Lying in the Sun

Oh Carole

Oh Carole


And as tragic as Brenda Leyland’s death is police and journalists cannot be expected NOT to confront those who have threatened murder or been vicious for fear they might kill themselves."


And how chilling is the above statement by Carole Malone?

  • Brenda Leyland did not send the McCann family texts as stated by Carole Malone.
  • Brenda Leyland did not send them anything at all.  
  • This lady Brenda Leyland did not threaten murder and was not vicious.

Had she done so, we can be sure absolutely that Gerry McCann would have announced this to the world.


And NO! Journalists HAVE NO RIGHT to threaten members of the public as Martin Brunt did to this lady. and YES they ARE EXPECTED to obey the law just as others are.


If anyone, be it Brenda Leyland or anyone else, be it in relation to the McCanns or any other person/case it is for the police to deal with.


The law does not allow for a journalist to confront innocent persons in the way that Sky reporter Martin Brunt did.  

  • Brenda Leyland had not been charged with any crime. 
  •  Brenda Leyland had not committed any crime. 
  • Brenda Leyland had not even been contacted by police.

A bunch of vigilantes compiled a file, and Martin Brunt acted on it.


Martin Brunt was wrong to conduct himself as he did.  And the reporting on this incident after the death of this lady has been quite abhorrent.


There are nasty people on and offline who behave in unacceptable ways.  As Bernard Hogan-How said the police cannot be responsible for bad behaviour, they act become involved when a crime has been committed.


Malone:

"FOR FEAR THEY MIGHT KILL THEMSELVES"

Using the same logic as Malone - should the public be confronting the McCann family in the street?  Kate McCann said that she would like to kill Robert Murat.


Bernard Hogan-Howe said that if someone threatened to kill someone, and if the person under threat believed that the threat was credible, that this was a crime.


It may be that Robert Murat believed or believes Kate McCann wants to kill him. Thousands read what Kate McCann wrote.  Thousands will have perceived it as a threat against Robert Murat.


But of course it would be wrong to confront the McCanns lay in wait outside their home, and not because Kate McCann might kill herself if questioned about her wish to kill Robert Robert, it would quite simply be wrong of Brunt for instance to do this to McCanns just as it was wrong for Brunt to do this to Brenda Leyland.  Brenda Leyland did not threaten. Brenda Leyland did not state unlike Kate McCann that she would like to kill anyone.  


Simply it would be wrong for Brunt to pounce on the McCanns as it was wrong of Brunt to pounce on Brenda Leyland.


What would not be wrong is during any interview which the McCanns have agreed to,during one of their many press conferences, when they do pres calls outside Courts,  to ask the McCanns the very relevant and pertinent questions in relation to their witness statements regarding the disappearance of their daughter.


So many questions left unanswered.  So much which does not add up.
 


Doesn't take a journalist or a police officer to read and comprehend that fact!


Perhaps some of the journalists who were so quick to write in the most cruel of ways showing complete and utter disregard for Brenda Leyland's family and with no evidence that she had done any wrong might like to arrange an interview with Kate and Gerry McCann, and their holiday companions and put to them the questions which need answered.


Gerry McCann completely changing his account of his movements on the night his daughter disappeared would be a very good place to start!


Instead of interviewing him regarding child alert systems - How about asking him WHY he changed his story!


It would be so easy for journalists to do a bit of research into the disappearance of Madeleine and then to print the truth of matters yet so many are lazy, sloppy, lack integrity to do just that.


This piece by Malone - back pedaling if ever I saw it.  


Hogan-Howe kicked the ball right into McCanns court re the tragic death of Brenda Leyland  - that file.


Now we have Carole Malone with:

"Nothing I said impacted on her as she was dead long before my column was published."  


Well isn't that just fine and dandy for Carole Malone, that this lady was dead before her column went out.  

A cowardly and callous statement by Malone if ever I heard one.  


But I have to ask,  if Carole Malone was comfortable with what she put in print had a clear conscience - why is she now so concerned as to whether her column went out before or after the death of Brenda Leyland?


Could it be because what Malone wrote was vile?  Showed that Malone places no value on precious human life?  That Malone behaved badly?


Malone speaking of Brenda Leyland:


"Really? She thinks she’s entitled to threaten, hound and bully the innocent? Is that because her own life is so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she wants others to suffer the same. Or is she just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people."  


Oh Carole!

Now that might just be why she is back pedaling, why she is so concerned as to whether her latest piece went out before or after this lady's death.

She knows that Brenda Leyland did not threaten, bully or hound anyone.  What Brenda Leyland was speaking of was her entitlement to freely express her opinion.  Just as Malone is doing in her article. 

