The really worst hater of all - Pamela Gurney exposed

PeterMac wrote:A dirndl is a type of traditional dress worn in Germany – especially Bavaria – Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria and South Tyrol

Nina wrote:Just a thought. her tweets dated the 3rd. If she is in America, time zones and all that?

BlueBag wrote:Calls for internet control of pros and antis is win-win for certain people.

That's the game plan.

whatsupdoc wrote:I've just noticed this troll and saved all the nasty, vile tweets...

http://greptweet.com/u/dirndllass/dirndllass.txt

Sky and Daily Mail go after sweepy.....This country stinks.

tiredofthebs wrote:Thing is, I am not sure that all of this really surprises me that much.

I remember in 2007, when I was posting on the Mirror forum with this username, I said that I thought the sick deranged pro-mccanns would end up killing an anti. I always knew it would be that way round. Even back then they were the most relentlessly evil trolls I had ever come across. And they really are trolls. Brenda was nothing of the sort.

jozi wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I've just noticed this troll and saved all the nasty, vile tweets...

http://greptweet.com/u/dirndllass/dirndllass.txt

Sky and Daily Mail go after sweepy.....This country stinks.

Something not quite right with all this.....Brenda did not look too fussed about being waylaid by Brunty and then she goes and commits suicide ?

I feel this is another McCann Mystery here folks ..........???

jozi wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I've just noticed this troll and saved all the nasty, vile tweets...

http://greptweet.com/u/dirndllass/dirndllass.txt

Sky and Daily Mail go after sweepy.....This country stinks.

Something not quite right with all this.....Brenda did not look too fussed about being waylaid by Brunty and then she goes and commits suicide ?

I feel this is another McCann Mystery here folks ..........???

waiting for justice wrote:

PeterMac wrote:The McCanns and their lawyers seem never to have spoken out against the tide of filth which has "supported' them for so long.
(And just in case any decent people from the Press are reading this)
Let us just remember what we are dealing with.

we have to advert to the possibility of serious mental illness, so we should perhaps try to understand, however difficult it might be.

" />


And Lo !, there was Sky and Brunt, to do their bidding.

I'm utterly speechless. This really does need reporting. 

I would be very surprised if this person is in actual fact American. 
Do they use the C word? Not generally.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:OK, going to say it out loud: Brenda Leyland might have been murdered. It would not surprise me one bit.

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:Thing is, I am not sure that all of this really surprises me that much.

I remember in 2007, when I was posting on the Mirror forum with this username, I said that I thought the sick deranged pro-mccanns would end up killing an anti. I always knew it would be that way round. Even back then they were the most relentlessly evil trolls I had ever come across. And they really are trolls. Brenda was nothing of the sort.

You are so right. There has been something so ruthless about all this. Right from the very beginning. They have only got away with it because a lot of people are/were naive. Myself included. 

But once you spot the devices used, it all becomes very obvious. You accuse the people that question your version of events of doing the very thing that you yourself are doing. It's a very effective device to use. Because if someone has integrity, they would not do this. They would feel too bad, too guilty. They just couldn't 'go there'. 

This device works brilliantly on a lot of 'normal' people as it is very confusing. And also very upsetting. And for 'normal' people who are not psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissistic or otherwise seriously personality-disordered, it is quite destablising. Because you have to question your perceptions. Was I wrong? Are they right? So you kind of retreat, confused.

This is what sociopaths/serial bullies/narcissists and those of similar persuasion rely on. So unless you have a very high level of awareness of all the tricks, games and worse, you will end up blindsided. Or worse of course. Which is what has happened.

Brenda was most certainly not a troll. 

But I wonder why they singled her out in particular? 

Was it because she knew things or was getting close to 'the truth'? Or did they target her for other reasons - knowing her to be vulnerable, perhaps.

Because obviously that is another device beloved of serial bullies. You only target people who are vulnerable in some way.

