Brenda Leyland Inquest

Marky wrote:

interested wrote:Approximately four minutes ago Sonia Poulton tweeted: "today I have witnessed first hand how the press intend to portray Brenda and the inquest.  Selective reporting of what took place."

The U.K. press are masters of "selective" reporting.

nope, they work within the law. as they do in canada. outside of that they are in trouble. as for sonia, she got a book to write. sometime. if you get taken in, you're a muppet.

Marky - and your ego overflows your keyboard - Merry Christmas!!

Marky wrote:

interested wrote:Approximately four minutes ago Sonia Poulton tweeted: "today I have witnessed first hand how the press intend to portray Brenda and the inquest.  Selective reporting of what took place."

The U.K. press are masters of "selective" reporting.

nope, they work within the law. as they do in canada. outside of that they are in trouble. as for sonia, she got a book to write. sometime. if you get taken in, you're a muppet.

Quite right, they do work within the law, but that does not stop them from being selective in what they report...

Shame that a thread I started to remember Brenda and post updates has resulted in personal snipes. Second time it has happened on this subject.

RIP Brenda

chrissie wrote:Shame that a thread I started to remember Brenda and post updates has resulted in personal snipes. Second time it has happened on this subject.

RIP Brenda

You are quite right "chrissie". Thank you for starting this important thread to remember Brenda. I sincerely apologize if my comment to "Marky" offended you and others. I didn't appreciate his remark to me concerning "muppet", which usually refers to a person who is ignorant and has no idea about anything. I felt I could not let that pass without commenting. It was never my intention to disrupt the thread and I regret that it has happened.

no apologies from me but you probably guessed that'd be the case. the inquest hasn't been heard and already cover up, selective reporting et all is being bandied about largely as a result of the new classroom pet sonia, who has a talent for putting her own spin on events and then selling them as fact. how so many people can be taken in by this leads me to believe that muppet may be too small a word. the inquest in march will be a formality. there will be no hanging at the end of it. stay at home.

Any normal human being would off been beside themselves with guilt and apologised to the family for driving a person to suicide but not Brunt and Co.

I did feel sorry for Brunt but not now.


I don't know if he has privately apologised, doubt it as it would prove that he was the reason Brenda took her life and he doesnt want a BIG lawsuit landing on his and Skys doorstep.


I made a BIG mistake by thinking Brunt was 'human' in some way because 'humans' have empathy...I made a mistake, he isn't .

kitti wrote:Any normal human being would off been beside themselves with guilt and apologised to the family for driving a person to suicide but not Brunt and Co.

I did feel sorry  for Brunt but not now.


I don't know if he has privately apologised, doubt it as it would prove that he was the reason Brenda took her life and he doesnt want a BIG lawsuit landing on his and Skys doorstep.


I made a BIG mistake by thinking Brunt was 'human' in some way because 'humans' have empathy...I made a mistake, he isn't .

To the point and well summed up as per usual Kitti.  You always seem to print my thoughts.

Just hope the press are not going to be scraping the barrel digging up stuff about Brenda from way back. The family have suffered enough. imo.

Krisy22 wrote:

kitti wrote:Any normal human being would off been beside themselves with guilt and apologised to the family for driving a person to suicide but not Brunt and Co.

I did feel sorry  for Brunt but not now.


I don't know if he has privately apologised, doubt it as it would prove that he was the reason Brenda took her life and he doesnt want a BIG lawsuit landing on his and Skys doorstep.


I made a BIG mistake by thinking Brunt was 'human' in some way because 'humans' have empathy...I made a mistake, he isn't .

To the point and well summed up as per usual Kitti.  You always seem to print my thoughts.

Just hope the press are not going to be scraping the barrel digging up stuff about Brenda from way back. The family have suffered enough.  imo.

Ha...if there's the slightest crumb of muck to find ...they will rake it up asap!

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

chrissie wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is.that because it was never said in the first place.

Angelina wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:

kitti wrote:Any normal human being would off been beside themselves with guilt and apologised to the family for driving a person to suicide but not Brunt and Co.

I did feel sorry  for Brunt but not now.


I don't know if he has privately apologised, doubt it as it would prove that he was the reason Brenda took her life and he doesnt want a BIG lawsuit landing on his and Skys doorstep.


I made a BIG mistake by thinking Brunt was 'human' in some way because 'humans' have empathy...I made a mistake, he isn't .

To the point and well summed up as per usual Kitti.  You always seem to print my thoughts.

Just hope the press are not going to be scraping the barrel digging up stuff about Brenda from way back. The family have suffered enough.  imo.

Ha...if there's the slightest crumb of muck to find ...they will rake it up asap!

I am sure they will Angelina. A family losing their Mum wouldn't stop them.... Everything to do with this little girl seems to all come down to money.

