FEAR IS GOOD, FEAR WORKS

In the 1980's greed was good, greed worked and fortunes were made, but then the bubble burst, all those high interest mortgages to high risk borrowers were not sustainable.  The super rich retreated to count their profits and the world's economy took a nosedive, with the poorest and most vulnerable left to pay the price.

The nihilistic nineties brought with it a climate of fear, we didn't know who or what to believe and we didn't really care.  Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins told us there is no God, no powerful being to come and rescue us, we were on our own, with nothing to worship except the weathered coins that jangled in our pockets. 

In the territorial twothousands (territories matter, especially those that have all the oil).  The Messiah arrived in the enthusiastic form of a bright eyed Tony Blair, education, education, education, he shouted as the people's party leapt to its feet in an encore.  I'm here to bring you equality and justice, he declared, trust me, I'm a lawyer.  Like sheep we followed, I may even have been baaaing as I popped the champagne, yes, yes, yes, Tony, enlightenment for the masses, its the only way!  

There was much that was good, Surestart, EMA, University education open to all, but underneath, lurked something very, very bad.  In order to lead the people, you need to control the people, you need to know who they are and where they are, how much they earn, where hey shop etc, etc.  I know, said some bright spark, lets convince them the danger  of terrorism is everywhere, and the only sure way to stamp it out is with ID cards, only those with something to hide would object.  And if they are not convinced how clear and present the danger is, we can send army tanks into Heathrow Airport - that should up the ante! Don't be ridiculous, said someone else, we could never get away with that. 
 
But the public weren't quite rattled enough to queue up at police stations volunteering samples of DNA, their bank statements and full medical history.  The (manufactured) fear of terrorists, muslims and aliens just wasn't cutting the mustard. Twas Messiah Tony's sheer bad luck, that he arrived to save us slap bang in the middle the of the Age of Information, he was going to need a lot more than 2 loaves and 5 fishes to win 'em all over.  The Great British public are nothing like the previous generations, who sat around radio sets in their Sunday best respectfully listening to the PM's speech.  Now they are more likely to be making a cuppa and googling 'why are we are going to war'.  Maybe teaching them to read and use a computer wasn't such a good idea after all.  Doh!

With education came the realisation that the 4.8% of the population who are muslim were very unlikely to overthrow the government and introduce Sharia Law in the UK.  A new enemy was needed.  Someone we could all universally despise, someone we could string up from a lamp post to the cheers of a baying mob.  Someone no-one would defend, for fear of being accused themselves. A bogey man, a child snatcher, a sinister predator hiding in the bushes, or behind the wall, watching families and waiting for the opportunity to sneak in and steal their babies. 

And where  does this threat come from?  Why directly from the computers in our living rooms and bedrooms!  The lawless internet is riddled with paedophiles waiting to prey on kids with lollypops and plane tickets to Disney.  These perverts are the new public enemy number One, the enemy within, the reds under the beds, the invasion of the body snatchers.  Never mind that 99.9% of children are abused and battered by people that know them, the message is 'Stranger Danger', or more accurately, Cyber Stranger Danger. The unseen threat, is the best threat of all when a government wants to instil fear into the population.  Its unsettling, its unheimlich and when our kids lives are at stake, we will hand over anything our 'protectors' demand, especially if it is accompanied by the implication that if we don't, we must be 'one of them'.

And this is where poor little Madeleine McCann came in.  She was the poster child in a campaign of fear.  A campaign that struck terror into the hearts of young parents worldwide, when every young blonde girl was assumed to be the missing Maddie, and every smiling granddad was a potential predator. And the legacy - obese kids confined to their bedrooms by overprotective parents terrified that if they step outside the door they will be snatched by one of the paedophiles who lurk on every corner.  People reluctant to intervene when they see a distressed toddler on their own, parents terrified of their children being photographed.  Young mums and dads have lost the freedom to enjoy their kids, and the kids have lost the freedom to enjoy their childhoods as we did. Gone are the days when scruffy kids sat at the dinner table, excitedly telling their parents about the pals they made and fell out with, the conkers and snails they collected, how they got a great big hole in their best jumper.  Replaced with mums and dads terrified to let their offspring out of their sight, and terrified to let them stray any further than the sweetshop or nearest takeaway, unable to relax until they know the kids are safe in their room eating junk food and playing mind numbing computer games. 