Maybe it was a combination of factors. What a shame she didn't take out her mobile phone then and there on camera and call the police, accusing Martin Blunt of harassment. Because it WAS harassment, imo.

TM have (or had) lawyers, private detectives, friends in the police force, support from politicians, support from celebrities, huge sums of money donated by the public, support from the press. They have been able to shield themselves.

As this horrible episode shows, the average person is not protected and is vulnerable. Cannot hide behind the expensive lawyers and sue everyone. 

Just like Madeleine was vulnerable and not protected, imo.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:OK, going to say it out loud: Brenda Leyland might have been murdered. It would not surprise me one bit.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:OK, going to say it out loud: Brenda Leyland might have been murdered. It would not surprise me one bit.

galena wrote:

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:Thing is, I am not sure that all of this really surprises me that much.

I remember in 2007, when I was posting on the Mirror forum with this username, I said that I thought the sick deranged pro-mccanns would end up killing an anti. I always knew it would be that way round. Even back then they were the most relentlessly evil trolls I had ever come across. And they really are trolls. Brenda was nothing of the sort.

You are so right. There has been something so ruthless about all this. Right from the very beginning. They have only got away with it because a lot of people are/were naive. Myself included. 

But once you spot the devices used, it all becomes very obvious. You accuse the people that question your version of events of doing the very thing that you yourself are doing. It's a very effective device to use. Because if someone has integrity, they would not do this. They would feel too bad, too guilty. They just couldn't 'go there'. 

This device works brilliantly on a lot of 'normal' people as it is very confusing. And also very upsetting. And for 'normal' people who are not psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissistic or otherwise seriously personality-disordered, it is quite destablising. Because you have to question your perceptions. Was I wrong? Are they right? So you kind of retreat, confused.

This is what sociopaths/serial bullies/narcissists and those of similar persuasion rely on. So unless you have a very high level of awareness of all the tricks, games and worse, you will end up blindsided. Or worse of course. Which is what has happened.

Brenda was most certainly not a troll. 

But I wonder why they singled her out in particular? 

Was it because she knew things or was getting close to 'the truth'? Or did they target her for other reasons - knowing her to be vulnerable, perhaps.

Because obviously that is another device beloved of serial bullies. You only target people who are vulnerable in some way.

Maybe it was a combination of factors. What a shame she didn't take out her mobile phone then and there on camera and call the police, accusing Martin Blunt of harassment. Because it WAS harassment, imo.

TM have (or had) lawyers, private detectives, friends in the police force, support from politicians, support from celebrities, huge sums of money donated by the public, support from the press. They have been able to shield themselves.

As this horrible episode shows, the average person is not protected and is vulnerable. Cannot hide behind the expensive lawyers and sue everyone. 

Just like Madeleine was vulnerable and not protected, imo.

One of the scariest things for me is the way the media can edit the truth.  It doesn't matter if your posts are reasonable and well thought out - you can still be branded a 'hater' and a 'troll' - by the simple device of showing your fairly innocuous comment surrounded by a lot of inflammatory remarks giving gullible members of the public the impression that you wrote them all.  If you come back with reasonable criticisms of the McCanns and the media they can edit that part out and try to portray you as a deranged nutter. It's true that the average person has very little power - they would not doorstep Katie Hopkins or Alan Sugar but what can someone like Brenda do when faced with the full force of the media in 'investigative journalism' mode?

ChippyM wrote:

Hawaii is 10 hours behind GMT. She tweeted at 10.03 AM on 3rd of October, which would be around 8pm our time on Friday the 3rd.  and the news was released on Sunday the 5th.

 I could be wrong though, someone else should check.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:OK, going to say it out loud: Brenda Leyland might have been murdered. It would not surprise me one bit.

Now imagine the craziest conspiracy theory that you ever had about this case, so out there that you dare not voice it, what parties might be involved. Even if it were true - could you ever imagine it justifying us arriving at where we are now?

