Madeleine McCann Books

Châtelaine wrote:Excellent book by McLean, indeed, Tigger. Well researched, intelligent deduction, pointing to proof and inconsistencies and everything 100% referenced. Bravo.

Perhaps Winters & Goose should ask for an appointment with him ...?

As should Richard Philips..

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Friday, October 3, 2014

TROLLS
Before I return to analysis of evidence in McCann case I thought I would write a short post inspired by the recent internet troll saga in the McCann case.

TROLLS
First let me make my position crystal clear:

No one should feel it is their right to ridicule, insult, harass or make untrue or unprovable accusations about anyone, either on the internet, in newspapers on TV/radio or anywhere else. Freedom of speech is a right that carries with it responsibilities. No one should abuse this right.


There is absolutely no doubt that, for want of a better phrase, "internet trolls" comment on the McCann case. These people "infect" social media & the internet in general with inappropriate and occasionally highly offensive material. Trolls on both sides of the debate engage in these tactics. Anyone reading #mccann on twitter can quickly see the daily attempts by trolls on both sides to provoke, insult and attack the other.

Trolls who claim to support the McCann's clearly attempt to provoke more and more outrageous comments from their opponents. Once they succeed they then re-post these comments in a forlorn attempt to claim the moral high ground. These McCann supporting trolls also cherry pick items from the evidence and claim it "proves" their point while at the same time ignoring evidence that suggests the opposite. They insult anyone who questions their opinion, sometimes disgracefully invoking mental health issues. They present strawman arguments (effectively lying) in an effort to discredit their opponents position. They are rude, intolerant, aggressive and spiteful. Most claim to do this to support the McCann family, but how can their actions do anything of the sort? Pouring petrol on a fire doesn't put it out. If the McCann's are aware of their actions, it is hard to imagine they are not, they must surely be appalled by what they see.

Trolls, some of whom claim to support Madeleine, by claim that the evidence proves her parents are guilty of some crime (anything from negligence to murder) are equally shameful. For example there are large numbers of photoshopped images circulating. Some are obviously photoshopped and meant in jest (albeit often in very poor taste), but others are circulated as if they are genuine and can create an entirely false impression. Cherry picked items of evidence, often inaccurately quoted, are posted along with claims that this proves the McCann's guilt. Suggestions that there may be innocent explanations for these are ignored or ridiculed. They frequently accuse the McCann parents of various criminal acts, none of which can be proved & occasionally one will make an outrageous threat to harm the McCann family in some way. To claim that these actions are in any way supporting a missing child is ridiculous and offensive.

Facebook groups, Blogs and forums are similarly infected by these trolls. In my opinion none of the trolls has a genuine interest in any of the following:

1. Finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
2. Supporting the McCann family over the loss of their daughter.
3. Finding Madeleine.

So I make this appeal to the trolls on both sides. STOP! If you write a tweet or post which only has as it's only purpose insulting, provoking or accusing someone else don't post it.

If you want to why not START, engaging in a proper discussion and analysis of the evidence. Accept your own shortcomings & the shortcomings of others and try to improve the overall level of understanding about this case and perhaps others. DON'T be taken in by propaganda from either side. READ the PJfiles http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ & RESEARCH other relevant information, such as interviews, press articles and background information using all means available to you.
Above all KEEP AN OPEN MIND & be receptive to different opinions and ideas.

Finally, NEVER forget that at the heart of this case is a missing girl who was almost 4 years old when she vanished & would be 11 now. She is more important than your petty point scoring and childish insults and games. Her disappearance remains an as yet unsolved mystery. At the time of publishing this blog anyone who claims different is a liar.


EVERYONE ELSE

Not everyone who comments on the McCann case online is a troll. There are people, who do seem to have a genuine interest in The McCann case. They fall into several categories

1. Those with a genuine interest in finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Some think the balance of evidence supports the abduction hypothesis, some think that it supports anything but the abduction hypothesis, some are genuinely undecided, but all seem to share a genuine interest in the mystery and choose to spend their leisure time discussing the evidence and various hypotheses to explain Madeleine's disappearance.

2. Those who campaign for missing people & children.

Usually these people believe that Madeleine was abducted, or take the view that it is better to believe this unless it is proven otherwise.

3. Those who are concerned about paedophilia and government cover-ups in the UK & who think the McCann case is an example of one or both.

