Lying in the Sun

Brunt Bit by Bit Part 4

Brunt Bit by Bit -    Part 4.....

                                       
...his shocking and irresponsible special report



Brunt:

"But sweepyface is not the worst.


Some have urged violence against the parents.  Others have gone even further offering support for anyone who is prepared to seriously harm the McCanns."




Indeed!

B. Leyland was nothing like the people who Brunt describes above.  She was by all accounts a nice lady, a lady who challenged the outrageous tales told by the McCanns regarding their daughter's disappearance.


She didn't threaten violence against anyone.  She made no threats whatsoever against anyone. She did not stalk anyone.  She did not send text messages to the McCanns and she did not send hundreds of comments on Twitter to the McCanns.


She was not anything like Kate McCann either, Kate McCann a woman who did in fact make vile hate filled comments against others, Kate McCann who wished Robert Murat dead.  Kate McCann who wishes for Dr Amaral to feel pain, to suffer, and who has acted in this regard to make this happen. 


Brunt stated that most of B. Leyland's comments were about the McCanns?


Well they would be if that is the subject she chose to discuss.  Why is that a problem?  Why was this or anything else about this lady newsworthy, and not just newsworthy why was it shown round the clock on Sky News?  She had committed no crime!


And the biggie - WHY was Brunt not on the doorstep of those he claimed in his report 'urged violence against the McCanns?'


Why was he instead on the doorstep of a woman who lived alone, a woman whom he must have known had received death threats from McCann supporters, quite possibly those very same supporters who compiled the so called dossier. those supporters with whom he had clearly colluded with in putting together his special report?   A woman whom he knew had not committed any crime, a woman he knew had not been charged with any crime.  A woman who lived in a quiet village who posed no threat to anyone?


A woman whom he knew he could safely approach without fear as she was no threat to anyone would never harm a living soul.


WHY was Martin Brunt lying in wait for this lady?


Was she the easy target?  Absolutely!


Brunt has not come up with a single twit message posted by this lady, which threatened in any way the McCanns, and believe me, if he could have he would have.  What a scoop that would have been for him!


But just like the threats which the McCanns claim have been made against their twin children, no Twit person or the McCanns have produced a single one.


And believe me again when I say, that if the woman who ORGANISED AND COMPILED THE dossier, the McCann supporter as Brunt described this ANONYMOUS person had a Twit message that showed the McCann twins to have been threatened in any way it would have been produced.


And if any such message existed, the Metropolitan Police would have acted immediately, and they would have traced the source!


So what was Brunt playing at by attacking this lady, confronting her and NOT those who he claimed threatened violence/urged violence against the McCanns?


Why did Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe of the Metropolitan Police cast this dossier aside, throw it to the Leicestershire Police, such a juicy case if it was true which would have made the Met look good to have arrested those responsible for threatening the McCann twins?


Why did Hogan-Howe not make any mention of any nasty threats against the McCann twins?


The whole affair stinks Brunt, Sky, Murdoch, the McCanns, the McCann supporters who organised the dossier, the duo that is Summers and Swan and of course Clarence Mitchell, he has to be involved all have a lot to answer for.

It must be noted also.

This footage in Brunt's special report where there are clips of Twit messages shown - those of Brenda Leyland, identify her has Sweepyface, her handle is shown.


Those from the the persons who actually have posted not nice comments, comments containing violence their tag name, handle whatever you wish to call it are blanked out.


Why would that be?


Why are those who compiled the report - and do not kid yourselves that these are innocent persons with only the welfare and safety of the McCanns at stake only those born less than ten seconds ago would fall for that one, fall for Brunt's line the 'organiser fears for her safety' yeah, yeah, and the cutie voice they used to dub the organisers words, just laughable -  and those who did make vile comments, why are their 'handles' blanked out?  Why were the culprits of vile messages protected by Brunt and Sky?


Why were these anonymous persons not given the same nasty treatment by Brunt which he meted out to Brenda Leyland?    Why were they not attacked publicly by Brunt?


Why did he choose an innocent lady?


Brunt has so much explaining to do, as have the McCanns, Gamble, Summers and Swan, Murdoch, and all others involved in this unsavoury affair.




l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
1st November 2014

Website Builder