Either way, I am sure there are many now asking the very same questions regarding Malone's state of mind which she did of a lady whom she knew nothing, and who had committed no crime.  Is Carole's life so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she has no care for the death of Brenda Leyland, others may now be asking?  They may also be asking if Malone is the fecked up bitch who gets her kicks out of hurting people the words of Malone in reference to Brenda Leyland.  What Malone has written is not journalism it is malicious, disgusting and irresponsible. 

As Malone has behaved appallingly should we all now label her as a person with mental health issues, unstable?   Of course not!

Only Carole Malone knows why she would write such a malicious piece.

So
'ball of blame' firmly back with Brunt and the McCanns then?  

Hogan-Howe booted it out of the park as has Malone!   Next!

Malone also states that it is now more important than ever to tackle and balance those who may be unstable whilst exposing trolls.

Is Malone a qualified shrink now too, as well as an officer of the law?

The number of journalists this week who have so easily so willy nilly gone down that route concerning Brenda Leyland is quite shocking.  All feeling they are qualified in some way to comment make bold statements about mental health issues.  Quite obvious to anyone with any sense at all that this would be considered a very sensitive issue.


Why can it not be that this lady was of sound mind, intelligent, could see that the McCann case, the McCanns had something to hide just as retired detective Stalker has stated as many other officers of the law believe too, and as many other highly intelligent persons, and average Joes people ordinary folks from all walks of life can see - does that make everyone mentally ill because they don't believe the McCanns tale?  


The McCanns could so easily put to bed any suspicions if they took as much time as they do in asking for money, into explaining the many glaringly obvious inconsistencies in their story..


Malone is sounding like those on twitter who use mental health as some sort of insult when referring to anyone who disbelieves the McCanns.


So easy to label someone in this way and so shocking that mental health issues are used by journalists in this way as though any persons who suffer from such health matters are all vile, nasty, hate filled, dangerous people who all take to Twitter to pass their time of day.


Carole Malone and all others who have gone down this avenue should be utterly ashamed of themselves.


And how in hell does Malone think she will be able determine who is unstable?


Her column beggar's belief to be frank.  I've read some nasty stuff this past week since this lady died - but none worse than what Malone has put in print tried to pass off as a balanced article.


Way more, than half way down her page,  she states that Brenda Leyland did NOT threaten anyone's life.  Of course she didn't, and Malone knew that when she wrote her vile column about this lady.


Perhaps a better headline for Malone would have been one which demonstrated that, and an apology also to Brenda's family would have been in order.


Malone then went on to add the following:


"But this year alone it's reported she sent 2,136 abusive tweets about Kate and Gerry McCann - some days up to 50.  And since 2010 she's sent a staggering 4,625 almost all of which were about them."


But who reported this?  Where did Malone get this information?  Surely she should have evidenced this.  Is Malone able to back this statement with proof?


I haven't read this lady's tweets but from what is written by those who knew her online who communicated with her, the statement by Malone is untrue regards the abusive tweets.


And who decided that 2,136 of the tweets sent were abusive, the 'concerned individuals who dealt with the McCann family, who in turn, according to Bernard Hogan-Howe sent it to the Metropolitan Police?  And the Metropolitan Police according to Hogan-Howe had little or no interest in the file, they passed it to Leicestershire Police who had not acted either. 


A tweet I believe is 140 characters maximum - say around 25 words approximately, though probably not as many as that.   But not a lot, so not much can be said in a tweet. 

2136 tweets in a year = around 6 tweets a day.

6 tweets a day at 140 characters -  840 characters.

840 characters would look roughly like this:   

Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet

Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet

Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet 



Now, I know, why I don't do Twitter how can one have a conversation on so little!

Twitter unlike a blog is for discussion.  If we were discussing offline say on phone this would be about a 20 second conversation.

The nature of Twitter as Malone must know, as she is part of it, does not allow for long sentences, paragraphs so it takes many tweets if anyone is having any real sort of discussion I would imagine.

Malone stated that Brenda Leyland posted sometimes up to 50 tweets a day.

Well that sounds a bit more like a conversation to me! 

But,  if on some days she was posting up to 50 a day, so many more days she must not have been posting at all, if we work on the figures quoted by Malone.

I'm sure loads of Twit people post lots tweets too probably more than this.  But the implication behind Malone saying Brenda Leyland sometimes posted 50 tweets a day is to give the impression that this lady would post  50 abusive tweets a day.  

