Re: HEREEE'S................BRUNT! My ten years of looking for Madeleine: how the McCann case has dominated my life

by pennylane 03.05.17 19:02

princess_leia wrote:I've just watched the Sky documentary from last night with my husband. He doesn't follow the case as much as I do, but he's pretty well informed with my regular updates.

Anyway, one of the first things that my husband said, about 20 mins in...have the McCann's p!ssed off Rupert Murdoch, he said that he has never seen anything like this from Sky or Brunt. He thought it was a balanced doc, with things being mentioned that haven't really mentioned elsewhere. He also mentioned Colin Sutton, and was surprised that he was allowed to say what he did re McCann's should have been investigated. My husband couldn't believe when MB said that the McCann's threatened to sue Leicester police for lack of information on the investigation.

One of the things that surprised me was Gamble also mentioned the McCs should have been investigated. Not sure if he has said this before, but it was news to me.

All in all I found it a good, fairly balanced documentary, and I think it would give unsuspecting viewers something to think about.

One would be forgiven for thinking something has happened behind the scenes, that isn't yet in the public arena! pray2

by princess_leia 03.05.17 19:12

pennylane wrote:
princess_leia wrote:I've just watched the Sky documentary from last night with my husband. He doesn't follow the case as much as I do, but he's pretty well informed with my regular updates.

Anyway, one of the first things that my husband said, about 20 mins in...have the McCann's p!ssed off Rupert Murdoch, he said that he has never seen anything like this from Sky or Brunt. He thought it was a balanced doc, with things being mentioned that haven't really mentioned elsewhere. He also mentioned Colin Sutton, and was surprised that he was allowed to say what he did re McCann's should have been investigated. My husband couldn't believe when MB said that the McCann's threatened to sue Leicester police for lack of information on the investigation.

One of the things that surprised me was Gamble also mentioned the McCs should have been investigated. Not sure if he has said this before, but it was news to me.

All in all I found it a good, fairly balanced documentary, and I think it would give unsuspecting viewers something to think about.

One would be forgiven for thinking something has happened behind the scenes, that isn't yet in the public arena!

After watching that, the recent articles in The Sun, the general MSM, are all reporting things although some may appear negative, they are still reporting on things that have been kept quiet...and the comments sections are no longer moderated with a lot of these articles. I don't know, it all feels like things are shifting. But I have felt like this several times before. We will see.

by JRP 03.05.17 20:37

Philip Anders wrote:
JRP wrote:
Philip Anders wrote:
JRP wrote:"Vanished into thin air" eh!

Well I never! This is actually a thing?

Martin **unt will be explaining levitation next, or how to throw a pack of cards at a window, and how the one with the signature sticks to the inside, or how you get an iPhone into a Coke bottle.
The point is that he didn't refer to an abduction!

And my point is. NOBODY vanishes into thin air. She's somewhere. He's replacing the un-provable with the impossible.
Yes we all know that nobody vanishes into thin air but it's still a phrase used when a person goes missing without a trace.

Forget 'vanished into thin air'' if you take such great exception to the phrase.

The important bit is that Brunt, when live on Sky News earlier today, seems to be distancing himself from his 'abduction is the only possible theory' stance & had admitted that there is a valid reason why people don't like the McCanns as opposed to his former stance of calling all non-McCann supporters trolls.

My "jibe" was aimed at Martin **unt, and his choice of words, it wasn't aimed at you personally. I presumed it was a direct quote from The **unt.
Also, I understood the point you were making, however, I don't trust Sky News, Martin **unt or his mate Colin. I'll believe distancing when I see it for myself, and so far I haven't.

If Madeleine wasn't abducted, there are other explanations as to why she hasn't been around for the last 10 years, and disappearing into thin air isn't one of them. It might be a term of phrase used when somebody disappears without trace, but in this case there is a trace. It's just, nobody with any authority will follow the trace.

by worriedmum 03.05.17 23:38

Philip Anders wrote:Brunt was on Sky News today & his reporting was very measured.

The abduction word was not used & was replaced by 'vanished into thin air' & which was one of several possible theories.

He said he understood the reason why some people don't like the McCanns "because they left 3 young children alone".

He'd never have said this even a few days ago.

I'd like to think this 'means' something but bearing in mind that Mr Brunt reported on Sky in 2007 about DNA to the whole listening world and now says it's all a bit of a mystery, makes me sceptical..

by Captain_Pugwash 03.05.17 23:41

Very well balanced production in my view. Showed the PJ vs Met following supposed due process, with the exception of:
People who have crimes commited against them , especially regarding children do not:
1. Tell LIES, like the multiple people who referred to jemmied open shutters?
2. Try to automatically counter viable indications like the Cadaver and Blood dogs?
3. Have pacts of silence with their friends?
4. Decide what has happened then call every media organisation in the world before evidential facts have been gathered?
5. Suggesting that a person was seen carrying a child away from the complex but not telling the mother of the missing child about it to save her distress, also not telling the Police because you didn't think they could cope?

Over to you people. This sort of thing simply does not happen in anyone's world. Censorship by the BBC, ultimately by the government.

by Philip Anders 03.05.17 23:43

JRP wrote:
Philip Anders wrote:
JRP wrote:
Philip Anders wrote:
JRP wrote:"Vanished into thin air" eh!

Well I never! This is actually a thing?

Martin **unt will be explaining levitation next, or how to throw a pack of cards at a window, and how the one with the signature sticks to the inside, or how you get an iPhone into a Coke bottle.
The point is that he didn't refer to an abduction!

And my point is. NOBODY vanishes into thin air. She's somewhere. He's replacing the un-provable with the impossible.
Yes we all know that nobody vanishes into thin air but it's still a phrase used when a person goes missing without a trace.

Forget 'vanished into thin air'' if you take such great exception to the phrase.

The important bit is that Brunt, when live on Sky News earlier today, seems to be distancing himself from his 'abduction is the only possible theory' stance & had admitted that there is a valid reason why people don't like the McCanns as opposed to his former stance of calling all non-McCann supporters trolls.

My "jibe" was aimed at Martin **unt, and his choice of words, it wasn't aimed at you personally. I presumed it was a direct quote from The **unt.
Also, I understood the point you were making, however, I don't trust Sky News, Martin **unt or his mate Colin. I'll believe distancing when I see it for myself, and so far I haven't.

If Madeleine wasn't abducted, there are other explanations as to why she hasn't been around for the last 10 years, and disappearing into thin air isn't one of them. It might be a term of phrase used when somebody disappears without trace, but in this case there is a trace. It's just, nobody with any authority will follow the trace.

I didn't take it personally. I was just intrigued by the difference in language he used this morning.

by Captain_Pugwash 04.05.17 10:09

He said he understood the reason why some people don't like the McCanns "because they left 3 young children alone".

Some people???? I hope social services and the McCann legal teams are reading this: This is a classic example of how not to be a parent. This is a perfect picture of neglect. The overwhelming message absorbed by the public when this story broke was "what rubbish parents to leave their children alone whilst they go out to drink and party".

by sar 16.05.17 15:25

seem to remember brooks saying there was more to come after the phone hacking scandal, wonder what that was referring to?

Log in for more topics