Lying in the Sun



Caroleanne - Agree no one should make threats goes without saying, and yes it is past time that the McCanns answered the pertinent questions relating to the disappearance of Madeleine. They may not like hearing that people are shocked angry by what they did to their kids again in complete agreement, but when they seek the help of the public both financially and otherwise, when it is the UK taxpayers who are financing this Met Investigation, and when they appear in interviews and make statements which are questionable, that is what people will do question and challenge.  A child vanished without trace, and the stories they have told police absolutely do not stand up to scrutiny.

As to Twitter, I am in the same camp as Thomas (thanks for posting again Thomas and Anita) - I do not use it but it appears to be a modern day 'gathering place' where people meet to chat, discuss or debate, and why ever not.  Not everyone will agree but most will be able to agree to disagree just as they would offline.  It is not my idea of a place to chat but it is the modern world time doesn't stand still even if I do!  And others might simply want to chat about the price of cookies - fine.

Nasties on Twitter well you get nasties everywhere.  Good and bad in all walks of life.  Takes all kinds to make a world.  I like to think that the good are the majority on and offline.

I don't get this troll nonsense and to label people as trolls by way of insult just too infantile for words.  Who gets to decide and define what is a troll, and who gets to decide who has to be labeled a troll?

Seems to be it is a term just bandied around.

I ask the following in all seriousness.

We have Kate McCann wishing harm to others, misery and fear to Dr Amaral - death to Robert Murat.  If she posted this on Twitter do I take it this would make her a nasty troll?  If she puts this in print elsewhere, states it elsewhere what does that make her - simply a nasty person, but not a troll?

So which would be considered the nastier Kate McCann on Twitter saying she wishes Dr Amaral misery and fear, or Kate McCann saying elsewhere that she wish Dr Amaral misery and fear?

Are there different category of troll? Troll, nasty troll, extremely nasty troll?

The point I am making, though rather badly, IS, when we sit and chat at home in a bar, wherever - We might say, oh I hate that programme, that song, I dislike that guy, that gal, in reference to say someone/something on TV.  When we hear a news report about someone who has been so very cruel abused a child for instance, we might say - they should rot in hell they should suffer for what they did.  If we hear of a child murderer, we might say send him to the chair, hang him, or I hope s/he gets whats coming to them once inside.   If we speak of a politician we might refer to him/her as a lying bastard. A footballer who scores an own goal as a loser - all of that means nothing - simply people chatting - Twitter is an extension of the bar your lounge at home so I don't see the problem - Is it that seeing the same words spoken in print somehow makes it look bad?

Perhaps I am missing something but if people are not permitted to voice their opinions on Twitter what would be the point of it?

Twitter is the new bar if you like, the new lounge at home, the new front room, and people will chat in the same way as they would do face to face when they meet up, and use the same language.

So many times I have heard people say -'Would those on Twitter say the things they do on Twitter, face to face?  Well I would say, yeah they would, that is how people speak these days, that is the language used.  In fact face to face they might say much more, some may be holding back on Twitter.

If they are discussing on Twitter someone who has neglected their children as in the McCann case for instance where one child lost her life due to said neglect - and expressing their opinion on the mother, if they feel the mother was cruel and heartless for doing what she claims to have done to her kids, they will voice this and probably not refer to the mother in the most flattering of terms, they will however say the same on Twitter as they would face to face with friends.   This is how the discussion would go down, on or offline. 

Kate McCann favours  the term FUCKING TOSSER when voicing her dislike of whomever.

Threatening someone though is quite a different matter altogether be it on or offline.  Putting threats aside for now, and dealing strictly with discussion, opinion and the right to voice opinion.

I don't know how if at all Twitter is monitored or moderated, threats I would hope are dealt with and swiftly so, but discussion about the world we live be it politics, the weather, murderers, child abuse, air accidents, good news stories, the latest in Armani fashion, whatever, the Madeleine McCann case - the McCanns themselves - who I have to say by their own choice mostly, never seem to be out of the news - whatever the topic whatever the discussion people will voice their opinions and robustly so just as they would offline.

So unless it is an actual threat - when does a discussion on Twitter where people state as they would offline, and face to face that they think the McCanns for instance acted irresponsibly toward their children neglected them, and in their opinion are not fit parents, not nice people - when does this opinion become a crime?

