Vile anti-McCann 'trolls' are helping the mainstream media

by **Tony Bennett** 02.05.15 8:32

The McCann-doubting community is about to come under the spotlight in a film to be made by mainstream media journalist, Jenny Kleeman.

It is explicitly about what McCann-doubters believe. Hopefully it will also fairly examine why McCann-doubters have those beliefs.

Yet there are evil people out there who are presenting Kleeman with gifts.

I reproduce here three internet messages that have been published since the announcement of the McCanns' libel/damages award of 500,000 euros:

+++++++++++++++++++

1. David Buff Moore

David Buff Moore ® ‏@ buffmoore 4m4 minutes ago
#mccann getting £350k payout absolute joke pair is the deserve to be burnt alive.

2. Douglas Hall

Douglas Hall @ prophonics
#mccann Terrible news for Goncalo, lets hope a tragic accident befalls the McCanns and they die

3. Stephen D. Birch

Vile anti-McCann 'trolls' are helping the mainstream media Wwwbir10

Vile anti-McCann 'trolls' are helping the mainstream media Wwwbir10

Digging for Madeleine McCann

11 hrs ·
This website will pay anybody £100 pounds for slapping Kate McCann through the face for not digging up the Murat driveway. Please provide a photo of the encounter.............

Digging for Madeleine McCann we already have takers - well done, keep those pledges coming by messaging us .

++++++++++++++++

I hope every member here is aware that the eyes of the mainstream media are on this forum at the moment. CMOMM is very likely at least to get a mention on Kleeman's film, along with Richard Hall's film.

I have already had to report to Admin a hateful post on here which thanksfully ha snow been removed.

I trust that every member here will share my disgust at the above three comments I've reproduced.

I also wonder if Kleeman will use, in her film, the boasts of former member here Rosalinda Hutton, the self-professed 'anti-McCann bitch' who gets a 'buzz' out of attacking McCann-supporters? She may be a prominent member of another McCann-doubting forum; thank goodness it's no longer CMOMM

by jeanmonroe 02.05.15 13:34

In fairness, and for 'impartiality', Tony, i think you SHOULD also 'post' the 'vile, disgusting, death threats' to BL FROM a PRO McCann 'supporter', Cindy Martin.

As 'disgusting' as they were.

It's not just 'anti's' that, supposedly, claim 'exclusivity' to disgusting 'trolling'!

You've had many a pro McCann 'troll' saying things about you!

Remember the 'cancer' one? (your wife?)

I do, because i screen shotted' it on my other comp!

YOU asked me to!

Let's have those PRO McCann troll 'threats, tweets' etc., 'posted' on CMOMM!

So please 'post' PRO McCann TROLL disgusting 'posts' as well as 'anti' as 'above' in your post. in the interest of 'impartiality'

Thankyou.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.05.15 14:03

jeanmonroe wrote:In fairness, and for 'impartiality', Tony, I think you SHOULD also 'post' the 'vile, disgusting, death threats' to BL FROM a PRO McCann 'supporter', Cindy Martin.

NO. That happened last year. I am talking about NOW, about posts being made NOW - even one hateful anti-McCann comment on this forum, that has now mercifully been removed by Admin. We are being watched, let us therefore be very very careful about what we say. Besides, those pro-McCann comments turned out to be from a clearly vile young American teenager

So please 'post' PRO McCann TROLL disgusting 'posts' as well as 'anti' as 'above' in your post. Let's have those PRO McCann troll 'threats, tweets' etc., 'posted' on CMOMM! In the interest of 'impartiality'. Thankyou.

NO. Some pro-McCann posts at the time Brenda Leyland was outed were certainly vile, but they have already been published on here many times. Criticising the McCanns based on the evidence of what we can read, see or hear is one thing - and even then people must take care.

But wishing the McCanns harm or expressions of hate towards them have no place on CMOMM - or elsewhere. I may fairly claim to have more grounds to 'hate' them than most, after all, £125 has to leave my current account evey month for another 97 months before I've settled up with Carter-Ruck. But I harbour no hate for them

by plebgate 02.05.15 19:13

Nobody knows whether these posts are from so called anti mccanns. They could well be posted by so-called pros in an effort to discredit questioners and I think JK should inform the public that this is a possibility.