Often referred to as "conspiraloons" such people are very important in a democracy. Usually they are completely mis-guided, but every now and again they shed light on something that really needs to be uncovered. Unfortunately they can be over zealous in their words and actions which gives more fuel for the McCann supporter trolls to throw on the flames.

4. Those with a casual interest in the case.

Very well written, well done Pat  (Long piece if anyone wants to copy)v......


Sunday, October 5, 2014


Summers and Swan and The Demise of Journalism


http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/

Although I am no longer writing ongoing commentary about the Madeleine McCann case (not because I have been "silenced" but because I feel a whitewash is a foregone conclusion), I still find myself unable to keep quiet when I see the media act in egregious and unethical fashion. And since I have been part of the media more than a decade and also have insight on the how the publishing world and police agencies operate, I can shed some light on exactly what is happening with this sudden attack on McCann skeptics that has proliferated in the British and US media in the last few days. For those not up to speed, it has been reported by more than a dozen media out that the Metropolitan Police have received an 80 page dossier from a "concerned citizens group" which recorded the actions of vile trolls and their attacks on the McCanns.

This is my profile of exactly how this went down:

Summers and Swan put out a book (that I believe may have been commissioned) and expected - since they consider themselves to be investigative journalists of such a high caliber - to have little negative response to their book. They were surprised by the numbers of one-star reviews that certainly have curtailed sales (btw, the sales are not as bad as some believe - the site they are accessing for book sales is not accurate. While the book is not a bestseller, it is selling at a modest pace).

Summers and Swan are correct that some one-star book reviews were made without reading the book. However, some of the five-star reviews were also made without reading the book. There is no "organized" attack by any particular group - just general encouragement to post reviews of a book many feel is a sham and inaccurate. The only group I know of that has coordinated an "organized" attack is the online group that turned in the dossier against the McCann skeptics. This is pretty much a group spearheaded by one particularly aggressive pro-McCanner. This same group encouraged people to not only attack my book on the case, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (btw, this was an earlier independent review of the case, Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan) and put up negative reviews on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but to go after my other books as well as punishment. This same group is the one from whom Summers and Swan got their information on me (rather than reading my book and blogs or interviewing me) and has kept a running log on McCann skeptics; I have a page devoted to me on their site (or, more accurately, pages) which I am sure was included in the dossier sent to the police.

So, Summers and Swan gather information from a particularly vicious Internet site that essentially stalks, harasses, and slanders people who believe the McCanns might be guilty of a crime; then this same group warned them that they might get negative reviews on their book when it came out. After this comes true, Summers and Swan get all pissy and decide to fight back. I am sure if this "dossier" was given to the police by the group without the publicity generated, absolutely generated by Summers and Swan who are tightly connected to the media industry, the police would have shelved it without comment. I know this because I have been stalked and harassed on the Internet and there is little the police can do unless there is a direct threat made that the authorities will take seriously. Saying nasty things about someone on Twitter or Facebook is not a crime. I have had many nasty things said about me by the pro-McCanns (I don't see Summers and Swan getting all bent out of shape on my behalf...no, they are instead teaming up with my abusers) but most are not criminal threats (the closest was a photo that was supposed to be of my house that was posted either to identify my home so I could be assaulted or to show that my house was not a mansion - it was actually a photo of my neighbor's house). I have been slandered unmercifully, but that is a civil, not a criminal, matter.

Summers and Swan now also claim that they are being personally attacked. I guess if you call questioning their journalistic ability being personally attacked, they are correct. The group Summers and Swan are having a "promance" with have slandered me over and over but that is totally okay with this ethically challenged duo.

The police are not going to do a damn thing with this dossier. Although another ethically challenged journalist, Carole Malone, claims Brenda Leyland (who was stalked and harrassed by Martin Brunt), sent 50 texts a day to the McCanns. I don't see any evidence she texted the McCanns threats. She posted on Twitter which is not a personal contact as would be texting and emailing or mailing. It is a public space where people chat and gossip. If you don't go hang out there, you won't get your feelings hurt as Summers and Swan and their daughter have or so they claim. Also, you can block anyone from Twitter and not see what they write. I have blocked all my haters and I see nothing of what they spew. I also block them from my Facebook page and, therefore, do not have to be bombarded by their nastiness. So, the police are not going to waste their time trying to slap the hands of Tweeters; they only commented to the press because Summers and Swan sent the press their way.

