Trolls on the attack......

Well story has made front page of the Star, and sweepyface too.

candyfloss wrote:Well story has made front page of the Star

What, in the blue hell, is that all about?

Plague of the ghost children? On the front page of a "newspaper"? Did I get knocked out and wake up in Wonderland, or something?

Seicento wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Well story has made front page of the Star

What, in the blue hell, is that all about?

Plague of the ghost children? On the front page of a "newspaper"? Did I get knocked out and wake up in Wonderland, or something?

It gets better Clay.

BARMAID Sharon Piper yesterday told how two black-eyed ghosts walked into her pub - and ordered two half-pints of bitter.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/402585/Barmaid-served-beer-to-black-eyed-ghosts

Andrew wrote:

Seicento wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Well story has made front page of the Star

What, in the blue hell, is that all about?

Plague of the ghost children? On the front page of a "newspaper"? Did I get knocked out and wake up in Wonderland, or something?

It gets better Clay.

BARMAID Sharon Piper yesterday told how two black-eyed ghosts walked into her pub - and ordered two half-pints of bitter.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/402585/Barmaid-served-beer-to-black-eyed-ghosts

   Can we stay on topic though

So it's the end of the day, and the BBC still hasn't touched this trolls story (as far as I can tell). Which leaves me wondering why.

wlbts wrote:So it's the end of the day, and the BBC still hasn't touched this trolls story (as far as I can tell).  Which leaves me wondering why.

Yeah seems odd. Have ITV mentioned it? Didn't see the evening news earlier.

The Mighty Murdoch swings his arm. £55K alone isn't that much money...

But why pick 'average anti' sweepyface for life ruination? She was prolific, but no more venemous than any of us. She niggled with facts, not pointless and nasty attacks on the Mcs.

Why her when they could have picked any one of lots of really vindictive and aggressive degenerates? They would have been provided with far more ammunition for their agenda than sweepyface offered.

Andrew wrote:

wlbts wrote:So it's the end of the day, and the BBC still hasn't touched this trolls story (as far as I can tell).  Which leaves me wondering why.

Yeah seems odd. Have ITV mentioned it? Didn't see the evening news earlier.

ITV were covering it. Kate (Aaaarrrgh) Garraway was talking about it on Daybreak when I got up this morning. Awful way to start the day.

Sweepyface deleted her account, would have been interesting to see just how bad it was. I had one or two words with her about her tweets but they were not threatening iirc just extremely personal and nasty.

I was struck by how this woman seemed unperturbed at finding the well-known Brunt and a cameraman near her home. Looked not like it was staged, but that she was expecting them. How would they have known not to travel to that village and waste their time? I doubt they went all that way on the off-chance that the woman would be at home.
I hope they did not stalk her in any way, which imo would have had to be the case had they not arranged to speak to her beforehand.
She looked surprised only when the police were mentioned by Brunt.
She was quite accommodating and courteous, inviting him into her home considering she had been doorstepped, or maybe that was the agreed set-up with her.
Some kind of subterfuge might have been used to get her to agree to a chat.... we want to speak to a McCann skeptic, would you be willing?
Brunt replied to someone in his tweet Q and A yesterday that finding someone's ID from twitter was easier than you might think.
Apart from the police, I don't know that it is easy or legal to do this. I can only think that he linked it to the FB account under her own name, where personal info might have been on public view. That still doesn't show how he got to her name to look at her FB page.

There were tweets before yesterday about how extreme pros had managed to locate and get the id's of some doubters. If Brunt used this info to track this woman down, that imo was way out of order.

I certainly hope that Sky and Brunt will be made aware of the obscenities and threats hurled at skeptics by the rabid, lunatic core of the supporters, even towards those whose tweets are no more than pointing out the problems of the official account.

I don't think it is the case, as some are claiming, that because the parents have not read these malicious threats against them, that it dilutes the harm they do, As far as the law is concerned, it is the motive behind them which makes them illegal, if they were sent to instil fear or anxiety, they are illegal.

Why Sky did not go after one of the much more offensive FB posters / tweeters, I don't understand. Nor do I understand the strange coincidence of the latest book, Swann coming out on the attack over this story yesterday and the release of the info about the Times payout to the parents.

A very well co-ordinated PR drive is going on
I can't help but wonder what is on the horizon.

I'd be interested to know how Martin Brunt got Sweepyface's personal details too.

According to this news article from 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9318937/Facebook-to-release-trolls-IP-addresses.html, Facebook say that all demands for personal information must be backed up with a court order.

A concerned member of the public would be laughed out of court if they tried to get an order for Sweepyface's details. If the police obtained the information, the Data Protection Act mean that they cannot legally give out that personal data.

So who tipped off Brunty?