Fairness and balance at all times.

by Knitted 03.05.15 2:56

Tony Bennett wrote:The McCann-doubting community is about to come under the spotlight in a film to be made by mainstream media journalist, Jenny Kleeman.

Snipped: ++++++++++++++++

I hope every member here is aware that the eyes of the mainstream media are on this forum at the moment. CMOMM is very likely at least to get a mention on Kleeman's film, along with Richard Hall's film.

I have already had to report to Admin a hateful post on here which thanksfully ha snow been removed.

I trust that every member here will share my disgust at the above three comments I've reproduced.

Agreed...

Personally I find all abuse against either 'antis' or 'pros' (Oh, how I hate those terms!) offensive. Those here that that give weight to the facts have the moral high ground and so have no need to descend to the lowest common denominator.

Anyway, I've recently posted on Jill's FB site about the forthcoming program and ended with:
"It'll be interesting to see what (nonsense) the shills post on CMoMM to take advantage of the broadcast of the program and try and discredit the debates... I suspect there'll be a few that night, but they'll be easy to spot!" ;-)"

In writing that I was mindful that we need to make sure that any new visitors to the site after the program has been aired are neither faced with degrading personal comments about people involved in the case (or the program!), nor are presented with bizarre theories or silly interpretations of photos that detract from the pertinent facts. I have no doubt there are people posting things across forums/Twitter to already create a negative impression of those who are simply looking for justice and a fair investigation... and my money is on people already lurking in the wings here waiting to discredit CMoMM by posting either unprofessional or 'bizarre' comments that will both reinforce any negative reporting and/or otherwise 'turn-off' any new visitors.

From reading these threads there's a view that there's a growing MSM 'campaign' to counter the growing awareness of the facts of this case. So we need to counter that campaign by planning ahead, keeping focussed and not getting caught out. Therefore I also mentioned in the FB post whether we should have some sticky content on the CMoMM forum, at the top, which easily links to some of the 'best' evidence to show to people visiting for the first time? Maybe things such as links to the Gaspar statements? Richard D Hall's 'Buried by Mainstream Media'? Videos of Eddie & Keela? The weather/shadow data of the Last Photo? Kate's unanswered questions? etc. (I think Smithman is too involved for initial visitors!). I guess it all depends on how many people may watch Kleeman's program... not having a TV I can't really gauge how 'big' it will actually be. Any ideas?

by plebgate 03.05.15 7:30

Maybe JK should include this. Brunt seems to have had a lot to say about things at one time.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/what-happened-to-gerry-mccanns-blue.html

80 paces Brunty, seems to have forgotten that report?

Would I trust a journalist, not on your nelly.

by aiyoyo 03.05.15 8:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
I also wonder if Kleeman will use, in her film, the boasts of former member here Rosalinda Hutton, the self-professed 'anti-McCann bitch' who gets a 'buzz' out of attacking McCann-supporters? She may be a prominent member of another McCann-doubting forum; thank goodness it's no longer CMOMM

Objectively speaking, if anyone is likely to use it, it will be Martin Brunt and team McCann in that order, after SP's film is broadcast.

RH's cringing piece (as well as her blog full of colorful stories) gives them perfect fodders for retaliation for a simple reason she's friend of and close to SP (perceived or real, does not matter) when what they are after is discrediting story materials. What better way to discredit the producer than draw attention to the kind of companies she keeps. In the context of the nature of the film (as we are under the impression what it will be of), this type of countenance is kind of expected one supposes.

Not saying.....just saying .......unfortunately that is what opposite side will do - they counter attack where it damages most and makes the most impact.

Be prepared for the deluge of vitriolic in the wake of SP film. Nothing in the way will be spared by those DIRTY playing lot.

by j.rob 03.05.15 13:38

plebgate wrote:Nobody knows whether these posts are from so called anti mccanns. They could well be posted by so-called pros in an effort to discredit questioners and I think JK should inform the public that this is a possibility.

Fairness and balance at all times.

That would be typical Team McCann behavour, imo.