Lying in the Sun

Seasons Greetings Gamble

Seasons Greetings Mr Gamble...


Jim Gamble ex cop, befriender of Kate and Gerry McCann, collaborator, collaborating with dangerous online vigilantes/McCann supporters, collaborating also with Sky Crime Reporter Martin Brunt his Dodgy Dossier Report, who together, and with others I have yet to mention, played their parts in the attack carried out against Ms Brenda Leyland.  This lady sadly and tragically, days after their assault, was found dead in a hotel room. 

Gamble's conduct and involvement in the attack on Brenda Leyland is truly shameful, as is that of the McCanns, Brunt, Murdoch, Mitchell, and not forgetting the chubby, dumpy legged lady, the feeder of ducks, one of the online vigilantes, one of the main players, if not the main player in this malicious campaign, in this appalling act, the heinous attack on Brenda Leyland.

Other than being an ex cop I know little of Gamble.  What I do know I have "heard" him say online, and in interview etc, and frankly he comes across boorish, vulgar, a common low breed, malicious, ignorant in every way -wickedness personified.

And for anyone who does not know of the type of comments he makes, the following one of his Twitter postings demonstrating, and leaving the reader in no doubt whatsoever the character of this man.   Here we have Gamble congratulating Martin Brunt for attacking Ms Brenda Leyland a lady innocent of the accusations made against her by Brunt, Gamble and those online vigilantes who Gamble and Brunt both befriended/communicated with on Twitter/elsewhere to enable their planned assault on this lady.

His comment is shocking, sickening!






What kind of person could possibly, even for a split second, contemplate, consider, that the 'work' of Martin Brunt in attacking, harassing, anyone, in the way which Martin Brunt did the innocent Brenda Leyland, was GREAT WORK?

Gamble an ex cop who encourages, and aids others to take the law into their own hands!

And as for Brunt, his 'work' - hell he should
 should have known better than to play the McCann Game. Brunt who has reported on the case of missing Madeleine McCann her suspicious disappearance, from the beginning, who knew better than most that when the going gets tough, the McCanns get going - in opposite direction.   They take no blame for anything they have done, be it leaving three tiny tots alone in a holiday apartment night after night, or for the many untruthful stories they have told since the suspicious disappearance of their daughter Madeleine (take your pick, either a burglar or a paedophile killed her and carried her off, pah!  Pull the other one, got bells on and they ain't jingle bells, ALARM bells.)  They would NOT for sure take any blame for this attack either.  He, Brunt who knew more than most that he would without question, be hung out to dry by the duo if things went wrong.  But so cocky and confident that he and they were that they would get away with the then latest stunt to be pulled during the last seven years by these people, that they - the nasty Brunt, Gamble and his gang of new found online vigilante buddies, Mitchell, Murdoch, McCanns, and not forgetting Darling Ducky, the leader of the online vigilante brigade the chubby campaigner who wished to remain anonymous, happy only to air his/her dumpy boot clad legs on screen as she fed bread to her feathered friends - that they fired on with their planned attack on this lady.

And I have to add, this Special Report by Brunt aired on Sky News and the round the clock news article, it must have have been in the making for some time. So Brunt had plenty of time to sit down and really think carefully about what he was going to do to Brenda Leyland, plenty of time to back away from being part of the heinous McCann Game.  That said, any decent person would have instantly refused to be part of this attack they would not have required a period of time to think about what was wrong or right thing to do.

Brunt and his conspirators they backed a loser this time, as it all went horribly and tragically wrong.  Brunt who in some quarters was once held in high regard is now despised for his wicked actions for agreeing to deliver the blow.  Brunt got more than his finger burnt, his ass set on fire, his career up in flames?

But make no mistake had it not been for the death of Ms Leyland, Brunt, Gamble, Ducky and all aforementioned would have continued attacking her in one form or other.  Ms Leyland would not have been left alone.  Gamble's Twitter Comment, as above is proof of that. Proof of his intention to keep stoking the fire.  

This man Gamble, not content at Sky screening Brunt's Special Report and the round the clock repeating of the news item, took to Twitter to CONGRATULATE BRUNT on attacking a member of the public.  With not a care for this lady her family, the false accusations in the report, Gamble could not hide his glee.

The vigilantes the McCann online supporters, who Gamble conspired with, not surprisingly, they continued posting the filth that they do.

And how can we forget the nasty nasty articles by Carole Malone and Lorraine Kelly, both put pen to paper without checking out the facts, making some of the most disgusting postings I have ever read, the language used by Malone I have never before seen in the press.