The most simplest, most logical explanation in my opinion, is that the whole thing is a set-up and Sweepyface is part of Team McCann.

@Andrew & Clay - the Barmaid kicked the ghosts out because they don't serve spirits  

Poe wrote:I'd be interested to know how Martin Brunt got Sweepyface's personal details too.

According to this news article from 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9318937/Facebook-to-release-trolls-IP-addresses.html, Facebook say that all demands for personal information must be backed up with a court order.

A concerned member of the public would be laughed out of court if they tried to get an order for Sweepyface's details. If the police obtained the information, the Data Protection Act mean that they cannot legally give out that personal data.

So who tipped off Brunty?

The most simplest, most logical explanation in my opinion, is that the whole thing is a set-up and Sweepyface is part of Team McCann.

@Andrew & Clay - the Barmaid kicked the ghosts out because they don't serve spirits  

I agree Poe, right from the off yesterday, I just had a feeling that it was all very contrived and it must all mean something and lets face it, if it meant that somehow the McCanns were in the clear, then there would be no need for the massive PR offensive imo

Poe wrote:I'd be interested to know how Martin Brunt got Sweepyface's personal details too.

According to this news article from 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9318937/Facebook-to-release-trolls-IP-addresses.html, Facebook say that all demands for personal information must be backed up with a court order.

A concerned member of the public would be laughed out of court if they tried to get an order for Sweepyface's details. If the police obtained the information, the Data Protection Act mean that they cannot legally give out that personal data.

So who tipped off Brunty?

The most simplest, most logical explanation in my opinion, is that the whole thing is a set-up and Sweepyface is part of Team McCann.

@Andrew & Clay - the Barmaid kicked the ghosts out because they don't serve spirits  

I find it hard to believe that someone would actually volunteer to be splashed all over the national news as a vicious "hater" simply in order to get the McCanns some sympathetic publicity – even for money. Isn't it more likely that Brunt simply contacted her and said he wanted to talk to her about her views?

Popcorn wrote:

Poe wrote:I'd be interested to know how Martin Brunt got Sweepyface's personal details too.

According to this news article from 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9318937/Facebook-to-release-trolls-IP-addresses.html, Facebook say that all demands for personal information must be backed up with a court order.

A concerned member of the public would be laughed out of court if they tried to get an order for Sweepyface's details. If the police obtained the information, the Data Protection Act mean that they cannot legally give out that personal data.

So who tipped off Brunty?

The most simplest, most logical explanation in my opinion, is that the whole thing is a set-up and Sweepyface is part of Team McCann.

@Andrew & Clay - the Barmaid kicked the ghosts out because they don't serve spirits  

I find it hard to believe that someone would actually volunteer to be splashed all over the national news as a vicious "hater" simply in order to get the McCanns some sympathetic publicity – even for money. Isn't it more likely that Brunt simply contacted her and said he wanted to talk to her about her views?  

Agreed. All he'd need to do is "follow" Sweepyface on Twitter, and have her "follow" back, and then he could send her a private message and say, hello I'm Martin Brunt and I'd like to interview you about the McCanns, are you willing?" and she could PM him back and agree, and supply her contact info, and it's done. Simples.

ETA - we're all looking for underhanded undercover work when really, the simplest explanation is probably the right one. He may have simply contacted her via Twitter and asked to interview her.

canada12 wrote:
Agreed. All he'd need to do is "follow" Sweepyface on Twitter, and have her "follow" back, and then he could send her a private message and say, hello I'm Martin Brunt and I'd like to interview you about the McCanns, are you willing?" and she could PM him back and agree, and supply her contact info, and it's done. Simples.

ETA - we're all looking for underhanded undercover work when really, the simplest explanation is probably the right one. He may have simply contacted her via Twitter and asked to interview her.

Yes, she looked genuine enough to me.  Putting yourself in the public domain as a "hater" would be a stupid and dangerous thing to do voluntarily.  I find that as hard to be believe as the idea that the Smiths all lied to protect Robert Murat.

So my opinion is that Brunt tracked her down by the means described above, or the McCann's 'Media Monitoring Unit' managed to trace her real identity.  Occam's Razor compels me to go with the former.

@ Popcorn & canada12

You may very well be right but I find it difficult to believe that anyone with any knowledge of this case would willingly speak to Martin Brunt especially a twitter user who must be aware of the tweets Brunty gets on the McCann hashtag criticizing him for toeing the McCann party line.

Completely "out of the box" thinking here, but it would be interesting if one or more of the McCann supporters involved in social networking turned out to be an undercover police plant...put there to see just how much alleged direct manipulation was happening from Kate and Gerry...collecting evidence until they had enough to take their investigation to the next level....

canada12 wrote:Completely "out of the box" thinking here, but it would be interesting if one or more of the McCann supporters involved in social networking turned out to be an undercover police plant...put there to see just how much alleged direct manipulation was happening from Kate and Gerry...collecting evidence until they had enough to take their investigation to the next level....