Is voicing an opinion on the treatment of the McCann children at the hands of their parents, any more or less acceptable, than it is to voice an opinion on Jimmy Savile, David Cameron, Joan Rivers or Norris in Coronation Street?  All of them do or did pop up on your TV screen.  Should those on Twitter be allowed to discuss only some or all of these persons?

Or, are we saying that the McCanns are not to be discussed on Twitter?   And if so why not?

Because they don't like it?   Remember I am not talking threats here that can never be condoned, we are talking general discussion where people may be in awe of the McCanns and others not!

Is it okay for someone to say they dislike David Cameron that they think he is a nasty piece of work, or a fucking tosser as Kate McCann might say but that they are not to be allowed, if they feel the same about Gerry and Kate McCann to refer to them as fucking tossers?

If someone, tonight on Twitter referred to Cameron as fucking tosser would there be a public outcry?  Not likely!

If someone tonight on Twitter referred to Kate and Gerry McCann as fucking tossers, would it be wall to wall news coverage tomorrow with headlines and reporters out hunting down the hateful troll who dared state how they felt about the duo?  With statements from a McCann source telling us how hurt they feel? Probably!

So would it be a case of one rule for some and a quite different one for some others?

Are we saying it is not a crime to say it face to face, or voice an opinion offline but to say it in print online it becomes a criminal act?

When does it become a crime for Kate McCann to say that she wishes misery and fear on Dr Amaral for how he treated Madeleine (how exactly did he treat Madeleine, he never met the kid - and did his utmost as an officer of the law to investigate her disappearance, he has been such a strong voice for Madeleine - yet Kate McCann makes statements like 'how he treated my Madeleine?')  she must dislike him an awful lot for her to have said this perhaps she hates the man?  On Twitter some may say they wish that Kate and Gerry McCann suffer misery and fear for how they treated their kids.  

The difference between the two here is that Dr Amaral never harmed Madeleine her parents by their neglect did?  

Is Kate McCanns dislike of, opinion of Dr Amaral any more acceptable than someone who may say the very same of her - that they wish that she feels misery and fear, for the irresponsible, frightening and vulnerable situation she placed her children? 

Would the McCanns for instance have been pleased if say a Portuguese reporter door stepped them, that is the term I see is being used, to ask her why she has been so nasty towards Dr Amaral to ask her why she makes the nasty comments which she does, and why such hatred and venom towards others also?

Oh. let me guess, err - NO!

Threats aside they the McCanns cannot have it both ways!

So what are the rules of Twitter?

As long as people are not threatening others, are they allowed to voice their opinion on whatever topic as long as it is expressed in a particular way, without the use of foul language for instance (that would rule Kate McCann out if she ever decides to take to Twitter)

I know little of Twitter as anyone reading can easily tell - but I think it will be around for a very long time, and if this is the latest in chat then people have to be allowed to discuss as they would offline.

I would imagine that is what most do,and that most jog along nicely doing so, be it voicing their opinion on the McCanns, the Madeleine case or the weather.

Reading the news headlines though I can see how easy it would be for those, like me, old dinosaurs who are not part of Twitter to mistakenly think that all on there are crazy people who threaten the McCanns (how ridiculous is that on something which is global)

Twitter is though a thorn in the flesh of Kate and Gerry McCann - Clarence Mitchell cannot control it as he does the press, and it has become so huge in the last couple of years in relation to the McCann case, that if they could whoosh it as they whoosh others things, I believe they surely would.  I am certain they would be happier if it did not exist - but that's life - nothing stays the same, nothing stands still.

They are going to have to live with it - knowing that not everyone will write flowery comments about them, David Cameron or anyone else in the public eye, and certainly not those in the public eye where child abuse, a missing child, a murdered child is concerned or a paedophile like Savile!

Twitter isn't going anywhere - but perhaps the term troll could be dropped from the online language?

The way the press have used it in reference to Brenda Leyland is quite sickening.  And Thomas I did not know of this lady either until Martin Brunt pulled his abhorrent stunt!

Indeed Angelique they have gone too far for sure.

