the power these days to bring in a 'narrative verdict'. Juries often use narrative verdicts to make strong observations about the background causes or reasons for an early or sudden death

Tony, I can't speak for other inquests, but when I attended my brother's inquest I was told, in no uncertain terms, when I asked about a particular item, "I understand your grief, and I sympathise with you, but this is an inquest and not a court trial, and was told in so many words to shut up.