Or thinking so far out of the box that you can barely see it ...Clarence.

Don't think for one second that anything the pink one does is primarily to benefit anyone other than the pink one himself. Much as it pains me to say so, he isn't stupid. He will have been aware that wheels are coming off the McCann bandwagon for some time so what better time to switch sides? Perhaps his reward was a shot at being an mp in Brighton.

Just thinking aloud.

Clarence hasn't piped up for a while has he with anything Mccann related. Or has he? Not seen him myself anyway putting his twopence worth in or any 'a source' said etc.

Seems to have gone very quiet. He may look daft but he's not. If he has distanced himself then he has done it for a very good reason.

Something is happening behind the scenes.

Andrew wrote:Clarence hasn't piped up for a while has he with anything Mccann related. Or has he? Not seen him myself anyway putting his twopence worth in or any 'a source' said etc.

Seems to have gone very quiet. He may look daft but he's not. If he has distanced himself then he has done it for a very good reason.

Something is happening behind the scenes.

Yes, I agree, there seems to have been a concerted effort in last couple of days, the sighting, the attack on media telling lies, and the trolls story.  Something is definitely in the pipeline.

A very good post:


Chris Roberts
17 mins
In case this is WHOOOSHED , I posted this in the Sky "news" page and emailed it to Martin Brunt and the Daily Mail. It does also serve to identify a number of issues that Summers and Swan would it seem to have preferred to ignore.
My name is Christopher David Roberts and I manage a Facebook group "McCann and other Mysteries" which is inter alia, a discussion group on the Madeleine McCann case.
To the members of this group I request that if they in any way disagree with what I write here, that they leave the group because if I am guilty of "trolling" then I do not wish anyone to be guilty by association with me or the group.
I have noticed that groups such as mine are being accused of "trolling" because in the main we do not accept the MSM line that the McCanns are innocent of all allegations levied against them.
The real problem that the McCanns have is that us "trolls" merely refer to and discuss the evidence as assimilated by the Portuguese police.
So without bias I will list the evidence that can in no way be refuted and see where that leads us.
Leaving aside the vagaries of Portuguese law, had the McCanns acted the way they claim to have done in the UK they would have been prosecuted for child neglect. There are also precedents where the remaining children have been taken into care.
The McCanns lied about how far they claim to have been from 5a and the visibility afforded to them by that distance and inherent visual obstructions.
The McCanns lied from the outset, re inter alia, the "jimmied window" and the locked/unlocked patio door. It is a fact that there was no evidence of forced entry at all.
The McCanns did not co-operate with the police as fully as would be expected, Kate McCann refusing to answer 48 questions having been advised by her lawyer not to do so.
However, questions such as " On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?" are very far from being in any way incriminating and it is incredible that she refused to provide a full and substantive answer to that question at least, under any circumstance whatsoever.
The McCanns received previously unheard of "assistance" direct from the UK government, far in excess of the usual consular involvement in any similar cases abroad, Ben Needham's disappearance being a particular example.
The McCanns incorporated a Limited Company and yet at the very least implied to the general public that donations were going to a charity. It is a matter of fact that the Charities Commission themselves raised concerns, particularly the haste with which the McCanns ceased negotiations with the CC. Registered charities must account for all expenditure as being relevant to the specific purpose of that charity, Limited companies do not.
The McCanns claimed that all funds donated would be used specifically in the search for Madeleine. That is proven to not be the case. beyond any doubt.
The McCanns employed their own private investigators and then took legal action to suppress the result of that investigation because it was allegedly "uncomplimentary " to both them and their "Tapas 9 " associates.
Then we must factor in the circumstantial evidence that us "trolls" regard as significant and the subject of much debate. That debate has of course led to the understandable use of much invective between opposing groups. It is fair to say that irrespective of opinion, none of this circumstantial evidence can be absolutely confirmed or refuted and therefore remains on the table.
The EVRD dogs supplied by Scotland Yard alerted to cadaverine ( the substance emitted by dead bodies ) only in locations and on property associated with the McCanns and nowhere and on nothing else.
Allegations have been made by those who support the McCanns that inter alia, the dog handler Mr Martin Grime was corrupt and that he or the Portuguese police "planted" cadaverine to incriminate the McCanns.
The description of a man carrying a child as reported by Jane Tanner changed several times and Ms Tanner pointed the finger at Mr Robert Murat who bears no resemblance whatsoever to her original description of an abductor.
The McCanns have preferred to use this description and artist's impression both on their website and in KM's book "Madeleine" instead of another description and E-fit emanating from a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a young child, the e-fit and physical description both bearing more than a passing resemblance to Gerald McCann and the original report by Mr Smith that he as “60-80%” sure it was Mr Cann he saw.

