Lying in the Sun

Sky - In Public Interest

Sky - Firmly in The Public Interest?

Sky Statement:

"The team at Sky News followed its editorial guidelines and pursued a story in a responsible manner that we believed was firmly in the public interest" 

Hell where do you start with that shed load of shit?

Let's take a look at what Sky did without any justification whatsoever for doing so, how in their wisdom, they thought it was FIRMLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO:

  • Collude with Jim Gamble an ex cop/dodgy character. Vile vigilantes - the absolute scum of the McCann supporters, to put together a story about a lady who discussed on Twitter the case of missing Madeleine McCann and accuse her of crimes she did not commit.  All of which I have no doubt, with the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell's knowledge and blessing.

  • To obtain a list of names which the vile vigilantes had put together (I suspect with help from a McCann family member, the one who claimed to trawl the internet searching for targets) which they like to refer to as a dossier (god help us all, such dumb asses on this earth) to make it sound more official and exciting, a copy of which the McCanns had in their possession also, and which Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe stated was given to the Met by the McCann family.

It was also reported by the Met that the vigilantes as I like to refer to this band of thugs on Twitter, handed them a copy.

Who gave the McCanns their copy, and who gave Brunt his copy? 

Whoever they colluded with of course!

For sure McCanns cannot claim not to have known what was going down with Brunt, Sky and Gamble, and the fat legged lady, the vile vigilante.  All had their copies of this list of names.  And the Met confirmed they sent acknowledgement of receipt of same to those who had put it together!  And the real dopes among the McCann support, it seems had been sending twit messages beforehand alluding to what was in store for this lady.

  • Lay in wait outside the home of an innocent woman, camera crew at the ready.
  • Had one of their crime reporters, Martin Brunt, attack her when she eventually appeared outside her home 3 hours after Brunt's arrival. (Brunt was more than eager to get his party started to get to Brenda Leyland - 3 hours?)
  • Wrongly accused her of attacking the McCanns.
  • Wrongly told her police were 'after her' shall we say.
  • Described her as a Troll with all the negative implications the term now seems to hold (that so ridiculous term)
  • Put the fear of death into this lady.
  • Ran the footage of Brunt's attack on the lady round the clock on Sky. Every 15 minutes or so I believe.
  • Put together a Special Report which was screened as a documentary also about this lady.
  • Disclosed the identity of this woman by filming outside her home - outrageous by Sky to have done this to an innocent lady.
  • Protected the identity of the person making the accusations against B. Leyland by showing only her rather chubby chunky leather clad legs (maybe a head shot isn't needed someone might be able to identify her/him by the legs alone)
  • They afforded Brenda Leyland no such protection.
  • They tried to excuse their conduct by saying they didn't state Brenda's name in their report - Come on, who in hell are they kidding, filmed her outside her home and we are to believe from that no one would know who she was?
  • Brunt lied to Brenda Leyland.
  • Gamble who was part of the Sky Report thereafter sent his twit message CONGRATULATING Brunt for what he did to Brenda Leyland.
  • Their actions absolutely contributed to this lady taking her own life.
  • An Inquest, and Brunt refused to reveal his sources.

Can someone tell me please how on earth this lady's opinions were considered by Sky to be of such great interest to the public that it warranted the mighty Murdoch to go after her in the way that he did?

How any of the above warranted round the clock coverage by Sky News, a Special Report documentary by Sky presented by Brunt including an appearance by Jim Gamble and the vile vigilante with the chunky legs, whose identity was protected, and more than this, HOW this lady's opinions on the McCann couple justified Sky going to her home, laying in wait, attacking her, telling her to expect the police to call?

Why would Brenda Leyland's opinion of the McCann couple, no matter how strongly she felt about them their appalling behaviour towards their children, no matter her way of expressing her opinion, how in hell is was this FIRMLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

Hell that was some operation Brunt and Sky put together to target a very ordinary lady FOR SIMPLY HAVING strong opinions about the McCann couple their daughter's disappearance and voicing them.

WHY would that be?   WHY would Murdoch throw such weight behind this, target this lady?

Why would Murdoch put all this weight behind (and with the greatest respect to Brenda Leyland) what in essence was a NON story - round the clock reporting about a lady, who didn't believe the McCanns and said as much in a forceful way?

The agenda here had to be something VERY VERY different from making the public aware of a lady who didn't believe a word that came out of the McCann mouths.  

How could that have been FIRMLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

Brenda Leyland just has to have been the easy target for whatever the Murdoch Agenda!

And that agenda I believe was the protection of the McCanns.
Sky just prior to the harassment/attack they launched on Ms Leyland, promoted also the ridiculous book by Summers and Swan, where they this silly couple, declared the McCanns innocent.