The latest 21st Century fear is internet trolls.  Beware the lawless internet says Grace Dent, stamp out the small groups who are spoiling it for everyone, says the Mail, make an example of a troll demands Gerry, 'your wish is our command' says Sky Television. 

The internet is a powerful tool and the powers that be can't just let any old pleb post on it without some sort of censorship and restraint.  The journalists in El Vino's are weeping into their Chablis, as Joe Public are doing their job for them, only better, and more thoroughly. Their articles and opinions can now be compared, their word is no longer final - its open to research and credibility checks.  Perhaps this should be the Transparent Twothousands, because sweeping under the carpet is no longer an option, unless of course, they can get some new laws in pdq, and award another standing ovation to Mr. Gerry McCann.  The problem is we can see for ourselves those newspapers, journalists and television presenters who stick to their principles and beliefs and those prepared to lie through their teeth for a pay cheque.  The public will judge them, and therein lies the karma.  

As for the trolls, jail them by all means, although they are likely to be solitary types with few friends and too timid to step outside their bedrooms.  But ffs, people should educate their kids so they don't need smelling salts when they encounter a bit of harsh reality. If Chloe Madely is such a wilting flower, has she really chosen the right profession? Perhaps twitter should carry a 'not suitable for sensitive adults or namby pambies', so she could have made a hasty exit to a flower arranging hashtag. And I say that as someone who has been on the receiving end of McCann orchestrated troll campaign for several years.  Yes, there are indeed dangerous trolls out there, some of whom drove an innocent woman to her death, a more important trolling story I believe, than a minor celebrity with hurt feelings.   

If individuals voice an opinion in a public arena, opposing opinions will follow - its how a democracy works.  The only people who oppose it are wannabe dictators, tyrants and Dr. Evils.  Everyone's opinion is valid, whether we like them or not. Characters such as the McCanns and the Madeleys are living in cuckoo land if they think they can step up to the platform, say their piece, and walk away to a round of applause.  It takes 'You Must Love Me' to a whole new level, complete with a prison sentence if you don't.   

CARPE DIEM - SEIZE THE DAY

On 5th November I will be in London for the Anonymous #MillionMasksMarch to protest at the UK's blackout of the truth behind Madeleine's McCann's disappearance and the hounding to death of an innocent woman who did no more than express her opinion online.

Anyone wishing to join me, with a mask or without, will be welcome. There will be no lists of names, no records kept, and revealing identities will be optional. I will probably set up somewhere near Trafalgar Square with a big flask of coffee and maybe a sign declaring 'I'm Brenda Leyland'! 

The official March begins at 6.pm, and as we do not yet know how big the crowds will be (there will be lots of people marching for different causes) I will give out a mobile contact number nearer the day.  If anyone is willing to help on any organising aspects, I would be very grateful!  Otherwise it may be a case of us all gathering at Trafalgar Square until someone shouts ACEEED, and blows a whistle!  ;)

If there are any budding film producers or photographers, and nimble fingered tweeters, you will be especially welcome - as long as anonymity is respected. Unfortunately, the malicious way in which the McCanns have run their media campaign has made anonymity essential in most cases. Recent events have shown how the McCann supporters track down their critics, so no need to make it easy for them.   

I want to show that questioning the disappearance of an innocent child is nothing to be ashamed of and that we are ordinary people who have researched this case, rather than the evil trolls, the media portrays.   

So many of my friends and family said when they heard the news of Brenda's death, that it could have been me, the truth is, it could have been any one of us.  We should not be made to live in fear of the media and the police for voicing our opinions.  Conspiracy is not a taboo word!  Conspiracies can and do happen, unfortunately so many people are indoctrinated to the extent that they cover their ears, eyes and mouths the moment the word is uttered.  Its a bit like when you say the word 'sit' to dog! 

LETTERS EXPRESS NEWSPAPER WON'T PUBLISH

'NASTY EVIL LOOKING PIECE OF SHIT' - a reference to the picture of Brenda Leyland remains under their 'troll' article, whilst my comment below is whooshed! 


Demonising those who do not believe the McCanns has been the nation's sport for the last 7 years, yet even a cursory look at the details of the case will reveal that the abduction story simply doesn't add up.  Brenda was not a troll, just a concerned citizen who had done no more than pursue justice for a missing child. As a frequent tweeter on the McCann hashtag, I too have been subject to threats and abuse from McCann supporters, in fact anyone who expresses doubt about this case receive the same treatment, newbies especially are torn to shreds. 

