Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"

by j.rob 03.10.14 16:34

You may be right. I would like to see them charged with more. As, imo, they failed to protect Madeleine from harm. I think it is possible that she could have been saved (following an accident/over-dose/abuse) but the Mcs didn't want a big can of worms being revealed.

However I don't necessarily agree with this:

"The mccanns and the rest of their group never left their children home alone any night, medical people tend to by hyper protective when it comes to childcare since they know what can happen in a fraction of a second , even whilst standing next to their child."

It would be quite difficult to get such a large group of children to sleep in one room. I'm not saying that isn't what happened. But in my view the Mcs and possibly their friends are NOT hyper-protective parents. Certainly not the Mcs. The Gasper statements and other red flags suggest to me that GM (and DP) might have interests that are not at all compatible with responsible parenting. I think the Mc's objectified their children. Kate makes some very strange comments in her book. I don't see any evidence that they were hyper-protective.

And doctors are not necessarily more protective than any other parents. If anything, I think they have a tendency to be more laissez-faire when it comes to health/safety etc. They can be incredibly cavalier about other people's health - but not necessarily their own. Speaking from experience.

But I agree that the 'checking' story was to allow a window of opportunity for a (faked) abduction.

So the McCanns will never be charged with anything? I wonder what the police investigation is for as they must, imo, know this is all one big charade.

by tiredofthebs 03.10.14 17:30

jeanmonroe wrote:
Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.

"We do not have any significant presence on social media or online and I've got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.

Yes, Gerry, that must be quite a sobering thought. One day your children are going to start wondering who the Gaspars are and why the dogs only alerted at all your belongings.

What will you tell them Gerry? You can hide from twitter trolls but you can't hide from your own children.

by stillsloppingout 03.10.14 17:57

tiredofthebs wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.

"We do not have any significant presence on social media or online and I've got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.

Yes, Gerry, that must be quite a sobering thought. One day your children are going to start wondering who the Gaspars are and why the dogs only alerted at all your belongings.

What will you tell them Gerry? You can hide from twitter trolls but you can't hide from your own children.

Usually when a notorious family has children , they either tow the family line , due to constant brainwashing , to protect themselves or are in a state of denial , so i think the Mc's kids will be the same .

I remember Shipman's son , stating they would appeal , appeal, and appeal again . so you IMO will get no change out of the offspring , as i personally think they will have asked a few questions by now , and they are not likely to rock the boat in the future .

by The....truth 03.10.14 17:59

by Guest 03.10.14 18:00

I haven't seen a vile Sweepyface tweet yet.

Has anyone else?

by Lance De Boils 03.10.14 18:05

BlueBag wrote:I haven't seen a vile Sweepyface tweet yet.

Has anyone else?

Can't say I have, either.

Sky News showed some tweets which were arguably 'out of order', but from what I could tell, none of them were by the lady whose face, name and address they put to the story.

Very misleading.

by TMH 03.10.14 18:13

Lance De Boils wrote:
BlueBag wrote:I haven't seen a vile Sweepyface tweet yet.

Has anyone else?

Can't say I have, either.

Sky News showed some tweets which were arguably 'out of order', but from what I could tell, none of them were by the lady whose face, name and address they put to the story.

Very misleading.

Yes I can't understand why they showed Sweepyfaces mild tweet with her ID showing, but then covered up the names of the other tweets that were a heck of a lot worse than hers? Something just doesn't seem right to me

by waiting for justice 03.10.14 18:28

Maybe they looked at a few and decided who would more likely fit the bill and who was less likely to fight back.

I hope she does. How are the McCanns entitled to privacy (when it suits) or to only be reported on with thier prior say so or in collaboration yet she's not.
If quotes weren't actually hers then she should go to Carter Ruck and ask for a no win no fee case be brought against Sky, Daily star etc.
hypocrites springs to mind today. No wonder they've been so quiet of late, cooking this little lot up.

Also I am becoming very bored of having to listen to GM preach about "standards" within the press etc.
he seriously has more neck than a giraffe and certainly no shame.

by Dont Make Me Laff 03.10.14 18:29

I agree that a dossier of the hatred that spews from KM's bewk, should be of concern. and passed to the police. Also that she should be made to answer for her vile comments regarding GA and his poor family. What will her defence be?

At least sweepyface can claim ignorance and was "just tweeting"
I think it is disgraceful that where she lives has been plastered all over the MSM and that she is getting threats too. Well done @Jeanmonroe for reporting that. Let's see how they wriggle out of that one. And I hope that sweepyface turns the tables. Imo it's another diversion and an attempt to get sympathy for the Mc's but in the end (imo) it will bite them on the btm because more and more people will start looking at what all the fuss is about.