By the way, I am not defending really nasty stuff I see posted concerning the McCanns, Sweepyface (Brenda Leyland) being one of those I do not particularly approve of; I find her stuff offensive and excessive. However, she is being singled out as representative of all those who question the McCanns' involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. This is a wide and unethical brush. But, it is folks like her that have caused me to prefer, as a professional, not to be linked to any particular Facebook page or website other than my own. I do not approve of photoshopped pictures of the McCanns, sick comments, and such. I have had enough of that done to me by the pros and I do not think it is a civil way to conduct a conversation. Most of the people on the Facebook pages and Twitter are discussing things in a decent manner but there are those who cross the line and act crudely. Unfortunately, any major issue is tainted with nastiness these days on the Internet; you can see that by going to any comment section on any subject. If Summers and Swan think they or the McCanns should be not experience what every other public figure and author experiences, well, then they think somehow they are better than everyone. In reality, they have the fortune (and the lawyers) to have the media on their side  for many years, so they suffer far less at present than the rest of us.

Which brings me to my final comment on this; the media have become the most vicious of all trolls on the planet because they spit out gossip, lies, and slander without even bothering to check facts, which is exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to do as journalists. They run with any moneymaking story no matter who generated it and how true it actually is. Summers and Swan clearly orchestrated this junk story in the media knowing full well that none of their media cohorts were going to bother to do any real reporting on the matter. My name is in that dossier, I am damned sure, and not one journo has called me to validate the accuracy of the dossier or to find out more about this "secret" "concerned" citizens group.

Although I believe the Summers and Swan book is likely to have been "encouraged" to coincide with the end of the civil and criminal cases (although this seems to have been a miscalculation), this attack on McCann skeptics is simply Summers and Swan's outrage at having their book dissed. They are buddy buddy with the media so it is no surprise they were able to retaliate through them and, again, no media outlet is likely to question anything that is pro-McCann. I have been out here for seven years, written over seventy blogs on the case and published a book that was Carter-Rucked by the McCanns, and not one journalist (including Summers and Swan) has contacted me, a high profile independent professional criminal profiler, to understand the other side of the story. Balanced reporting, investigative reporting, ethical reporting - in the UK and the US - is pretty much as dead as Madeleine.

Perhaps the sudden troll/tweet persecution is an attempt to muddy the waters after the debacle of this book.
They must have thought the nearly-Pullitzer prize would sanctify the message of the book.

This new method of getting Brunt sent out as troll/tweet hunter extra-ordinaire is too melodramatic for words.
but it's hardly investigative journalism - doorstepping one tweeter just to show what 'they' can do.

Does the general public care?

I doubt the majority of the public did give two hoots before, as jaded as they have become of the case.

But if the terrible news today is true, they may care enough about this injustice to rise up and object.

I hope they do, it would be a very small retribution for Brenda Leyland.

Another Good one shafted...
http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/2012/06/29/anarchy-in-the-uk/

As Pat Brown said....
Balanced reporting, investigative reporting, ethical reporting - in the UK and the US - is pretty much as dead as Madeleine.

Am sick of this country..Am sick of Government control..Am sick of the deceit we encounter daily. We are constantly being laughed at by the Elite. I fucking hate them all.

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Monday, October 6, 2014

That Dossier
Now that I have had a little time to reflect on the shocking news about Brenda Leyland that I first heard late last night & read and listen to some of the reports, comments & spin today I have collected my thoughts. Here they are:


1. No one is in a position to say whether Brenda's tweets were illegal as this has not been tested in court.

2. Everyone has the right to express their opinion as long as doing so falls within the law.

3. The dossier was compiled by persons who wish to remain anonymous to the wider world. They had every right to compile their dossier & if they believed they had unearthed illegal activity to pass it on to the police.

4. They also had the right to pass their dossier to and to those who run social media platforms such as twitter and facebook if they believed they had uncovered contraventions of the terms & conditions of those platforms.

4. The dossier compilers DID NOT have the right to give, or worse still sell (I do not know whether it was sold I am simply saying that it would be even worse if it had been sold), the dossier to any media outlet.

5. Any media outlet receiving such a dossier DID NOT have the right to publish the name or any other personal details of anyone named in the dossier.