Celebrities too are jumping into this discussion, protesting that 'ordinary' people should somehow be restrained, or restricted from posting their views and opinions on social media because they can't be trusted.  There is a kind of snobbery when they talk about the 'lawless internet' and the uneducated making whoopee with snippets of information they don't have the mental capacity to process.  Troll hunter Dom Joly dives in calling me 'Totally fucking Nuts', then blocks me so I have no right of reply, yet I am labelled the troll!

This is the age of information and anyone with a bit of gumption can google anything they want.  The truth about this case is merely one or two clicks away.  In a current poll, over 90% of the population do not believe Kate and Gerry McCann and their disbelief is not based on envy or hatred, it is based on the original Portuguese police files that are freely available online.   

Anyone else having their responses whooshed by the MSM can have them published here.  We will get the truth out there one way or another!

SWEEPYFACE HAD NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF

Brenda Leyland (Sweepyface) had nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.  She fought for what she believed in, and she believed the death of Madeleine McCann was being covered up.  Anyone would be very fortunate indeed to have had Brenda fighting on their behalf, safe in the knowledge that she would never, ever, have given up.  Someone who would carry on fighting for you regardless of threats, abuse and repugnant allegations?  Brenda's sons have so much to be proud of, she could have walked away years ago, she could have given up, as so many others have, but she didn't.  Her will was stronger than the will of those who wanted to do her harm.

The question each of us must now ask, especially all of those who post anonymously (perfectly understandable given the constant threats), is, would we be suicidal if we were 'outed'?  It seems to me Brenda would have been happy to talk to Martin Brunt. Those of us who use social media, do so because we are trying to get the hidden details of this case into the public arena, ergo the UK's top reporter turning up on your doorstep is the stuff of dreams.  Brenda had nothing to be ashamed of.  Her tweets were not threatening, nor were they abusive, she had nothing to fear in them being revealed, other than the disinformation of the press.

We all immediately assumed that the 'outing' made her suicidal - and that is a possibility given that she fled her home.  She had been labelled a vicious troll and knew full well the Media would lead the rabble chanting 'burn the witch' to her door - there were already McCann supporters on twitter threatening to smash her windows.  She must have been terrified, but would she have been terrified beyond logic?  The problem was solvable, the troll accusations easily disproved.

She appears to have been a strong, feisty lady, who made little or no attempt to conceal her real identity - and having dedicated so much time to getting the truth 'out there' would she really have said, 'Ok, its a fair cop, I'll just go shred all my work and take up knitting'.  Would any of us do that?

I'm probably one of the worst offenders here in that I immediately went into sympathy mode, that is, I saw the vulnerable Brenda, rather than the strong determined Brenda, the Brenda who was determined to get justice for Madeleine.   Many of us have said, I wish Martin Brunt had come to see me, I have plenty to tell him, why then would that not be true of Brenda?  She wasn't hiding away in a backroom as has been intimated, she was an active member of the community.  And why on earth should not believing the McCanns be a matter of shame? Brenda was anything but ashamed of her beliefs.

Most of us know the UK press will not publish negative McCann stories, but the 'outing' of Sweepyface may have forced the issue.  That is, at some point, one of the big media hitters was going to have to interview Brenda, and she was going to tell them all she knew, including information about the McCanns own sinister media campaign.  The irony of course being that it is all coming out now anyway. 

LET BRENDA DEFEND HERSELF

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.  Abraham Lincoln


So the mainstream media are now labelling Brenda Leyland as mentally unstable, a conspiracy theorist with a fixation on the parents of a missing child.  She wasn't.  She was a well educated, refined lady, a popular and active member of her community and loved by those who knew her. 

Labelling Brenda and indeed all of us as conspiracy loons, the MSM can continue to ignore us and promote the agenda that Gerry and Kate McCann are the victims of a Portuguese conspiracy and a small underclass envious of the parents detached house and room for a pony. 

But lets deal first with the anti McCann conspiracy, involved are all those who do not believe that Madeleine was abducted, so as conspiracies go, its a pretty big group. 