Chris Roberts The witness statements of Katherina Gaspar and her husband made in May 2007 to Leicestershire police were not provided for whatever reason to the Portuguese police until five months later. It is a matter of opinion how significant to the investigation these statements may or may not have been.
These statements and that of Yvonne Martin , the lady social worker who journeyed to visit apartment 5a on the 4th May 2007 have never been reported upon and to my knowledge, never at any time even mentioned by the MSM or indeed DCI Redwood in his investigations.
For reference, Ms Martin works "directly with situations of children at risk" and in referring to Dr David Payne "thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or a witness." The capacity in which Ms Martin knew Dr Payne has to my knowledge never been verified and if so, never reported upon with sufficient prominence to alleviate suspicion.
DNA found in the luggage compartment of their hired Renault Traffic could not be eliminated as emanating from Madeleine and by some qualified commentators, is assessed as most likely to have been so.
The hire car's mileage was in excess ( 500 miles? ) of that commensurate to the journeys the McCanns said that they made.
The Ocean Club's children's club attendant Catriona Baker made three witness statements. The third and final statement made eleven months after the event and after Ms Baker had spent time with the McCanns at their home, includes previously unreported detail that wholly supports the McCann's version of events particularly on May 3rd 2007.
Scotland Yard's own stated position has always been that they are investigating an abduction to the exclusion of any other possible scenario
The book written by Snr Goncalo Amaral theorising as lead investigator on the basis of the official PJ files what happened to Madeleine McCann, has been banned from sale in the UK as a result of litigation by the McCanns whereas any book that supports the McCann's position of abduction is published without impediment.

Chris Roberts The McCanns themselves have openly vilified the Portuguese police and particularly Snr Amaral and at no time have they made any attempt to retract or apologise for the statement that they are "fucking tossers" or that Snr Amaral "deserves to feel fear." For the McCanns to now complain that they find comments from internet fora distressing is at the very least, rank hypocrisy and their supporters continue this vilification on a daily basis, which it would seem the McCanns have no problem with at all.
None of us desire any physical harm to come to the McCanns and to suggest otherwise even on the basis of injudicious comments that may have been uttered in anger is puerile. It is to be noted that everything herein is referenced from the offical PJ files and/or reliable news reports. It is however disappointing that the vast majority of it has not and does not appear in the MSM and in the interests of balance I suggest that the Daily Mail and Sky News at least begin to report to the general public the vagaries of this case in order for them to make their own minds up, just as a jury would.
There is of course much more than this brief synopsis and my personal opinion is that prior to the abolition of capital punishment, men went to the gallows with less indication of guilt than that against Kate and Gerald McCann, guilty or not.
We seek justice for a child who has no voice, nothing more and nothing less.
For any further contact or discussion my personal details are available from Facebook or I will respond to Personal Messages.

susible wrote:

Poe wrote:I'd be interested to know how Martin Brunt got Sweepyface's personal details too.

According to this news article from 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9318937/Facebook-to-release-trolls-IP-addresses.html, Facebook say that all demands for personal information must be backed up with a court order.

A concerned member of the public would be laughed out of court if they tried to get an order for Sweepyface's details. If the police obtained the information, the Data Protection Act mean that they cannot legally give out that personal data.

So who tipped off Brunty?

The most simplest, most logical explanation in my opinion, is that the whole thing is a set-up and Sweepyface is part of Team McCann.

@Andrew & Clay - the Barmaid kicked the ghosts out because they don't serve spirits  

I agree Poe, right from the off yesterday, I just had a feeling that it was all very contrived and it must all mean something and lets face it, if it meant that somehow the McCanns were in the clear, then there would be no need for the massive PR offensive imo

Brunt himself is guilty of libellous or 'not allowed to mention' words in his own tweets, it therefore is just a bit hypocritical to 'out'  someone as a tweeting trolls.

Last year Brunt tweeted:

twitpic.com/crdgq9 - #Brunt #McCann murder tweet was up there for at least half an hour (& 25 RTs) before deleted
5:42pm - 16 Jun 13


19th May 2013
martinbrunt‏@skymartinbrunt18m

#mccann Scot Yard says it has identified "more than a handful" of suspects for murder of Madeleine McCann in its review of Portuguese case

Well said Andrew

Baldrick wrote:Well said Andrew

Can't take the credit for writing that Baldrick. Was copied and pasted over.

He has said it extremely well.

Welcome by the way.

Thank You

Baldrick wrote:Thank You

Welcome  Baldrick