6. The media did have the right to run a story describing in general terms what was in the dossier and to say that it was in the hands of the police & CPS who were considering whether any laws had been broken and whether anyone should be charged.

7. By publishing the name & image of someone named in the dossier and by calling them a troll & member of a hate campaign the media in general, & SkyNews in particular, contributed enormously to the circumstances that caused Brenda Leyland to kill herself.

8. I am now surprised that I find myself in partial agreement with the "Hacked Off" campaign and G McCann. The media in the UK need to be subject to greater control. Though I disagree about how such control should be achieved.
9. I expect "Hacked Off" & G McCann to publicly condemn the actions of the media with respect to Brenda Leyland in particular and the dossier in general. If they do not they will be revealed as the hypocrites that some people think they are.
10. The people who compiled the dossier should publish, anonymously if they wish, details of exactly to whom they gave the dossier, when this was done and whether any money changed hands. Once again failure to do so will reveal them to be hypocrites.




Posted by Richard Philips at 4:32 AM No comments:

Brunty been advised no doubt to 'shut up and go away' somewhere. Hopefully the Police will track him down very soon to question him. I wonder where he is right now?

Summers and Swan have also been very quiet of late. What's happened to them?

Have they made any comments at all since what's happened does anyone know?

Andrew wrote:Brunty been advised no doubt to 'shut up and go away' somewhere. Hopefully the Police will track him down very soon to question him. I wonder where he is right now?

Summers and Swan have also been very quiet of late. What's happened to them?

Have they made any comments at all since what's happened does anyone know?

Haven't seen nor heard off any of them Andrew, wonder why?

Friday, October 10, 2014

Coincidences? You decide.
I really should get back to the McCann case evidence. Still much to say about DNA, Dogs, slamming doors & whooshing curtains etc Yet I feel compelled to comment on recent events once again.

The Dossier
Many people who have an interest in the McCann case knew that tweets, posts & personal information about anonymous posters on facebook & twitter was being collected in a systematic an organised way. The people doing the collecting & collating made no secret of what they were doing. There was also little doubt that at some point at least some of the information gathered, along with tweets & FB posts deemed to be "hateful" or "threatening" would end up in the hands of the police. Though many seemed to think it would only be used to name and shame on FB or Twitter as had been done by both sides many times before.

The Book by Summers and Swan
This book came as much more of a surprise at least to me. Books of this sort often do come as something of a surprise so there is nothing very unusual about that. The authors did make some effort earlier in the year to contact a few so called "anti" McCann who post on forums, FB & twitter for comment. I have little idea what was said to these people, but it is clear that they did not widely publicise the fact that they had been contacted or that there was a book being written. Thus the book came to most peoples attention towards that end of August only when the pre-publication promotion began. There were notable exceptions to this surprised reaction to the books publication. Some, perhaps most, of the pro McCann lobby seemed to be expecting the announcement and showed little or no surprise. They also seemed to have a good idea that the book would be supportive of the McCann's abduction story.

It seems obvious to me now that the books main aims were twofold:

1. To promote the idea that there was real evidence that an abductor, or at least several people who could have been abductors, were at large in Praia da Luz in spring 2007. While at the same time dismissing, out of hand & with hardly any valid argument or discussion, all evidence that might incriminate the McCanns.

2. To make the readers aware of the online activity by people who question the abduction theory and think that the McCanns were involved in some way in their daughters disappearance. Such people were labelled as "haters"and many details given, often about the worst among them, in an effort to discredit all who post or tweet.

Of these it is possible that the main objective was the second. All the other information about the case was already in the public domain. There was very little if anything new in terms of facts, and certainly no new ideas or leads. However the so called "hate campaign", which is not a campaign at all, has not been widely reported. Only a few isolated incidents such as the silly London marathon "anyone got a gun?" post on facebook have been reported. It seems quite possible that the book was written, at least in part, with the intention of spreading the message that the McCanns were the subject of a "hate campaign" to as wide an audience as possible. Of course the seemingly very low book sales mean this objective wasn't achieved.

We now know, through a freedom of information request, that the authors tried to coordinate the publication of the book with the end of the Operation Grange investigation. The police refused a request for information about the end of Operation Grange

The Times lawsuit.
This was announced at the beginning of August 2014. The offending article had appeared in October 2013 soon after the CrimeWatch program. The Times had published an apology/correction soon after the original article was published. I don't know exactly when the lawsuit was filed, but it appears to have been in July or August with the resulting out of court settlement being made soon after the Summers and Swan book was published.