Are our beliefs based on myths and rumours? No, they are based on the official Portuguese police files released after the case was shelved, wherein the Attorney General stated that Kate and Gerry McCann failed to prove their innocence.  He did not clear them, as stated over and over again by every UK media outlet, the case was shelved because the McCanns and their friends refused to co-operate with the investigation. 

We are right to ask questions.  The crime occurred in Portugal, so why are Scotland Yard investigating it? Are they saying, we don't accept your sardine munching findings, so we will come up with better ones ourselves, ta very much. Whatever Scotland Yard are doing, it cannot end in prosecution, they cannot drag Portuguese citizens over to the UK to put in an Old Baily dock for a crime committed in Portugal. So why are Scotland Yard investigating a crime in another country?  To take this a wee bit further, can all UK citizens accused of crimes abroad expect the same treatment if they too don't like the conclusions of the host nation?

FACTS. 

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the abduction story. 

Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends did not search on the night Madeleine went missing, they stayed in the apartment phoning everyone on their contact lists. 

Despite their daughter being 'taken in the night', the McCanns put their twins in the resort crèche the following day - 4th May.

Kate refused to answer 48 police questions

Most damning of all, specialist blood and cadaver dogs, trained by Scotland Yard, detected blood and the odour of cadaver in the McCanns' apartment, the hire car and items belonging to Kate McCann.  A child is missing so who died in 5A?

In the majority of cases where a child is claimed to have been abducted, the parents have been involved, that is a fact.  The McCanns are not even unusual in their behaviour, Youtube is full of 'grieving parents' giving interviews, who have later been discovered to have killed the child themselves.  The McCanns are unusual because they have had so much support from the government and the media.

It is condescending and patronising of those journalists, who have clearly done no research whatsoever, to label people such as Brenda Leyland a conspiracy loon on the basis that she was only a member of the public and didn't know what she was talking about.  Well news flash.  Brenda knew exactly what she was talking about, and sure as eggs is eggs, Martin Brunt knew it too. 

If a journalist campaigns for a cause he/she believes in passionately, they are feted as heroes and presented with honours, accolades and awards.  If a member of public acts similarly, they are obviously mentally unstable. 

Well those who speak out are the movers and the shakers of this world - whatever walk of life they come from, and Brenda's passion was just as worthy as those with 'Reporter' stamped on their passport.  She was fighting for justice for the forgotten child in all this, Madeleine McCann. Her 4000+ tweets were a credit to her persistence, just what is it going to take for someone to stop the madness of the McCann scam.  One crime has led to hundreds, and now it is taken a very sinister turn indeed.  It can only get worse, unless someone out there has the guts to say, enough is enough. 

Martin Brunt knew immediately that Brenda Leyland was a nice, decent woman and probably wondered himself what the feck he was doing.  Even under extreme duress, she was well mannered and kindly invited Martin and the crew into her home.  I know Martin Brunt is feeling like shit right now, but he could go some way to putting this right, by revealing the full interview, the one in which she explained why she was campaigning  and give her an opportunity to clear her name. 

 

MCCANN SUPPORTER TWEETS TO SWEEPYFACE

 

 

 

 

 

Prophetic tweet from Sweepyface:

Pee in the Pot, or get off It! Two years on from death of Brenda Leyland

Two years ago this week, Gerry McCann, the father of a missing child, demanded that an example be made of the internet 'trolls' he claimed were hounding and threatening his family online.  The McCann family or a 'group of concerned citizens' had compiled a dossier of 'offenders' and ex head of CEOP Jim Gamble and Sky's Martin Brunt took it from there. This was Jim Gamble's cleansing of social media at it's finest and a taster of his own particular form of justice.

The victim they selected, Brenda Leyland, hadn't in fact committed any crime, she, like myself and thousands of others simply refused to accept the establishment line that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger.  The McCanns and those who assist them, truly believed they could stamp out all their critics with a gang of thugs patrolling the internet and via hard cash in the libel courts. To be fair, for a while there they succeeded. 

Unfortunately for Gerry McCann, Jim Gamble and Martin Brunt, their jackboot, vigilante tactics appalled the public, whatever Brenda had done, she did not deserve a public execution.  They selected Brenda because she was 'ordinary', but it was that ordinariness that made her everyone's mum, nan and aunty - the McCann couple, already seen as cold, were now chilling.

It is bizarre that two years on, Operation Grange seem as far from a conclusion as they were at the outset but probably not surprising.  The grisly details of what happened the night Madeleine disappeared have become the back story, it's what happened from that night onwards, that will make the Chilcott report look like a couple of hours of light reading. 