What the hell is going on?

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:Thing is, I am not sure that all of this really surprises me that much.

I remember in 2007, when I was posting on the Mirror forum with this username, I said that I thought the sick deranged pro-mccanns would end up killing an anti. I always knew it would be that way round. Even back then they were the most relentlessly evil trolls I had ever come across. And they really are trolls. Brenda was nothing of the sort.

You are so right. There has been something so ruthless about all this. Right from the very beginning. They have only got away with it because a lot of people are/were naive. Myself included. 

But once you spot the devices used, it all becomes very obvious. You accuse the people that question your version of events of doing the very thing that you yourself are doing. It's a very effective device to use. Because if someone has integrity, they would not do this. They would feel too bad, too guilty. They just couldn't 'go there'. 

This device works brilliantly on a lot of 'normal' people as it is very confusing. And also very upsetting. And for 'normal' people who are not psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissistic or otherwise seriously personality-disordered, it is quite destablising. Because you have to question your perceptions. Was I wrong? Are they right? So you kind of retreat, confused.

This is what sociopaths/serial bullies/narcissists and those of similar persuasion rely on. So unless you have a very high level of awareness of all the tricks, games and worse, you will end up blindsided. Or worse of course. Which is what has happened.

......

Tony Bennett wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

Hawaii is 10 hours behind GMT. She tweeted at 10.03 AM on 3rd of October, which would be around 8pm our time on Friday the 3rd.  and the news was released on Sunday the 5th.

 I could be wrong though, someone else should check.

dirndllass = Cindy Martin  http://www.pinterest.com/dirndllass/


On the death of Brenda Leyland

I declare that I reject claims that she was murdered. I feel sure she committed suicide. Inquest verdicts used to say: "Suicide while the balance of her mind was disturbed".

Martin Brunt and his SKY News bosses disturbed her mind and in that sense they are DIRECTLY responsible for her death.

I don't think she had stumbled, or was about to stumble, as some suggest, on incriminating evidence that was about to blow the whole case wide open.

The evidence is that Brunt wanted Sean Hyland = pleb-nobby-Lobby to come on camera. He wouldn't because they wouldn't pay him a fee. They scuttled around for someone else and the best they could come up with was a lonely divorcee. SKY News did not do a risk assessment on the likely outcome of their public outing of her.

Murdoch's men have told mountains of lies about this case, they have made pots of money, and now they have effectively killed someone. I believe there will come a day when they will have to answer for their decisions in this case.    

I also think that DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange bears a degree of responsibility, as of course do the McCanns and the McCann Team for their inflammatory statements demanding that dozens of 'trolls' all be charged with crimes.

Tony Bennett wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

Hawaii is 10 hours behind GMT. She tweeted at 10.03 AM on 3rd of October, which would be around 8pm our time on Friday the 3rd.  and the news was released on Sunday the 5th.

 I could be wrong though, someone else should check.

dirndllass = Cindy Martin  http://www.pinterest.com/dirndllass/


On the death of Brenda Leyland

I declare that I reject claims that she was murdered. I feel sure she committed suicide. Inquest verdicts used to say: "Suicide while the balance of her mind was disturbed".

Martin Brunt and his SKY News bosses disturbed her mind and in that sense they are DIRECTLY responsible for her death.

I don't think she had stumbled, or was about to stumble, as some suggest, on incriminating evidence that was about to blow the whole case wide open.

The evidence is that Brunt wanted Sean Hyland = pleb-nobby-Lobby to come on camera. He wouldn't because they wouldn't pay him a fee. They scuttled around for someone else and the best they could come up with was a lonely divorcee. SKY News did not do a risk assessment on the likely outcome of their public outing of her.

Murdoch's men have told mountains of lies about this case, they have made pots of money, and now they have effectively killed someone. I believe there will come a day when they will have to answer for their decisions in this case.    