KM had her hatred published with approval. It's one rule for one and another for the rest. DISGUSTING.
I notice that sky didn't include any of the legitimate and polite questions that were raised contradicting the lies the T9 feed to the world, which BTW have been either ignored or replied by illiterate trash who's grammar consists of four letter words.

Freedom of speech is a right. Opinions are a right. Threats are wrong.

As far as the twins are concerned, they should be left out of the media and it sickens me that yet again the Mc's bring them into the picture when it suits them to gain sympathy. Just like the scummy chavs who think they have a right to default on their bills and complain when they are informed that their services (gas/electric) will be terminated they respond "I've got kids" - IMO.... all the more reason to behave in a responsible manner.

by Liz Eagles 03.10.14 18:42

A doctor (paediatrician) is prosecuted and found guilty of child sex abuse. He is released on bail awaiting sentence and is photographed leaving the court where he makes a small statement to the press along the lines of 'sorry'. He is not photographed outside his home or doorstepped by reporters. His address is not known to the public.

A tweeter on the McCann hashtag makes a series of foolish/nasty remarks and is doorstepped by Martin Brunt, her address revealed and her face splashed all over Sky News for an entire day. She appears on the front pages of newspapers. This woman has been charged with nothing. It's not even clear if she's committed an offence.

Bizarre!

by Dont Make Me Laff 03.10.14 18:45

Another case of don't look over here - look over there
?

by worriedmum 03.10.14 19:14

aquila wrote:A doctor (paediatrician) is prosecuted and found guilty of child sex abuse. He is released on bail awaiting sentence and is photographed leaving the court where he makes a small statement to the press along the lines of 'sorry'. He is not photographed outside his home or doorstepped by reporters. His address is not known to the public.

A tweeter on the McCann hashtag makes a series of foolish/nasty remarks and is doorstepped by Martin Brunt, her address revealed and her face splashed all over Sky News for an entire day. She appears on the front pages of newspapers. This woman has been charged with nothing. It's not even clear if she's committed an offence.

Bizarre!

Great post, Aquila.

And while we are at it, where does it leave Martin Brunt?

Martin Brunt , who reported events from Praia da Luz as they unfolded, encompassing among other things the dogs, forensics, arrests, arguidos, etc etc. How does his 'reporting ' differ from a poster's opinion? Are his previous news reports acceptable to the McCanns?

by Guest 03.10.14 19:17

Martin Brunt has not a shred of dignity left.

by Guest 03.10.14 19:20

aquila wrote:A doctor (paediatrician) is prosecuted and found guilty of child sex abuse. He is released on bail awaiting sentence and is photographed leaving the court where he makes a small statement to the press along the lines of 'sorry'. He is not photographed outside his home or doorstepped by reporters. His address is not known to the public.

A tweeter on the McCann hashtag makes a series of foolish/nasty remarks and is doorstepped by Martin Brunt, her address revealed and her face splashed all over Sky News for an entire day. She appears on the front pages of newspapers. This woman has been charged with nothing. It's not even clear if she's committed an offence.

Bizarre!

Quite right Aquila.

I watched a programme Weds night about a chap called Stinson Hunter, who uses tried and trusted methods to ensnare p'dos looking for sex with children. There has been much debate that he's doing the wrong thing because he makes the films of him catching these perverts public before the police are involved, i.e, some think he's wrong to put them in the public eye before they are/aren't convicted of anything. (I say crack on Stinson, good work). Not that I think a few questionable tweets compare with what the cretins caught by Stinson Hunter want to do, but as Aquila pointed out this lady has been charged with nothing and she's been broadcast on sky news for goodness sake.

So, how can Brunty get away with this?? Or maybe he saw the praise for Stinson Hunter and thought he'd shake up his journalistic style a little?

by stillsloppingout 03.10.14 19:43

waiting for justice wrote:Maybe they looked at a few and decided who would more likely fit the bill and who was less likely to fight back.

I hope she does. How are the McCanns entitled to privacy (when it suits) or to only be reported on with thier prior say so or in collaboration yet she's not.
If quotes weren't actually hers then she should go to Carter Ruck and ask for a no win no fee case be brought against Sky, Daily star etc.
hypocrites springs to mind today. No wonder they've been so quiet of late, cooking this little lot up.

Also I am becoming very bored of having to listen to GM preach about "standards" within the press etc.
he seriously has more neck than a giraffe and certainly no shame.