The question that must be asked though:

WHY was this 'complaint' passed to police authorities not left to the Police to deal with?

If this Ducky, and her vigilante buddies made a complaint to police it should have been left with the police to decide whether any action was necessary, whether any law had been broken.  And Ducky, according to the Metropolitan Police did receive a response from them informing her that the dossier had been received by them!  

But we all know that the concern for the McCanns that Ducky spoke of is a nonsense.  Had this Ducky been concerned in any way at all for the McCanns the matter would have been left to police to reach a decision.

This was not about 'concern' for the safety of the McCanns or their kids.  Neither were in any danger.

This was about a bunch of people who targeted someone who they wanted and needed silenced. someone who was highly intelligent, well educated, articulate, bright, who knew right from wrong and who recognised that ALL is NOT right in the case of the suspicious disappearance of missing Madeleine McCann.

I've said it before, and I will again.  Had there been any Twit comments out there where the McCann kids had been threatened in any way, kidnap or whatever, they would have been produced. Neither the McCanns nor the people these online vigilantes with whom they had to have had some form of communication with for the McCanns to have obtained a copy of the dossier (or the original) have been able to produce same.

Common sense tells us that those who seek justice for Madeleine McCann would not make threats against the McCann children. What a ridiculous nonsense to come up with.  If anything, members of the public have expressed their concern for the kids being raised in the climate which they are with the McCanns, constantly putting themselves out there, their stories becoming more outrageous more bizarre as the years pass, the sofa surfing and the ever more ludicrous stories of what the kids have said, and the unproven claims of kidnap threats, and clearly with no concern for their children when they do so.

And how shocking that the McCanns would state this publicly.  Shows no regard for their kids how frightened they would be to read this. Something they would believe, as mummy and daddy said so.  But then most of what the McCanns have said publicly is without truth, thought or consideration as to how it will affect their kids.  If they argued that not to be the case, then there is but one conclusion to be reached that they are incapable of putting their children before all else, incapable of recognising what they are doing to these kids is wrong, is frightening for them.  And that is of concern. 

These parents claimed when in Portugal that they did not perceive any danger in leaving three under 4 year old's alone night after night in a dark unlocked holiday apartment - that pretty much sums up their recklessness when it comes to child care, the needs of children, the need to protect them, to put their needs before all else.

Sky, Brunt, Mitchell, McCann, Gamble - all only too happy to not leave matters in police hands, happy to organise an attack, happy to put together a special report.

A very one sided report!   Why did Brunt no interview others on Twitter with opposing views?  Why did he not give those persons the opportunity to give their reasons as to why they believe the McCanns are up to their neck in it, this suspicious disappearance of Madeleine?

Why did he not allow them the opportunity to provide for the purpose of this report the types of abuse showered upon anyone who does not believe the McCann abduction tale?

Why did Brunt simply not post some of those comments alongside those others he used in his report, after all, Brunt was on Twitter too, he witnessed the appalling twit comments by McCann supporters, the abuse the filth.

But that was not what Brunt's report was about.  Not a chance in hell was it to be a balanced report.  It was simply to target Brenda Leyland, to put fear in others, those who truly seek justice for Madeleine.  It was intended as a shot across the bow of those who do not believe the many tales told by the McCanns and their buddies, those who were perhaps getting too close to the truth for the comfort of the tapas crew.

And they chose a soft target.  A lady they knew who had done no wrong, who was polite, who would never cause a fuss or a scene when publicly under attack.

I am sure there are a few out there who would have retaliated if Brunt had done to them what he did to Brenda Leyland, and that is why when they planned this attack they chose their victim very carefully.

And what does that tell us?  It tells us just how much the McCanns fear the truth of matters being discovered.   How much they fear their kids, who they tell us now use the internet, discovering a whole lot of stuff that they would rather, and for obvious reasons, not have them hear about.

I believe they fear their kids discovering that they did not fully co-operate with police, discovering that their buddies all refused to assist police, ALL of them in essence refusing to help Madeleine, the untruths told, is their biggest fear.  

Seven years of shit is a lot to try and explain away to these kids

They fear their kids discovering that they told the world (but whether true or not is quite another story) that they abandoned them night after night on that vacation.  And what will their kids think when they know that their parents left the door unlocked too.  When they discover that daddy came into the apartment, found their bedroom door wide open, knew therefore someone had opened it, established it wasn't his kids - which should have signaled danger/intruder - and he just walked out on them again!

