Lying in the Sun

Kelly a Media Troll?

Lorraine Kelly a Media Troll?

For those who may happen to read here, they will know that I loathe liars.
In the case of missing Madeleine McCann the lies begun at least from when the child was first reported to police in Portugal as being missing.   There is no question of that.  One look at the police files which are online and free for anyone to read, will confirm this.


I have I hope to some extent identified in my above blogs and in particular the 'Just Checking Blogs' exactly that, the untruths and inconsistencies in the police witness statements of the McCanns and their buddies who holidayed with them.
 

The press in the UK we all know have printed some of the most fantastic tales in this case - wall to wall child abductors, stories of paedophiles, blonde men, fat men, smelly men, childless couples, black men, white men, swarthy looking foreign men, men in vans, men on tractors, men who walked fast, men who walked slowly, gipsy men, cleaners, spotty faced men, scary men...men from every corner of the earth...not even dead men were left out of the incredulous stories, those the UK press declared as suspects in this case, based on...well NOTHING to be exact!


What the UK press have not concentrated on are the nine adults who Madeleine holidayed with, their police witness statements, the contradictions within those statements, and nor have they or any of the media, when interviewing the McCanns strayed too far from the scripted questions to ask the crucial and pertinent questions in reference to those statements in reference to a little girl who mysteriously vanished.

How often do we hear of poor Madeleine?  Not often!

How often do we hear of the poor parents?

Poor parents, that is the parents who DID not fully co-operate with police authorities in relation to the disappearance of their daughter, who they claim they left in a holiday apartment alone with her 2 year old siblings, on FIVE of the six nights of their stay in Portugal until the night the child tragically and mysteriously vanished without trace.


Sian Williams, BBC tested the waters re one of the astonishing statements Kate McCann had made, in her book Madeleine, and in several TV interviews she had given - it was met with a very cold reception from Kate McCann.


Equally Dermot Murnaghan, Sky dipped his toes in the water, and it was not welcome.

And of course Jeremy Paxman, sent Gerry McCann into 'scary stare' mode for daring to suggest that the McCanns have used the media by amongst other things, dictating, if, and when he, McCann would give them an audience.

But one glaringly obvious question for any reporter worth their salt would be to ask Gerry McCann WHY he told the Portuguese police in his first witness statement that he entered the apartment on the night the child was reported as missing, through the front door, that it was locked and he opened it with his key, which he had stated also was their usual routine when checking the children.  


SEVEN days later, Gerry McCann CHANGED his police witness statement, telling Portuguese police that what he had told them in the first statement was not correct at all that he now wanted to give A DIFFERENT VERSION OF EVENTS, he now, somewhere between the night the child had been reported missing, 3rd May 2007 and the 10th May 2007 remembered that all he had said to police in his first police witness statement, in this regard, was NOT the truth!

Why would that be, that no one has asked this question of Gerry McCann?

It is a question that should have reporters and those who interview the McCanns eager to ask.  They should be falling over themselves, queuing up to ask Gerry McCann this very question.

Hard to believe that not a one has had the gumption!

Lorraine Kelly has interviewed them quite regularly in the past seven years, not a single pertinent or probing question?  But perhaps that is to be expected of Kelly.

But why would Martin Brunt for instance not have asked them those very questions, and he has interviewed them more than once, and reported on this case on many occasions?

It is one thing to not report on a matter, but quite another when the reporting is dishonest, when those creating the stories for publication
(Clarence Mitchell shapes the stories he and they want out there, it is part of reputation management, and costs £70,000 per year, full time, a lesser amount when on retainer.  Madeleine's Fund, the donations from the public pay for his salary) and all of the other crime reporters, and columnists print what in essence is a shed load of shit.

And more shockingly when that SLOS is harmful to others, is blatant lies, written, knowing that this is so - Shame on them all.


From the bottom of the pile, the Lorraine Kelly's to the top, they have let a little girl down.  They have done such damage to all children, abused children (and abuse takes many forms - as arguably this case more than demonstrates in more ways than one) who suffer at the hands of parents, family members, and strangers alike.  