The incumbent Blair government perverted the course of justice.  There is no nice, or euphemistic way of putting it.  It was obvious to the first two Portuguese policemen on the scene that the abduction was staged, and ten years on, to anyone who looks at the facts without the 'but they are such a nice couple' blinkers, it still is.  The problem Operation Grange have, is that once they point the finger at Gerry and Kate, the entire house of cards will collapse.

What was said during Gerry's one to one chats with PMs Blair and Brown?  Or indeed between Kate and Cherie?  One thing we can be sure of, every word will be kept verbatim.  Are we to believe that two British Prime Ministers, with all the country's top advisors, police and Special Branch, were taken in by Gerry and Kate?  Not only were they taken in, they put the full services of the establishment at Team McCann's disposal.  That's an Oops right up there with Okily Dokily Mr. Bush.  

How many New Labour cabinet ministers were schmoozing the McCanns?  Or police chiefs attending their fund raising events?  Will the highly experienced and decorated Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Jim Gamble explain how they were so misled by a couple of tricksters the average housewife could spot within seconds?  The unveiling of a fake abduction would reveal a sea of red faces and a scramble by those who should have known better to find excuses for supporting such an obvious scam. 

I kind of get the predicament Operation Grange finds themselves in and the difficulties they must have in releasing public statements.  At some point they will have to pee in the pot or get off it.  It has been clear for some time that OG are not looking for an abductor, which translates, 'we know who's responsible but we don't have enough to prosecute'.  Gerry's 'Nooooo evidence' mantra seems to be holding up quite well, but you can't keep throwing public money at an investigation that's going nowhere. 

Unfortunately, while the silence of Operation Grange might temporarily hold back the floodgates, (who dare publish while Gerry and Kate have so much on so much power over so many - including Amazon?), the walls of the dam could give at any time, and the entire team could look like procrastinating fools. You can imagine the water cooler chat, 'Seriously! Scotland Yard's finest didn't know?', following The Sun's serialisation of Kate's latest memoir 'Gotcha You Mugs!'. 

Those of us who know more about this case than is healthy, would argue the 'No Evidence' point quite vigorously, a quick google of Madeleine McCann, will not only throw up every rational argument for why the parents were involved, it will do it in alphabetical order and with pictures. 

Whatever is going on behind the scenes in an effort to limit the damage when Madeleine hits the headlines again, should not be used to take out members of the public.  And vigilant groups, even if they are 'establishment' ones, should not have the power to destroy lives. 

If I were Brenda's family, I would still be mad as hell, but I respect their right to privacy.  I think unless you understand the full horrors of the abuse of power in Madeleine's name, we 'McCann geeks' will always seem a little strange. My own adult sons think I am quite bonkers.  When justice finally arrives for Madeleine, Goncalo and all those 'destroyed' by the McCanns and their henchmen, I want to see Brenda's name cleared, public apologies for those vile troll headlines that drove the poor woman to her death.  The use of the word 'troll' has sinister undertones and it will be used unscrupulously by those intent on policing the internet and targeting dissenters.  In the case of Brenda it was used as a warning to others that spectacularly backfired. 

I think on this sad anniversary, it is important to remember the ghastly way in the full might of the establishment and the media were used to destroy the life of an ordinary woman who dared to question an obvious lie. 

RIP Brenda Leyland
  

___________________________________________

RIP BRENDA LEYAND (SWEEPYFACE)

So Sky's rolling news day on McCann trolls has resulted in the death of Brenda Leyland (Sweepyface) a middle aged lady angered by the lies of Gerry and Kate McCann. Seven years on, despite being suspects in the eyes of the rest of the world, in the UK they are still being treated like victims and being compensated financially.  No amount of money will satisfy Gerry and Kate, they have had over £4m, they also want the Laws to be changed so their crimes will never be reported.  We have had a news blackout in the UK for the past 7 years.  Why?

The McCanns didn't have any threats against them or their children.  Their witness claimed this in the Lisbon libel trial, but could not substantiate it.  Several months on, no-one has been arrested or charged for threatening the McCanns.  A bit like the abductor.