I also think that DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange bears a degree of responsibility, as of course do the McCanns and the McCann Team for their inflammatory statements demanding that dozens of 'trolls' all be charged with crimes.

ChippyM wrote:

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:Thing is, I am not sure that all of this really surprises me that much.

I remember in 2007, when I was posting on the Mirror forum with this username, I said that I thought the sick deranged pro-mccanns would end up killing an anti. I always knew it would be that way round. Even back then they were the most relentlessly evil trolls I had ever come across. And they really are trolls. Brenda was nothing of the sort.

You are so right. There has been something so ruthless about all this. Right from the very beginning. They have only got away with it because a lot of people are/were naive. Myself included. 

But once you spot the devices used, it all becomes very obvious. You accuse the people that question your version of events of doing the very thing that you yourself are doing. It's a very effective device to use. Because if someone has integrity, they would not do this. They would feel too bad, too guilty. They just couldn't 'go there'. 

This device works brilliantly on a lot of 'normal' people as it is very confusing. And also very upsetting. And for 'normal' people who are not psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissistic or otherwise seriously personality-disordered, it is quite destablising. Because you have to question your perceptions. Was I wrong? Are they right? So you kind of retreat, confused.

This is what sociopaths/serial bullies/narcissists and those of similar persuasion rely on. So unless you have a very high level of awareness of all the tricks, games and worse, you will end up blindsided. Or worse of course. Which is what has happened.

......

I think this is very insightful and probably true. She may have been one of the people on that list that was alone and didn't have a great support network in the UK.   She was also not used to dealing with such dirty tricks like other people on the list like Peter Mac and Tony Bennet. These pyschological bullies go for people they think they can get to in some way.

tiny wrote:I declare you wont see any TRUE facts at all,relating to  Brendas death,i fear it  will be swept under the carpet just like any FACTS that incriminate the mccanns

j.rob wrote:

tiny wrote:I declare you wont see any TRUE facts at all,relating to  Brendas death,i fear it  will be swept under the carpet just like any FACTS that incriminate the mccanns

How depressing. But I fear you are right. What a mess this country has become.

galena wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

Hawaii is 10 hours behind GMT. She tweeted at 10.03 AM on 3rd of October, which would be around 8pm our time on Friday the 3rd.  and the news was released on Sunday the 5th.

 I could be wrong though, someone else should check.

dirndllass = Cindy Martin  http://www.pinterest.com/dirndllass/


On the death of Brenda Leyland

I declare that I reject claims that she was murdered. I feel sure she committed suicide. Inquest verdicts used to say: "Suicide while the balance of her mind was disturbed".

Martin Brunt and his SKY News bosses disturbed her mind and in that sense they are DIRECTLY responsible for her death.

I don't think she had stumbled, or was about to stumble, as some suggest, on incriminating evidence that was about to blow the whole case wide open.

The evidence is that Brunt wanted Sean Hyland = pleb-nobby-Lobby to come on camera. He wouldn't because they wouldn't pay him a fee. They scuttled around for someone else and the best they could come up with was a lonely divorcee. SKY News did not do a risk assessment on the likely outcome of their public outing of her.

Murdoch's men have told mountains of lies about this case, they have made pots of money, and now they have effectively killed someone. I believe there will come a day when they will have to answer for their decisions in this case.    

I also think that DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange bears a degree of responsibility, as of course do the McCanns and the McCann Team for their inflammatory statements demanding that dozens of 'trolls' all be charged with crimes.

I can't honestly think of any motive anyone would have for murdering her - she was far more use to TM and their media sockpuppets alive as a terrible example of what could happen to those who dared to speak up against the official line. Her death has dealt a terrible blow to their campaign to silence internet opposition.  And if she did have some crucial knowledge never before discussed on the internet (unlikely in my opinion) and someone decided to bump her off, it would be a lot easier to do so without bringing her into the limelight. Without the Martin Brunt interview her death would likely have gone unreported ...