One has to ask:-

  • WHY has Madeleine not been their first concern?
  • WHY has Madeleine, what became of her, not been their first concern?
  • WHY are those who are in a position to ask such questions of McCanns not doing so?


All too busy making money out of this child, her life, her pain, her suffering, her death, her disappearance?



People in a position to help, and they ALL choose not to.


  • What does that tell us about society?
  • What does that tell us about those in the press, the journalists, the columnists?

No one is saying that the McCanns have not mourned the loss of their daughter.


Of course they will have.


But that does not in any way excuse those who choose to IGNORE the FACTS, of this case.  Those who choose NOT TO READ the police files, who choose NOT to acknowledge the FACTS therein but then take it upon themselves to write untruth accounts!


There is not an excuse that can possibly justify these people commenting on this case, unless they have first read the police files online.


And there is NO excuse whatsoever for any who have read the files to then report that the McCanns have been cleared of involvement.



Where they get that idea is a complete mystery!


DCI Andy Redwood said at one point that they were not suspects.


Not being suspects at that stage and being cleared of all involvement, two entirely different issues.


One may not be a suspect one day...and 'tomorrow' tells another story!


And if they, these journalists/columnists have read the files they really should be questioning themselves, as to why they in turn have NEVER asked the questions of this group of people, which they should have been asking!


Instead, the public get giggly Lorraine, and others, writing SLOS about this case.

Either they have been so ignorant as to not avail themselves of the facts, or were too sloppy to bother.


Most recently though we have had the shocking case of a lady, and from all accounts, a decent, honest, intelligent, articulate, loving and kind lady, a member of the public who fell foul of the Kelly's and the Malone's of this world, their nasty and vicious comments (they did not take the time to investigate before firing off their disgraceful articles)  This lady who had done no wrong, but who was subjected to an onslaught by Sky/Martin Brunt who publicly accused this lady, and wrongly so of being what it seems is known on the internet as a Troll.  


Neither of the above named columnists have had the courage to acknowledge their wrong doing or make apology.


This to me 'Troll' is the most ridiculous of terms for adults to be using.  I cannot get my head round, mature persons adopting this infantile term.


But more importantly, it seems that no one, no one at all knows exactly why they are using it, no one but no one seems to be able to state what it means, so many and varying definitions.


Just too silly for words. 


But what the media has done, in the case of missing Madeleine, is use this term to describe in the most derogatory of ways, anyone who does not believe, or who questions the very many inconsistencies in the stories told by not only Kate and Gerry McCann, but their holiday companions, and also those of Clarence Mitchell (we know why he behaves as he does - he gets paid a vast sum of money from Madeleine Fund for his despicable conduct in this case) and sadly and tragically they used this term to describe the lady I am speaking of.  A lady, who after Martin Brunt confronted her, was found dead in an hotel.


The cause of her death is not yet known.   There is of course much speculation, and not least from those aforementioned. 


And if I may diverse for a moment.  The family of this lady will be suffering enormous grief, and I would imagine they are still very much in deep shock, not only at her death, but the events which led up to her passing.


I read, and with the greatest sadness, shock, and disbelief that someone intends to stand in Trafalgar Square for reasons best known to her, and perhaps have a placard declaring that SHE is the lady who tragically lost her life.


I cannot imagine a greater hurt to bestow on this family at a time of such sorrow. I cannot imagine a more disrespectful action.


If the family of this lady at any time require the services, or any information from those who post on Twitter, Facebook who knew her, they will seek it, and at a time when they are ready.


So wrong to intrude on their grief in such an appalling way.  

Some sort of morbid and inhumane form of attention seeking!


I was thinking also about this term 'Troll' and of the way Kelly, Malone and others have used it this past couple of weeks bandied it about, labeling in essence anyone who doubts the McCanns as being nasty people.


There are of course nasty people out there.  On the internet, and off.  


Nasty people who support the McCann version(S) of events, and nasty people who do not.


Nasty people in the press, nasty reporters, nasty columnists, nasty TV presenters, nasty people in all walks of life in fact.


But, there are I believe in this world of ours many more who are good, decent and honest people.