Without doubt they have selected a person who cannot fight back , her posts in the real world [ and her assumed name ] will have been observed, from this her intellect , personal life , etc , etc , will have been deduced .[ and i repeat once again, it takes minutes to track back and find somebody's real identity when they post online ] then like Shane Richie on the Daz adverts from the 90's * Brunt pops up at the front door .
Both have the same in common one gets your whites clean, the other is a whitewash !!

* advert from the 1990's Daz automatic washing powder doorstep chalenge Shane Richie .

by sallypelt 03.10.14 20:16

I am totally confused about the tweets of Sweepyface? By his own admission, Gerry McCann has never read any of her tweets, and my guess is, before Brunt exposed this woman, the McCann's didn't even know she existed.

This is what Sky is reporting that GM said:

"Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged".

I believe that Sky News is on a very sticky wicket with what it's done. I think I'll trawl the internet for things that have been said about me, if anything, and ask Sky to "out" the person or persons so I can call for them to be charged.

I don't agree with many of the things that have been said by "antis" and "pros" but this has become ridiculous.

by canada12 03.10.14 20:38

Here's a history of Sweepyface's tweets on Twitter up until the end of September:
http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txt

Interesting reading.
I haven't read through them all but if she made any abusive tweets they should be there for anyone to verify.

It seems Martin Brunt was following her and she challenged him on September 29:
Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?

by Guest 03.10.14 20:40

canada12 wrote:Here's a history of Sweepyface's tweets on Twitter up until the end of September:
http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txt

Interesting reading.
I haven't read through them all but if she made any abusive tweets they should be there for anyone to verify.

It seems Martin Brunt was following her and she challenged him on September 29:
Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?

Ask him about the Gaspar statements?

by Shhh 03.10.14 20:59

If anyone does end up in the dock over this can their defence request the mccanns stand in the witness box & undergo cross examination

by tiredofthebs 03.10.14 21:06

Shhh wrote:If anyone does end up in the dock over this can their defence request the mccanns stand in the witness box & undergo cross examination

I don't know, but I would advise anyone charged with this to plead not guilty. I am sure they would like people to be intimidated and just accept cautions but people need to stand up for themselves and ensure there is a court case.

I would repeat my views on the McCanns to any court in the land. I would welcome a civil lawsuit from them because I could then definitely get to cross examine them.

by **PeterMac** 03.10.14 21:08

Can, or should we start another thread with the things Brunt has said.
100% Dna match in the hire car.
McC going to be arrested
JT did not say Tannerman was carrying anything, when she first reported it to Police - then Bundle, - then little girl - then Madeleine in Pyjamas . .

And send it back to Sky (and Private Eye !)

EDITED TO ADD

CANCEL.
a thread has been started already. well done, sir.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.14 21:17

canada12 wrote:Here's a history of Sweepyface's tweets on Twitter up until the end of September:
http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txt

Interesting reading.

Many thanks for this find.

I had a quick flick through and saw she was often posting several dozen tweets a day, the whole thing had overtaken her, I think.

She was point-scoring with the McCann-believers and unfortunately most of the exchanges on both sides were rather unpleasant.

As far as I can make out she suddenly burst into life on the McCann hashtag on 3 November 2013 - which was just 20 days after the infamous BBC CrimeWatch McCann Special. I wondered if there was something about that programme that led her to become engrossed in the case?

My final comment on what little I've read is that she might have been a lot better informed had she spent a lot of her 'Twitter' time on here, reading the research and analysis and debating with us

by Guest 03.10.14 21:21

Shhh wrote:If anyone does end up in the dock over this can their defence request the mccanns stand in the witness box & undergo cross examination

I thought I'd noticed nothing 'mad' in sweepyface's tweets, canada12's link (thank you) reconfirms this. There's nothing there to put her in the dock, surely. Empty threats is my guess, made to intimidate all those who examine facts and use them to seek the truth. This is an attempt to intimidate the likes of us. Doesn't look like it's worked, so far.

So what next? Enforced whooshing?

My take on it only.

by Shhh 03.10.14 21:41

I don't know about any of you but I e been followed round forums, abused, had my picture & personal details put on line & been threatened by "pros" since the very early days. I haven't trolled unless being a non-believer makes me one. I've even received veiled threats from a certain Mr ramble.

by tiredofthebs 03.10.14 22:18

Shhh wrote:I don't know about any of you but I e been followed round forums, abused, had my picture & personal details put on line & been threatened by "pros" since the very early days. I haven't trolled unless being a non-believer makes me one. I've even received veiled threats from a certain Mr ramble.

Back in 2007 I had the owner of a pro blog posting my, and others', IP addresses when we made an anti comment. They encouraged people to track us down.