I do not believe that it is any coincidence that in recent weeks we have had:-

  • The Summer & Swan book - stuff and nonsense.
  • The McCanns successfully suing Murdoch (a huge question mark as to whether this was ever a genuine libel action as opposed to the parties having agreed a little set up, a farce, but going through the motions, the legal process, for whatever their reason/agenda. I will leave readers to ponder such a scenario.
  • The McCanns settling for such a small sum, peanuts as McCann said - unheard of!  Their feelings have usually been hurt...oh at least a million bucks more than the sum they received, very much more than the £55,000 Murdoch handed out to soothe their suffering.  Hell that wouldn't cover the damage to Gerry's ego!
  • And the McCanns donating to charity any monies awarded through libel actions? - No, no, no, that just never happens!  (part of a possible set up - agreeing that they don't get to keep the payout?)
  • Murdoch at the same time as being sued by the McCanns - he gives green light to promote the S & S book, giving it huge amounts of air time and press columns.  A book where the authors claim the innocence of the McCanns, (a book that was intended to go on sale around the same time as the legal action against Dr Amaral was to resume, but has been delayed) therefore in so doing Murdoch supporting the McCanns!  Why would he support this book/McCanns when the McCanns were suing him? There have been many books written about this case and none has received the services of Sky to promote them!
  • Gerry McCanns 'people are threatening to kidnap my kids' story used by the McCanns one time too often to assist their agenda, always a good one to regurgitate when there is something else going on at camp McCann, something that they want to distract from, and a good one to use when they are attempting to gain the 'sympathy vote' in their attempts to silence others, to clamp down on anyone who challenges their unbelievable account of the events of the night their daughter was reported as missing.   
  • A double whammy by the McCanns attempting to inflict fear?  By: -  

(a) A libel suit won against the mighty Murdoch - (hell that would show the public who speak of this case, if they will sue Murdoch they will sue anyone)


(b) A dodgy dossier handed to police by rather nasty Twit people I gather who support the McCanns their abduction theory (that might do the trick too by way of scaring off anyone who wants to discuss the case)

  • Gerry McCanns interview on BBC Radio
  • Brunt laying in wait for Brenda Leyland

I cannot see any of this as being a coincidence.  Each of the above linked, right down to the timing.

There is one thing that we all must be absolutely clear on I think Angelique, and that is that the McCanns don't want anyone speaking of this case, and by that I do not mean that they don't want anyone speaking in a nasty way against them,of course they don't want that - what they want, quite simply is for this case not to be discussed at all - and for obvious reasons - they have not been truthful - that is the bottom line!   

The only information about this case the McCanns want the public to hear of is any story that they themselves together with Clarence Mitchell put out there and Twitter discussion is rather messing that up for them putting a spoke in their wheels.  Was so much easier for Clarence in the good old days when he could concoct a story, a headline, and make sure that 'no comments' were allowed, in so doing, controlling and containing.  That ain't happening now.  He/they have lost control!'

They did not bank in the early days for discussion forums popping up, then Facebook 'came along' as the new platform for discussion, and now more recently Twitter seems to have taken over - comments are instant, fast and read by millions.  That must be of great concern to the McCanns in their battle to keep the lid on things.

The more the case gets discussed, the more people become aware of the Portuguese Police Files online and the more people learn of the truth of matters - they learn the truth behind the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell, their reasons for the need of such a despicable character, a character who has made a career out trying to paint what is black - white!

That he has for seven years been doing this in the case of a missing child - only scum in my opinion would behave so abhorrently!

It is unheard of for the innocent parents of a missing child to pay out £70,000 per year (and in this case, now seven years) to someone like Mitchell (what parents could afford this or any amount for that matter?)  Only one reason I can think of that they would need to!

The death of this poor woman though, Brenda Leyland is quite a different matter. Shocking.  More shocking that the press in UK are reporting as they are, running with the headlines which they are.

This lady's death is something though that Brunt would not have expected.

It does not however excuse in any way his conduct the part he played.

I have never thought of Martin Brunt as a 'bad man' the contrary in fact, and I don't doubt at this time he is searching his conscience as to his actions, and will be sorely regretting the decisions he made .

Brunt of course would have been following orders but it would be naive of us to not take into account that he still had choices.   He is an experienced journalist, he knows what is right, what is not, and Brunt would have known to hound this lady was not.

There are times that we must stand up for what is right, do what is right and not do the bidding of others when we know it is wrong, when we know there will be consequences, consequences which might cause serious harm to others.