Sky plugged and supported this nonsense.

Right after they were attacking Ms Leyland.

What would be FIRMLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST is for the UK press
to grow balls and ASK the questions they should have been asking almost 8 years ago, when they should have been investigating what IS THE TRUTH of Madeleine McCanns disappearance, and not churning out lies and ridiculous stories on behalf of Clarence Mitchell/McCanns by way of protecting them.  They should have been investigating and reporting with honesty and integrity the truth of this case.

It would be of great interest to the public if SKY in particular arranged with the Kate and Gerry McCann that they appear on Sky (not to attack them and film them as they did to Brenda Leyland without her consent and in an accusatory way) and they be prepared to answer the VERY PERTINENT QUESTIONS regarding their missing daughter that thus far they have been able to DODGE?

It would be of great interest to the public if SKY (let's keep with them) asked the following of the McCanns:

  • Why Gerry McCann changed his story about his movements on the evening he reported his daughter to police as being missing.   The statement he gave police the morning after the child's disappearance he changed SEVEN DAYS LATER?
  • Ask McCann how come that bedroom door which he and Oldfield said each found to be open wide, if as REDWOOD said the alleged abductor did not remove Madeleine until AFTER they both had completed their checks.
  • Ask this couple why they allegedly told Oldfield to go into their apartment and check on their kids on the night Madeleine vanished, when at no time throughout that week had ANYONE at all checked on each other's kids and CERTAINLY no one had checked by going into each other's apartments?
  • Ask Kate McCann WHY her best buddie Fiona Payne told Police that Kate had told her that very night at the dinner table that she and Gerry McCann had deliberately left the patio door unlocked on that night so that Madeleine could exit if she woke and wanted to search for her missing parents.
  • Ask Kate McCann why she tells a different tale and ask her which of them, if not both of them is the one TELLING THE LIE?
  • Ask the McCanns for a full report of the Madeleine Fund accounts year by year.  Not what they publish at the moment which is the least that is required by law.  A full report so that the public can see where exactly every last £/$was spent.
  • Ask them outright, who they got to produce these E.Fits for them and when, and WHY they did not make them public but kept them under wraps for YEARS, that which could have helped their missing daughter.
  • Ask them what they think of Tannerman being replaced by Crecheman. What they think of Smithman.  How much does Gerry McCann think he resembles the E.Fits.  Ask them if JANE TANNER is relieved that 'her' man has been found? 
  • Ask them about the Gaspar Statements.
It does NO harm to ask them!

I could go on for ever and a day listing the questions which this couple have not answered, the lies and inconsistencies, which ABSOLUTELY would FIRMLY BE OF INTEREST to public.

So why have Sky not asked them?

Why has Brunt in all his years of reporting on this case NOT investigated and put to the McCanns that which Brunt knows, doesn't add up in this case?

Brenda Leyland knew exactly that which didn't add up.

Is that why she became the target of the McCanns, of Murdoch who clearly is backing them?

Brenda Leyland if she chose to discuss through Twitter, the Madeleine McCann case, that was her right.  If she chose to sit all day and all night discussing it with others that too was her right.

If she posted a million and one comments every day when discussing the Madeleine case, and in whatever tone, that was her right.

Nothing justifies Murdoch and Brunt their actions.

We have ridiculous reports about the number of twit messages she sent.  (I did a while back a break down of this, its in one of the above Brunt Blogs) hell it takes loads of twit messages to have an anywhere decent conversation from what I can see.  At, what is it, 140 characters a time!  Personally cannot understand why anyone would give themselves such hassle, must take ages to say what you want to by this method, but each to their own.

So for anyone to make an issue of the number of comments posted by Ms Leyland as part of conversations on Twitter is a nonsense.   ALL out there on Twitter send lots of comments, if they didn't they'd never get their conversation off the ground at 140 characters a pop!

The Sky reporting on Brenda Leyland was a NON story. It's purpose however was twofold, to protect the McCanns, send a message to anyone who questioned them their tale of abduction.

It became a story when Ms Leyland took her own life due to the actions of Brunt/Sky.

Their agenda backfired big time, but at such an horrific cost - the loss of this lady's life.

Suddenly all of these people, the Brunt's, Gambles, McCanns of this world have nothing to say for themselves!

As to Carole Malone, Lorraine Kelly, Gamble - Will any of them now apologise to the Leyland family?

Will Kelly at this years get together on the sofa with the McCanns search her conscience and start asking them what she should have way years back - Questions which are of interest to the public regarding missing Madeleine?

Or will the public be tortured once more with yet another shed load of shit which will not interest them in the slightest?

I really, really, really think Kelly will opt for the shed load of shit!   They do say, best to stick with what you know!
21st March 2015
Website Builder