One hell of a lot the McCanns need to keep from these kids.

Thing is too, all these stories Kate McCann spins during interviews, when she tells us one of the twin kids said this or that - she's gonna have to cut the crap, as these kids now will know, will hear or read of what she said, and if those kids HAVEN'T said anything of the sort - she's in deep shit - they'll soon challenge her!

There's already 'Madeleine' hundreds of pages of stuff she's gonna have to come up with answers for as a whole lot of that is fabricated!

When it came down to silencing Brenda Leyland and, or others discussing this case those who rightly challenge the lies and inconsistencies, they would therefore stop at nothing, they most likely thought they had nothing to lose...so went all out for it...that was...until their dirty tricks campaign, their game went horribly wrong!

Jim Gamble had this to say in Martin Brunt's Special Report.  I doubt either he, Brunt, Ducky et al will see the irony :

"The audience that some of them need is actually from the dock in Court so that they can be BE HELD TO ACCOUNT for the things which they have done!"


"...Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Everyone is entitled to state that.  But when it becomes grossly offensive, when it becomes MENACING when its causing ANXIETY and DISTRESS, when it is done for THAT PURPOSE then there MUST be a CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTION."


The persons mentioned in my blog they should ALL be held to account.  They went far beyond being grossly offensive.

If they felt they had a legitimate cause for complaint, to have made that complaint to police should have sufficed, the police left to make judgement as to whether there was any complaint for anyone to answer.

Instead they put together, and took part in Martin Brunt's Special Report

  • for the PURPOSE of menacing Brenda Leyland (an innocent member of the public, who was never spoken to/contacted by police, nor charged with any crime)
  • for the PURPOSE of harassing her, 
  • for the PURPOSE of causing her anxiety, 
  • for the PURPOSE of causing her distress.

And, we all know of how Kate McCann wishes others to suffer, how she purposefully attempts to cause them fear, misery, pain, of how she wanted to kill Robert Murat another innocent in this case.   She wants Dr Amaral to feel fear.   Oh Madame McCann has a whole host of nasty tricks up her sleeve ways in which she wants people to suffer.

So, do we think for a moment that she/they did not wish likewise for Brenda Leyland?  Can we believe that they did not when preparing/passing on their dossier have the same hate filled feelings towards Brenda Leyland the person who was in their line of fire, as they do for Dr Amaral, and others?

Do we think for a moment, that McCanns thought it would be all nicey nicey this attack on this lady?

Of course they didn't!   They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, what they were part of.

I can picture them both either jointly or severally, glued to Sky News that morning waiting and watching knowing what was about to take place, pleased with what was happening.

And the smirk on Gerry McCanns face after the death of Brenda Leyland when the subject was raised during an interview, where he refused to make comment, said more than any utterances he could have made.  His smirk said it all.

Gamble stated when actions are
purposeful as described above that there MUST BE A CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTION.

Indeed Jim boy, a matter for the law, not for Gamble and the others to take into their own hands, not for them to be judge and jury, and accuse innocents of crimes they have not committed.  Not for them to attack innocent persons in the way that they did - PURPOSEFULLY.


And good old Jim said that the dossier was not passed to police by McCanns...oops another porky by Gamble (this ex cop really should stay off Twitter) Hogan Howe of Metropolitan Police said it WAS the McCann family who gave them the dossier.

Ouch!   Bit difficult for McCanns and Gamble to say they didn't know about it.

And, of course, Gerry McCann saying he didn't know of anything Brenda Leyland said as he didn't do Twitter, another OUCH, that would mean he handed in a dossier concerning this lady to police, concerning comments she made which he had not read, and had not read either, the dossier!

What a crock of crap.   Who hands in a file to police by way of complaint and hasn't read it.

They really cannot be trusted to tell the truth!  Been caught out time after time.

But astonishingly on the say so of the duo - and against all evidence to the contrary, the Metropolitan police have accepted their word that Madeleine was abducted.

As for Brunt, he will forever be known as the cowardly crime reporter who stooped so low as to associate with the McCanns, who joined forces with them, Mitchell, their vigilante online supporters and the creepy lowlife that is Gamble, for the part he played in leading the charge, the assault against Ms Brenda Leyland.   There is no coming back from that.  A change of rain mac simply won't cut it.

Will he, Gamble and the others get the AUDIENCE THAT THEY NEED?

Probably not! 



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
27th December 2014


Website Builder