In the case of missing Madeleine, many many decent, good and honest people know that something is far wrong in this case.  (Doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to know that, or a Philadelphia lawyer to see what else is going on here regarding the McCann legal set up.)


Not because they are 'troll people' but because they are people who care deeply for a child who vanished and mysteriously so.   People who have studied the files, studied the many interviews given by McCanns, studied Kate McCanns book Madeleine, and her diary entries, and can see much is amiss.  People who have had the courage to stand up and be counted, to question, to challenge the incredulous stories told - unlike the UK media and those who have this past SEVEN years been in a position where they could have made a difference for Madeleine, her plight, and that of other children but chose NOT to! 


People who can see, as the Portuguese Police did, as the Leicestershire Police, UK did, that the stories told by the McCanns and the group of adults who traveled with them - SIMPLY DON'T ADD UP!


People who challenge their accounts of the events.

People who want answers.

Answers which thus far, the McCanns have not been prepared to give.


But to Lorraine Kelly.


IF a troll is someone who writes nasty comments about another when on Twitter or Facebook, on the internet...


Does this same same term 'Troll' apply to Kelly, and other columnists, who behave and have behaved  in a less than honest manner?


People like Kelly who write, and have written lies about others, written the most appalling and nasty comments about others, are they Trolls?


Does the term 'Troll' stretch to these columnists or is there another term for them other than 'Troll' which I have not yet heard of, which identifies those columnists whose conduct is less than honorable, where they abuse the position they hold, use it to malign others, and on a grand scale?


And when these columnists put in print such vile comments about innocent persons, comments more vile than what they have accused an innocent person of doing..?


Where is it written that it is acceptable for Lorraine Kelly to behave in this way?

  • To write in the most hideous of ways about others?
  • That it is okay for Kelly to denigrate others?
  • To libel others?
  • To launch smear campaigns against others?
  • To vilify others?
       


Where I ask is it written, as I have failed to find it?


Kelly as we know has on several occasions written untruths about Dr Goncalo Amaral, she has made vile and vicious comments about this man.  Deplorable articles about this man which injure both him and his family, his children.


A man, who by all accounts is an honest man.  A man who has been Madeleine's loudest voice.   He has fought for this child like no other. Despite the attacks on this man, his family by the McCanns in their legal actions.   Legal actions which has to be said they have thus far failed to prove.  


Legal actions where they the McCanns have been known to ignore and disobey the verdict, orders, and instructions of the Court.  


I have pondered as to whether Kelly has ever bothered to read the police files?


Pondered as to whether any member of her family has read the police files...because if any of them had, they would be able to advise Kelly to get her facts straight before she continues with what can only be described as her hate campaign against Dr Goncalo Amaral.


It is quite recently that I wrote the blog 'Kelly from the Telly' where I highlighted her blatant lies regarding Dr Goncalo Amaral - there are many other such instances when Kelly has falsely accused this man, where she has used the most derogatory of terms when speaking of him.


Is Kelly to then be labeled a Press/Media Troll by those who use this term?


When she behaves, and conducts herself in the way that she accuses others, has her conduct to be excused?


Does she recognise herself as being a Troll her chosen term for others who behave as she does?


I dislike this ridiculous term, 'Troll' so perhaps best I simply ask this question in a way that I much prefer:


Why does Lorraine Kelly lie, speak untruths, make nasty vile and vicious comments when speaking of Dr Goncalo Amaral?   


And why does she feel it is acceptable for her to do so?


If anyone has read my blogs you may have seen that I detest, and have the greatest concern for the way in which the McCann twins are continually, by their parents, brought into discussion in televised interviews.


These children who should be protected at all costs by their parents, appear to be, being used to further McCann agendas, and on more than one occasion this has happened.


I find this sickening, abhorrent, that as parents the McCanns would not see to it that their twin children were kept absolutely from media attention.  That they would not tell interviewers (when agreeing the questions they may be asked) that any reference to their twin children is completely out of bounds?  That any interviewer should not go there.


Yet once again we have had Gerry McCann stating that the lives of their twin children had been threatened.