Brunt would not have known, how could he, that the consequences of his actions would be as catastrophic, but Brunt has been in the business long enough to have weighed up the situation and to have given at least a little consideration to ALL possibilities however remote he might have felt them to be. 

This pouncing on Brenda Leyland was planned (did not Brunt start following her on Twitter days before) it was not a spur of the moment affair, he knew absolutely that he would bring perhaps not the utter devastation that he did to this lady, her family, but enormous distress.  

He would know absolutely that what he was doing was so very wrong, but for whatever reason he chose to ignore the wrongness.  I have no sympathy for him in that respect.

I had said yesterday that Brunt had a lot of explaining to do, that was before I heard of the tragic death of Brenda Leyland!

Now, not only Brunt, Sky, the Met Police and of course the McCanns all have some explaining to do.  If this dossier was passed to the Met then how did Brunt get his hands on it - from someone at the Met or from a more direct source - those who compiled the list - who should be held accountable too!

Would be naive of us to imagine that the Metropolitan Police and the McCanns did not know of what Sky and Brunt were proposing to do regarding Brenda Leyland!

So many questions they will now face - but uppermost in my mind -

Why Brenda Leyland?  Why this lady?  What made Brunt choose her from the list?  What was it about this lady that made her stand out from the others?

Brunt, Sky had a reason for choosing this particular lady - Brunt did not close his eyes and stab the list with a pin!

So Why Brenda Leyland?

Brunt, once upon a time reported more fairly more neutrally on the McCann case, but over the years this has changed and particularly so in the last couple of years.  Sky supporting the McCanns?

His interview with Isabel Duarte the McCanns lawyer at the Court in Lisbon, where Duarte made that statement about Dr Goncalo Amaral, accusing him of hiding his money - not only did Sky whoosh that piece of footage made it disappear, they made Brunt disappear too for a while.

Brunt knew that footage was of help to Dr Goncalo Amaral his case.   Of course the footage was not the property of Brunt but that of Murdoch, but he also knew that despite not being able to produce the footage, that the right thing to do would have been to openly admit that Isabel Duarte had indeed when speaking to him, made the accusations which she had against Dr Goncalo Amaral.

But there was silence from Brunt.   Silence from Sky.
  • Brunt knows the score in the McCann case, how can he not, he has been reporting on it since Madeleine disappeared!
  • He knows that Dr Amaral is not the nasty person the McCanns would have the public believe - Far from it, and he knows too that the police files reveal the many lies and inconsistencies in the police witness statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann, and their buddies.

But most of all, Brunt knows which side his bread is buttered!

Doing the decent thing was not the choice Brunt made then, even knowing that by staying schtum he was acting in an unfair way towards Dr Goncalo Amaral who Brunt also knows has suffered terribly and unjustly at the hands of Gerry and Kate McCann (their aim is to destroy this man his family, make no mistake about that - Kate and Gerry McCann are not the good guys in the case of their missing child their legal action against Dr Amaral) and doing the decent thing by Brunt in the case of Brenda Leyland was not his choice this time around either.

Brunt did have choices – he chose to seal a deal with the devil in full knowledge that his actions would cause not the death of Brenda Leyland, not that, but devastation and distress to both her and her family.

Brunt is not some junior journo - he is a seasoned crime reporter - he knew the score - he knew what could happen, what might happen.

He now knows what did happen as a result of his actions!

Dr Amaral has been hounded by the McCanns his finances frozen, his family almost destroyed by them.   His health has suffered enormously.

This man has fought for justice for Madeleine McCann like no other has and certainly not her parents.

He is to be admired and supported.

Dr Amaral has stated that had it not been for the love and support of family and good friends, supporting him in different ways including financially he may have gone under.

Brenda Leyland had a horrible end to her life, alone and afraid.   She must have felt terrible fear.

Madeleine must have felt the most awful fear too, Sean and Amelie also when they woke alone in that holiday flat crying for their mummy and daddy as the McCanns have told us happened.

Kate McCann now wishes that Dr Amaral feel misery and fear.

I ask - what kind of woman is this?

What kind of people are the McCanns?

I don't doubt that today Team McCann will have gathered to discuss how they get themselves out of this latest, how they can distance themselves from blame!

Thanks again for your comments Angelique, Thomas, Anita and Carolanne.
6th October 2014

Website Builder