The Damages Trial
The trial in Portugal in which the McCanns are seeking damages from Goncalo Amaral and others had been hearing evidence in June and was due to conclude with the Judges verdict in September.

Coincidences?
Are these coincidences?

The book publication, lawsuit settlement and dossier all occur within a few weeks of each other.

The book publication, lawsuit and dossier all occur soon after Operation Grange completes digs and interviews in Portugal.

The book, lawsuit and dossier all occur at the same time as the judge in the damages trial was due to give a verdict.



Which of the explanations below seems more likely?

1. It is possible that the book publisher thought Sept 11th was a good time to release the book entirely independently & without knowledge of the dossier or the lawsuit. Perhaps thinking that the trial verdict would be at that time and chose not to postpone when it became known the trial verdict would be delayed.

2. It is possible that the McCanns & their lawyers decided to sue The Times entirely independently & without having any influence over the book publication date or the dossier release. The long delay between the offending article and the lawsuit being due to?......I'm sure there must be a reason,but I can't think of one.

3. It is possible that those who compiled the dossier handed it to..... well we aren't sure who they handed it to, but never mind.....without having any influence over the book publication date or the timing of the lawsuit settlement. Presumably the dossier just happened to be completed at the beginning of September.

4. It is possible that the McCanns or people acting on their behalf could have exercised control over the timing of all three of these events in an effort to get maximum impact at the same time that a verdict was due in the damages trial in Portugal.


Footnote:

While I was writing the above Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe spoke in an interview and said that the the dossier was handed to the police by the McCanns. He may have made a mistake about this, but if he is correct it supports the suggestion that the McCanns might have coordinated these events.

BHH said that the "dossier" was handed by the "family". He could have been more explicit by saying Dr and Mrs McCann. Saying "family" means it can have been anyone in the McCann and Healy clan, e.g. Dianne McCann or Michael Wright ... IMO, of course

Mods remove, if deemed necessary.

It didn't work!

I don't think the files on tweets came from anywhere else but the McCs' MMU who must have a new spin doctor or have got someone to explain McAlpine's 'the new Machiavelli' to them .

This is a little more sophisticated than their usual efforts, somebody from Common Purpose?

So coordinate:
1.Swan and Summers, chosen for the Pullitzer word.
2. Times 'fine' arranged long beforehand, many months ago
3.Arrange with Sky and press 'revelation' of tweets question is why choose Brenda, convenient for Sky for some reason?
4.The doorstepping by Brunt as a sensational 'opening' or escalation of this campaign.
5.Tabloids primed with the usual and the chance for the public to participate, Big Brother live!
6.Following that, more publicity for Gerry who gets to be interviewed by Humphreys -
Gerry accuses a high court judge of corruption on prime time radio.
7. Promote the selfless couple with yet another 'new' gadget: the Child Alert Whatever.

So close! Interviewed by JH just like the politician he'd like to be and the repeated slurDear me, the judge isn't going to like that at all.

Apart from that little bonus from the Times can't see that the other points were a success.

Good points tigger.

No, it certainly was not a success for them.

Spectacularly backfired IMO.

They just seem to be firefighting. Every time they put a fire out, 2 more start again.

They are running out of options and they know it.

ETA - where the hell is Brunt?

It *does* seem that things like the bad book reviews may have been a tool to out "haters" which appears to have been a theme of the book - and then aiming for another blow with the dossier.
But yes, all went badly wrong for them. Reviews were not 'hate' reviews - largely excellent critical dissections and added to visibility of lots of the problematic evidence and contradictions. The dossier also clearly went badly wrong as the police weren't interested, and so the plan-B to use Sky then backfired too as that seems to have now raised awareness that 1) Brenda was NOT trolling and 2) there is a pretty vile bunch of people out there who DO hating and trolling and death threats. And they're on Team McCann.

This whole farrago has also shown Summers & Swan in a pretty poor light too. The overwhelming take-out is that they were wittingly or unwittingly used by the McCanns here - that the book was not so much an investigative work as a new cobbled-together attempt to undo the damage of 'madeleine' and the PJ Files and seems rather to have been ghost-written by S&S on behalf of the McCanns. Their attempts to weasel their way into SY's information were carefully disguised in their preface & credits, but the FOI request that showed that SY had told them they weren't going to give them any info but they should go read the PJ Files actually made me laugh out loud. Which is nice, because otherwise this tangled sequence of events is just another depressing addition to the McCann's circus of horrors.