The biggest threat they could find to the McCanns was poor old Brenda, an obviously shy, timid lady who clearly presented no danger to the McCanns whatsoever.  But she was to be the scapegoat, the face of the cruel campaign against an innocent family.  She was the line of least resistance - had they doorstepped any of the more outspoken among us, we would have given them an interview they couldn't broadcast, on the hour, every hour, etc without Carter Ruck jumping down their throats - now re-employed by McCanns it seems and kerchinging nicely. 

Did Martin Brunt threaten her? If so, what with?  He had pretty much done the worst thing imaginable, but it clearly left her in great fear.  She fled from her village.  More doorstepping perhaps?  Her past raked up?  Did she have mental health issues?  Did any of her family?  Was she a vulnerable adult in any way? Surely Sky News would not have carried out such a catastrophic public attack without making a few basic checks? 

Were the McCanns going to go after her financially, as they have done with Goncalo Amaral, demand that she sell her house?  Was she facing threats of financial ruin? How could a regular person stand up to Carter Ruck? Her limited 'I thought I was entitled to' - portrayed her as ignorant, but what else did she say when she took the crew inside her house?

What did the police say to her?  Afaik, she was not arrested or cautioned, but did they give her a 'stern' taking to? And how stern was that talk?  Normal people with no criminal record or dealings with the police would be terrified. What Laws did Brenda break, if any?  Lets hope the police taped their interviews with her, if I were her family, I would demand they be revealed at the Inquest - and there should definitely be an Inquest.

However, Jim Gamble's hope of using 'outing' as a device to stop people asking questions about the McCanns, or indeed anything, has spectacularly backfired.  The consequences of such sinister threats have become all too apparent.  I would imagine legal talks are frantically underway as we speak, Sky News cannot just brush this off, they must at the very least, issue an apology to Brenda's family.  No Court in the world (maybe N.Korea or UK under McCann Rule) would have found Brenda guilty of anything.  If worse tweeters exist, then why didn't Sky go after them, why go after a fragile, quiet lady in a pretty village, who clearly posed no threat to the McCanns whatsoever.  The cynic in me pictures the McCanns looking up the property prices as one reason, but more likely the subliminal message was 'it could be you'.  There were threatening undertones in that news report, and more than a tinge of cruelty in the way the story was reported.  They couldn't hide their glee at exposing a respectable middle aged lady as a vicious internet troll to all her friends, family and neighbours. It was pitchforking at its very worst.

However, any gleeful thoughts Gamble and McCanns may have of outing people on a regular basis must now be treated with the seriousness it deserves, as Brenda's tragic death has proved.  The punishment Brenda received (based on no evidence) was way beyond anything a Court could have dished out.  It seemed more like payback, than a genuine news story,  Her face, and home, was broadcast every hour, on the hour, as she was publically labelled as a 'Hater', continually hounding the family of Madeleine McCann.  She wasn't.  She was angry at this blatant miscarriage of justice as many are.  Nothing she did deserved the kind of punishment she received.  The death of a child is always emotive, especially when those charged to uphold the law appear to be covering it up. Sky News acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner.  Brenda is dead because of what she was accused of, not because of what she did.  She probably said a lot more in that Sky interview than 'I thought I was entitled to', but will we ever know?  They wanted to label her as evil, and they did.
 
Brenda, bless her, knowingly or unknowingly, may well set off a chain of events that will bring about the final downfall of the McCanns and their minions.   Jim Gamble and the McCanns wanted to use her as an example of what will happen to anyone criticising them, but her suicide has turned the tables.  Now they have to justify what they have done to her. 

HOW MANY PEOPLE SCARED AWAY from questioning the McCanns?

Well first of all, I'm surprised the McCanns had to hire lawyers Carter Ruck, I thought they had them on a permanent retainer.

Also very strange how the big bully media has given them £55k from the one hand, and dedicated a day's news to them from the other - wonder if it was all part of the deal?  The McCanns firmly believe that the more they get their story (and faces) out there, the more chance they have of turning public opinion back in their favour.  There is a certain glee in that for some of us because we can see that they are in fact digging themselves into an even deeper hole. 

Yesterday, we had a day's whitewashing from Sky News, almost every hour, on the hour, possibly accompanied by a subliminal 'you will believe' message to further hypnotise the especially dozy.  Then we had the imposing presence of Jim Gamble ramming home the menace and bullying message just to make it absolutely clear, that they will go after anyone questioning the official story.  How many perfectly innocent people with legitimate questions about Madeleine's disappearance been scared away by these shock tactics?  The message was clear.  Anyone tweeting negatively about the McCanns will come to the attention of the police. We are all under surveillance because we don't believe the ridiculous abduction story.