We have had Malone and Kelly speak about this in their columns.


What we have not had is any confirmation of these threats from the police in their statements, and we have not had produced the Tweets where this is claimed to have happened?


We have not had the Twit people, those who support the McCanns version (S) of events, and those who do not, producing such a Tweet.


I would have fully expected that if such a tweet existed it would have been produced by ANY decent person member of society who tweets, and who had seen it.  I would have fully expected it to have been referred to police.


Thousands and thousands of people on Twitter I would think would have seen such a tweet - yet nothing?


Not a single thing to support such an allegation.


And had such a tweet, such a threat been made, existed - Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and Clarence Mitchell  would not at this moment be schtum!


That tweet would have been plastered across every paper in the UK, and the rest of the world for absolute sure.


How else do we know it doesn't exist?


Because Bernard Hogan-Howe stated that the dossier, as they are calling the list of names put together by rather nasty Twit persons, and passed to the Metropolitan Police, was simply passed by the Met to to Leicestershire Police, who had taken no action on the contents!


Had there been any threat in that file against the McCann twins, we can be sure Hogan-Howe would have jumped at the opportunity to tell the public, jumped at the opportunity for the Metropolitan Police to investigate it, and not pass it to the Leicestershire Police.  And quite simply, from what I gather, it would not have been difficult for the police to determine who had sent such a tweet.


Furthermore, Martin Brunt who quite clearly had access to, or had been given information on the contents of this file, would not have been out harassing an innocent member of the public if he could have scooped the big one - the person who sent the alleged tweet which threatened the McCann twins.


I find it quite shocking that the McCann twins are used in the way that they are.  I believe it to be an abuse of their rights to be protected.   And I truly do not understand why their parents continue in this vein, as it is they who catapult these little kids into the public eye, no one else but them.   They have to accept responsibility for that.


As for Lorraine Kelly - she is no better.  Completely she lacks any thought for these little kids.  Her shocking headline for anyone left in any doubt:


'Trolling of McCann Twins is Toxic'


What is truly toxic is that someone could act so irresponsibly as Kelly has with a headline that could harm these kids, a headline which they will no doubt see.


You see, these kids we are told by Kate and Gerry McCann/their family/witnesses at Court, trawl the internet, as kids do, and it seems at least one of the kids has discovered articles relating to Madeleine.  At Court a witness said that one of these children had 'googled Madeleine' or something similar.  


We were told by another witness that one of the kids was approached by another child at school in relation to the case.


Kate McCann at another Court hearing claimed that one of the twins heard on the radio a presenter speak of this case, speak of Dr Goncalo Amaral.


All so contradictory.


On one hand we have the McCanns (when it suits them to do so, as in the Court Hearings) complaining that their twin children heard, or saw, or were questioned by classmates about Madeleine.


Yet on the othe
r we have the McCanns themselves hit the headlines with such awful stories about threats to their children.


We have Gerry McCann speaking to the press, speaking on radio about this.


Why would they do that knowing that their kids would surely hear of this, perhaps on the school bus (as they claimed had happened previously) Would surely google it?  Would surely be asked by other kids at school?


You see that is utterly irresponsible on the part of these parents.   And it most certainly does not make a jot of sense.


To complain in Court (as in their action against Dr Goncalo Amaral) that their children heard something on the radio, and then for McCann himself to do exactly that - go on radio and make statements which would terrify his children, does not make sense.


A responsible parent would ensure NEVER to make such statements, statements which could harm his children, statements which would terrify them.


And responsible reporters, columnists would do likewise.


But we all know the McCann case is about much more than a missing child - a little girl who appears to have been forgotten in many ways.


If there is one thing these parents, their buddies, Mitchell, and all involved in this case owe Madeleine - it is the truth!


DCI Andy Redwood and his 30 + detectives - owe Madeleine the truth.


The Madeleine McCann case, has for such a long time, almost from the beginning, been about the McCanns, reputation management (why else have they needed Clarence Mitchell for seven years at a cost of £70,000 - and how in hell can they afford it?  That would be almost Gerry McCanns entire yearly salary They say they pay him from the Madeleine Fund - that in itself is shocking. Monies donated by the public to pay for a mouthpiece, and one who is not truthful) and that is so terribly sad for the missing little girl.