Still no sign of Brunty or S&S. Maybe working with the McCanns on a Plan C. or D. or E.

I really hope everything is starting to unravel.

Hmmm..yes, I just checked out S&S's facebook page, everything from the book debacle deleted, with the first entry on the page dated back to April and is about Ireland's energy policy...Whoosh clunked indeed.

gbwales wrote:It *does* seem that things like the bad book reviews may have been a tool to out "haters" which appears to have been a theme of the book - and then aiming for another blow with the dossier.
But yes, all went badly wrong for them. Reviews were hot 'hate' reviews - largely excellent critical dissections and added to visibility of lots of the problematic evidence and contradictions. The dossier also clearly went badly wrong as the police weren't interested, and so the plan-B to use Sky then backfired too as that seems to have now raised awareness that 1) Brenda was NOT trolling and 2) there is a pretty vile bunch of people out there who DO hating and trolling and death threats. And they're on Team McCann.

This whole farrago has also shown Summers & Swan in a pretty poor light too. The overwhelming take-out is that they were wittingly or unwittingly used by the McCanns here - that the book was not so much an investigative work as a new cobbled-together attempt to undo the damage of 'madeleine' and the PJ Files and seems rather to have been ghost-written by S&S on behalf of the McCanns. Their attempts to weasel their way into SY's information were carefully disguised in their preface 7 credits, but the FOI request that showed that SY had told them they weren't going to give them any info but they should go read the PJ Files actually made me laugh out loud. Which is nice, because otherwise this tangled sequence of events is just another depressing addition to the McCann's circus of horrors.

Still no sign of Brunty or S&S. Maybe working with the McCanns on a Plan C. or D. or E.

I really hope everything is starting to unravel.

Hi gbwales

I've been away from the forum for a couple of days so am just catching up with all of the threads.

Your posts are always a joy to read, you have a very astute mind. It's posts like yours that keep me going that we will one day find the truth about what happened to Madeleine and hopefully the lies told by so many people who should have been on her side will come crashing down around their ears.

susible wrote:Hmmm..yes, I just checked out S&S's facebook page, everything from the book debacle deleted, with the first entry on the page dated back to April and is about Ireland's energy policy...Whoosh clunked indeed.

It does make one wonder. I thought Summers would have held to his professed morals and principles to investigate and dig around the story.

Brunt is back it seems.

Just walked in, stuck Sky News on and heard the end of something saying 'Martin Brunt, Sky News reporting'.

Andrew wrote:Brunt is back it seems.

Just walked in, stuck Sky News on and heard the end of something saying 'Martin Brunt, Sky News reporting'.

He must have been given a month's 'garden leave'.

Andrew wrote:Brunt is back it seems.

Just walked in, stuck Sky News on and heard the end of something saying 'Martin Brunt, Sky News reporting'.

If you have sky+ can you rewind and see what he was talking about ?

wlbts wrote:

Andrew wrote:Brunt is back it seems.

Just walked in, stuck Sky News on and heard the end of something saying 'Martin Brunt, Sky News reporting'.

He must have been given a month's 'garden leave'.

Yep.

I wonder if anything will be said by him in relation to what happened with Brenda. Probably not.

The weasel. Just carry on as normal hey Brunt after your nice holiday.

Andrew wrote:

wlbts wrote:

Andrew wrote:Brunt is back it seems.

Just walked in, stuck Sky News on and heard the end of something saying 'Martin Brunt, Sky News reporting'.

He must have been given a month's 'garden leave'.

Yep.

I wonder if anything will be said by him in relation to what happened with Brenda. Probably not.

The weasel. Just carry on as normal hey Brunt after your nice holiday.

I expect Brunt has been advised by a very highly paid Sky News lawyer not to say anything until or after Brenda's inquest takes place.

True - he shouldn't even be on the screen til after then. The weasel. Imo.

Andrew wrote:True - he shouldn't even be on the screen til after then. The weasel. Imo.

Yes, it's an horrendous insult to Brenda and her family, but then some people have no morals or scruples when it comes to protecting their highly paid salaries especially when they may be on a long term contract they can't get out of without being sued.