And just to hammer the message home, Gerry and Kate have again received a substantial payment from a UK newspaper, said by them to have been donated to a charity (which one?) and they are back up on their pedestal demanding the newspaper industry be gagged.  The only people who want newspapers gagged are those with something to hide.  What kind of police state are we turning into where journalists are imprisoned and every story has to be run by the subject, before it can go to press?

Its not the tories demanding the media gags, they have running the gauntlet with press barons since time began, its New Labour and the increasingly more sinister Hacked Off.  A public that votes to gag the free press, is a public walking blindly into police controlled State. 

A free press comes with good and bad, those used to the limelight, or born to it, treat it with the same attitude as the Windsors, 'Don't Complain', Don't Explain'.  Those who choose to put their private lives in the public domain, again and again, invite public comment, especially those who pose for 'Hello' style photoshoots and tell the world 'I couldn't make love to my husband'.  The McCanns make themselves the news, ergo comment will follow. 

The press do not persecute and intimate victims of crime.  Sadly, our history is littered with tragic stories of children taken and murdered, and their families have continued their lives, devastated, but with the privacy they asked for. 

The problem the McCanns have (apart from megalomania) is their inability to accept that the public just don't like them and their constant whining about what a bad deal they have had ain't helping.  The public know who has had a bad deal - I remember seeing the Ben Needham tweeter asking for donations for a PC ffs.  Yet keep the sympathy and cash (£4m+ to their private company) with Gerry and Kate.  Perhaps Gerry and Kate could give the cash to them?

MCCANN TROLLS ON TWITTER

So Sky News have once more dedicated a day's news to the suffering of Gerry and Kate McCann, the tortured parents of missing people's poster girl Madeleine McCann.  A couple who left their children alone while they went out to dine and a couple who spent the night phoning the press while others searched for their missing daughter. 

For seven years these parents have taken every opportunity to grab the front pages, by whatever means, and the morning after the poor, battered body of Alice Gross is found, we get saturation news coverage of, err, the McCanns.

But lets take a closer look at these 'trolls'.  I am one of them.  I use my own name and picture and none of my tweets are aggressive, rude or, God forbid, threatening.  Look at my timeline Mr. Brunt, in fact look at the timelines of the majority of anti's on the McCann hashtag - you will see that they are ordinary, decent people who simply refuse to buy into this scam and who will not allow such a blatant miscarriage of justice. 

This is the age of information Mr.  Brunt, and anyone with the gumption to look beneath the headines, can see that this was a cover up on a major scale, and that people such as yourself are trying to hoodwink us.  Why Mr. Brunt?  Unfortunately for the powers that be, the people do have a voice, and none of us will be persuaded by these sledgehammer tactics of labelling disbelievers haters and trolls. 

I suggest anyone interested in this story should check out the internet group who compiled this dossier - Stop the Myths, JATKY2 - read their forums, and then try to justify these Groups, Mr. Brunt.  You will find quite a few pages relating to myself, together with a variety of obscene, photoshopped pictures of me.  Tell me Mr. Brunt, is it not considered vile behaviour if it comes from supporters of the McCanns?  When I lost my mother I spent an evening with a group of them trying to persuade me to commit suicide?  Is that still OK with you and Mr. Gamble? 

I will never know if my book Cry and You Cry Alone - a memoir of my time in care - was good or bad, because of my McCann stance.  I was the 'evil' one.  I never look at my own Amazon page, because they did their worst. So Summers and Swan you are not the first authors to have been targeted in this case and it wasn't even about the McCanns. 

It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the McCanns or their children are being threatened - 99% of those who do not believe the McCanns are normal people who conduct themselves with the same courtesy and civility as they would in the real world.  Sky, or whoever is the source of this story, has picked out 1% of the online commentary on the McCann case, and remarks by the way, that none of the recognised Madeleine forums would ever tolerate.  It in no way represents the majority of people who do not believe the McCanns. 

You must be feeling like one of those biblical preachers Mr. Brunt, telling the masses that there was an old guy in the sky watching their every movement. It might have worked in those days Mr. Brunt, but the British public now have Google and Joana Morais.