As to Brenda Leyland sending tweets about McCanns if that was the tag or whatever it is called where she wanted to discuss stands to reason that is where she would post her comments.  If she wanted to chat with Carole Malone about the weather she would have sent her 6 or her 50 tweets a day to Malone perhaps.

If it was the McCann case which interested her, why is it so strange that she discussed exactly that on a tag on Twitter?

And I cannot believe that anyone has gone to the trouble to "count"  discover how many this lady's tweets.

Carole Malone then speaks of a staggering 4,625 tweets since 2010.

Maybe my math isn't great but 4625 tweets over 4 years is far less per year than the 2136 quoted for the past year.  So what is staggering about this?

But let's break it down.  If for 4 years there were 4625 tweets, deduct the 2136 for the past year = 2489  that would mean around 830 per year for a three year period.

This works out at around 2 and half tweets a day.

And 2 an half tweets a day folks would look roughly like this:

Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet
Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet

Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet

Oh yeah Brenda Leyland was a real chatterbox!  

Do bear in mind I have based this on this lady sending Tweets of 140 characters. She may have sent very much less.

I think people like Carole Malone need to get a grip.   The above as the spoken word would amount to about 5 seconds!

What I find staggering is that she knows that twitter is for discussion and when some are discussing for a period of time of an evening they will send quite a number of tweets I would imagine else there would not be much of a conversation going on at 140 characters a pop.

Malone knows also that these tweets were not sent to the McCanns, they are not on Twitter.  The tweets were part of conversations this lady and many others would be having amongst themselves regarding the McCann case.

Can Carole Malone come up with 2136 tweets abusive as she said posted by this lady Brenda Leyland?

Did she seek to discover if this was true before putting it in print?

The fact that Malone decided to act in the way that she did it leaves those reading her article to believing her words the figures she quoted.

Thousands. perhaps millions do not believe the McCanns account of the night their child vanished and with very good reason.  

To read the police files if anyone is in doubt as to why people would find it difficult to believe their abduction story,their checking of their children is the best place to start.  Files are available online.  On Twitter folks discuss this case, and there are strong views on either side for sure.  There is no question that people are so passionate about this case of a missing child who vanished so mysteriously, the stories told by the holiday group not adding up, that yes, arguments on twitter will become heated and opinions will be put across forcefully same as offline, but when does a strong opinion become an abuse to those discussing, or a  crime committed against the person being discussed?  

As Hogan-Howe said it becomes a threat when it is racist, a threat to kill or harm a person or blackmail. Same offline as online he stated broadly speaking.   The rest, people throwing insults back and forth at each other, adults behaving badly.


Attached to Malone's article is a video of Kate and Gerry McCann outside Court in Lisbon.  Gerry McCann speaks of Dr Goncalo Amaral but the viewer is given the impression his comments are in relation to something that this lady Brenda Leyland said.

Why would this video be titled  'The McCanns reaction to @ Sweepyface?' 

Blatant misleading.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tragic-death-twitter-troll-brenda-4422995


As a slight aside and in relation to Kate McCann this video has reminded me having said she would like to kill Robert Murat a guy who was once an arguido (person of interest in the missing Madeleine case) at the same time as Kate and Gerry McCann were also.

Why would it be that she wanted to kill Robert Murat but later when he no longer was an arguido she stated she could forgive whoever is Madeleine's alleged abductor/killer.

If Murat was the abductor she wanted to kill him.  If it was someone else she didn't?

Her wish that Dr Amaral suffer misery and fear, pain however still stands I believe.

To be noted also on the day of this video the McCanns wrongly and knowingly accused Dr Amaral of having the case to be heard in Court postponed on several occasions.  A blatant lie!

But to Carole Malone.   She may have now admitted that Brenda Leyland did not threaten anyone, but not to correct a terrible wrong on her part, more it would seem to me backtracking to save her own skin.  It was in no way an apology.

Her still appalling headline in reference to Brenda Leyland shows Malone's true colours!

Malone finished her piece:

"And as tragic as Brenda Leyland's death is police and journalist cannot be expected to NOT confront those who have threatened murder or been vicious for fear they might kill themselves."

Indeed for the police to confront where there has been a crime committed to investigate if a crime has been committed,  absolutely - not for journalists to confront when there has not!

Carole Malone misses the point absolutely with her crass comment, completely disregards the consequences of journalists as in this case taking the law into their own hands, confronting, innocent persons.

Carole Malone's now two articles on this Twitter affair lack any form of investigation, any credibility for that reason.  To make such accusations as she has requires that she produce the evidence.

No one condones persons being threatened that goes without saying - but when columnists such as Malone make such heinous accusations - they should be sure that they have gotten it right.


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
12th October 2014
Website Builder