Madeleine deserves so much better than Mitchell.  So much more than the way her parents have acted since her death/disappearance.  So much more than the way the buddies of the parents conducted themselves.  So much more than the untruthful accounts they gave the Police both in Portugal and to the Leicestershrie Police.  So much more than their refusals (see Refusal Blogs above) to assist the police fully.


She deserves so much more than the Kelly's of this world who clearly have not taken the time to read and comprehend the contents of the OFFICIAL police files available online for all who care to read them.

If Kelly had, she would be asking herself the pertinent questions.

  • Asking why Gerry McCann changed his story.

  • Asking why Fiona Payne stated to police as her honest and truthful account of events, that Kate McCann told her and the others during dinner, on the night that Madeleine was reported as missing, that she, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann had left the patio door unlocked on THAT night, so that should Madeleine wake she would be able to exit the apartment, and go and look for her parents.

  • Asking why Kate McCann in her interview on the Tubridy Show, gave an entirely different account - stating that there was NO way possible that Madeleine could have slid open the patio door and left?

Until Kelly becomes informed about this case, starts asking some pertinent questions of the McCanns regarding the disappearance of their missing daughter she cannot be taken seriously.


Until Kelly makes an apology to Dr Goncalo Amaral for the lies she has printed, for the vile and malicious comments, for the pain and hurt she will no doubt have caused Dr Amaral, his family, his children, she cannot be considered any better than those who she terms as Trolls.


She owes to apology to the McCann twins for her use of such an appalling and frightening headline, which if not read by the twins themselves will most likely reach them through school friends.


Grossly irresponsible of Kelly!


Kelly speaks of the disgusting torrent of abuse heaped on the McCanns which she has witnessed first hand.


What must not be forgotten is that the public have witnessed first hand the torrent of abuse and lies which she, Kelly has heaped on Dr Goncalo Amaral!


Unfortunately, and as I said previously there are nasty people out there and there is no excuse, one cannot condone their appalling and irresponsible conduct.



These persons who abuse, Kelly included - she is one of them - all cut from the same cloth!  


Kelly has stated they should hang their heads in shame, and so they should, I agree.


But she should join them!


Kelly it has been reported is celebrating 30 years in the business.   If she has not understood in that time that truth honesty, fairness, and unbiased reporting is what is morally the right thing to do - is what is expected of her, is the responsible way to carry out her job -  it has been 30 years wasted!


Will she have the courage to make apology to those she knows she has lied about, made malicious comments about, harmed?


If she continues as she has been doing - would it then be just for her to referred to as NOT a seeker of the truth, but a Media/Press Troll, as she refers to those online who behave in EXACTLY the way in which she has?


And what no one should forget are the words of Hogan- Howe when he stated that the file of names passed to the Metropolitan Police, and from where Martin Brunt clearly must have had access to/or been informed of the content - WAS handed to the police Kate and Gerry McCann!


Be naive of us to think that they did not read the content.  Did not discuss the content with members of their team, Clarence Mitchell the obvious candidate, as a decent lawyer would have advised them to deal with this differently!


Hogan- Howe has stated categorically it was the McCanns the parents of the missing child who gave this file to the Metropolitan Police, not those who compiled it, those concerned individuals as they have been referred to (so concerned they were that they forgot to send it to police?), it leaves one BIG question, and lots of little ones - WHO did McCann/Mitchell deal with, who contacted them regarding this file, and how,in which manner did he receive it, delivered to him personally, or delivered through the mail?


And some of the littler questions - What part did the McCanns family member who monitors the internet on their behalf, play in this whole unsavoury affair?


As most else concerning McCanns - not concerning the missing child the case of Madeleine - but most else which concerns the McCanns - always another thread to the tale, a seedy undercurrent.


This latest is no different!


Seems too there are more persons than first thought who unashamedly ignore the harm and injury they cause by lying in the Sun!



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
19th October 2014
Website Builder