Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"

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.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:05

Also... the photos of her with the drop down top on... when were they taken? She's wearing different clothes. Were they spying on her?

Were they taken without her knowledge?

They are not from the Brunt confrontation.

How did they "track her down"?

by Guest 03.10.14 7:15

Daily Mail - Three of these tweets (the worst ones) are not hers.

Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 1412202951221_wps_23_TWEETS_latest_jpg

The other names are redacted.

Why? Why not out them as well?

I been re-watching the Brunt video.

He never asked her her name.

She wasn't in the least surprised that he asked about the McCanns.

There is more here, I think she was contacted/harrassed before Brunt turned up to do his bit for TV.

I wonder what the full story is and will Brenda tell?

by missbeetle 03.10.14 7:23

What a very strange episode.

I looked up what a 'sweepyface' was - it sounded like an insult -

- and I wondered was the name anything to do with Sooty and Sweep.

I found this :
Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 %3Ca%20href=

Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 %3Ca%20href=

Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll" - Page 3 Sw_zps8401b821

I'm not at all convinced this lady is quite the dastardly troll Martin Brunt would have us believe she is.

She even has a Facebook page under the name Brenda Leyland - though how real that is, I don't know.

Tigger - I did laugh at your comment a while back about being suspicious of those who spell their name with a 'y'.

I've known a couple of female Robyns in my time, but Ms Summers is the first Robbyn I've come across...

by Guest 03.10.14 7:27

It could be argued that.. "Q: How long must the McCann's suffer? A: For the rest of their miserable lives" is a statement of truth.

Surely their lives are miserable?

What are the "legal reasons" for not showing the names of the other tweeters whilst splattering Sweepyface's real name and address all over the MSM?

I don't know how they can do this.

I hope Brenda bites back.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:29

missbeetle wrote:She even has a Facebook page under the name Brenda Leyland - though how real that is, I don't know.

She is a very real person.

She looks OK actually, I hope she can tell the real story of what has been going on.

by NickE 03.10.14 7:31

BlueBag wrote: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?

This happened here in Sweden earlier this year.
A newspaper hired a group called the "Research Group",a left-wing group who´s mapping people online who post anonymous comments on the Internet about immigration to the country.
As in this case these people are called "Trolls" and "Haters"
Example how Resarchgruppen works:
If "Sweepyface" used "Sweepyface" on other sites and forums, she may have provided an email address that can be traced, for example, an email address, she may have used in contact with the authorities.
This group also hacked "Disqus" which is a service to comment on Internet sites and got the e-mail addresses.
Then they puzzle together these pieces and give / sell the information to the media.
Just a few months ago, it was a TV program called "The Troll Hunters" where a TV team went home to people with a camera and "revealed" them.
An exposed person took legal action against a newspaper, but the judge put down the case directly.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:33

I can't see how she could have been "tracked down" legally.

I KNOW people can be traced, but it's not easy and is illegal unless you're the Police or GCHQ.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:38

Gerry talking to John Humphries on "Today" at the moment.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:41

Ladyinred wrote:Gerry talking to John Humphries on "Today" at the moment.

About "haters" I presume?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.14 7:48

Ladyinred wrote:Gerry talking to John Humphreys [sp] on "Today" at the moment.

Yes, 9-minute whine by Gerry about how Leveson hasn't been fully implemented and how beastly the trolls are - and now they 'must be charged and brought to court' - Humphreys at least tackled some of Gerry McCann's more extreme statements about the new press regulator.

Gerry was again worried about what the twins would get to read about them.

It can be heard again of course on 'Listen Again'/BBC iPlayer - BBC Radio 4 -'Today' - starts at about 7.36am

by Guest 03.10.14 7:49

BlueBag wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Gerry talking to John Humphries on "Today" at the moment.

About "haters" I presume?

Yep, the usual, irresponsible press blah, blah blah. He hasn't read the tweets! I'll listen again later, but I'm pretty certain I did not hear the name of their daughter, Madeleine, being mentioned in this interview.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Gerry talking to John Humphreys [sp] on "Today" at the moment.
Yes, 9-minute whine by Gerry about how Leveson hasn't been fully implemented and how beastly the trolls are - and now they 'must be charged and brought to court' - Humphreys at least tackled some of Gerry McCann's more extreme statements about the new press regulator.

Gerry was again worried about what the twins would get to read about them.

It can be heard again of course on 'Listen Again'/BBC iPlayer - BBC Radio 4 -'Today' - starts at about 7.36am

Tony - did I hear correctly that JH suggested to Gerry the article was damaging not only to the parents but to THE FUND?

by canada12 03.10.14 7:56

Ladyinred wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Gerry talking to John Humphries on "Today" at the moment.

About "haters" I presume?

Yep, the usual, irresponsible press blah, blah blah. He hasn't read the tweets! I'll listen again later, but I'm pretty certain I did not hear the name of their daughter, Madeleine, being mentioned in this interview.

Isn't it interesting that never once do Kate and Gerry worry about what Madeleine might think of everything that's been said. Another own goal - proof that she doesn't figure into their thoughts at all. Madeleine is in the past. IMO.

by Guest 03.10.14 7:57

BlueBag wrote:It could be argued that.. "Q: How long must the McCann's suffer? A: For the rest of their miserable lives" is a statement of truth.

Surely their lives are miserable?

What are the "legal reasons" for not showing the names of the other tweeters whilst splattering Sweepyface's real name and address all over the MSM?

I don't know how they can do this.

I hope Brenda bites back.

I think the whole point here is that sweepyface fits the profile of - and could have been - any one of us.

This is part of the whitewash, in it's final stages, for sure, in my opinion.

by The....truth 03.10.14 8:00

the Guardian has just closed comments on Mccann article following a perceptive and
reasonable question. "Ws this an out of court settlement" concerning Sunday Times

The article itself fails to dispel the feeling that there was indeed a trial.