Marky wrote:

chrissie wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is.that because it was never said in the first place.

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

[quote="Marky"]

chrissie wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is.that because it was never said in the first place.

[/quote

I have my opinion on what has been reported and you have yours. Best we agree to disagree

@ Chris

Totally agree with you.

kitti wrote:Any normal human being would off been beside themselves with guilt and apologised to the family for driving a person to suicide but not Brunt and Co.

I did feel sorry  for Brunt but not now.


I don't know if he has privately apologised, doubt it as it would prove that he was the reason Brenda took her life and he doesnt want a BIG lawsuit landing on his and Skys doorstep.


I made a BIG mistake by thinking Brunt was 'human' in some way because 'humans' have empathy...I made a mistake, he isn't .

Shortly before Martin Brunt confronted Brenda there was talk of "men in suits" snooping around trying to interview people who do not believe the McCanns' abduction story. Since then it has been mentioned on twitter that Sky News (Martin Brunt?) were involved in this campaign. I don't know if the Coroner is permitted to get into questioning Brunt's actions before he "met" Brenda but I would hope that either the Coroner or some investigative reporter would look into how Brenda Leyland came to be on Brunt's radar.

At a time like this, professional conflict and competition goes out of the window.
The UK media have got their wagons in a circle.
Not just to arse-cover for one of their own, but for themselves too, just in case they get officially dobbed in with the primary perps.

I'm sure there have been cases where doctors have covered for each other for the same reason.
If only I could think of an example ...... errm ...    [cough]


If it's a choice between Sonia and Kazlux versus the shower of shyte who have rubber-stamped Clarrie's Chicanery for the past 7+ years, I know who I'd trust to give me the truth.

@ almostgothic

Blacksmith's latest (Friday, 19 December, 2014): He commences with "We won't say too much more about Brenda Leyland: SHE DESERVES MORE THAN TO BE ATTACHED TO THE REVOLTING McCANN CIRCUS....."

I know some don't always agree with him, but I think those who have commented on this thread might like to read this article. www.blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk

chrissie wrote:@ almostgothic

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

chrissie wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is that because it was never said in the first place.

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

that doesn't answer the question and since no one else seems willing to, it's now reasonable to consider that the coroner's statement as it appears in just about everywhere that carried the story, is as printed.

oh, legal presence doesn't necessarily equate to concern. read the coroners statement again. carefully. coroners don't charge people. the police do that.

interested wrote:...but I would hope that either the Coroner or some investigative reporter would look into how Brenda Leyland came to be on Brunt's radar.

her name was in the dossier and before anyone asks, someone has to be first besides which she may well have been the most prolific and therefore most obvious one to follow.

but don't let that any of that get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

chrissie wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 23h23 hours ago
#BrendaLeyland Coroner: none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change #mccann

Johanna ‏@UnterdenTeppich 24m24 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton 2 other independent visitors of the inquest did confirm Sonia's report. It was the MSM that forgot the little addition #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
@UnterdenTeppich it was indeed...and why would they do that, eh? Possibly to save own libellous hide! I was disgusted with reporting.

--------------------------------------------

Quite.
I hope the coroner has read and noted this collective misrepresentation of her statement.
When I related this cynical, deliberate omission over dinner last night, suffice it to say that the air turned blue with some very unparliamentary language ......

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is that because it was never said in the first place.

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

that doesn't answer the question and since no one else seems willing to, it's now reasonable to consider that the coroner's statement as it appears in just about everywhere that carried the story, is as printed.

oh, legal presence doesn't necessarily equate to concern. read the coroners statement again. carefully. coroners don't charge people. the police do that.

BIB Why would you think otherwise from a clearly syndicated (or plagiarised) story? For example, both the Guardian & Telegraph wording for the overall report are too close not to be drawn from the same source with the Telegraph even attributing it to an agency. The Leicester Mercury (who may well have had a reporter there) actually uses different words as a direct quote so your suggestion of a definitive and consistent quote from the media is ill placed.

I don't need any further reading thanks it is only you introducing non-existent powers for a coroner which is irrelevant to explaining the rationale for the presence of Sky's legal representation.

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

chrissie wrote:

Thanks almostgothic, I understood it had been independently confirmed.

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is that because it was never said in the first place.

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

that doesn't answer the question and since no one else seems willing to, it's now reasonable to consider that the coroner's statement as it appears in just about everywhere that carried the story, is as printed.

oh, legal presence doesn't necessarily equate to concern. read the coroners statement again. carefully. coroners don't charge people. the police do that.

BIB Why would you think otherwise from a clearly syndicated (or plagiarised) story? For example, both the Guardian & Telegraph wording for the overall report are too close not to be drawn from the same source with the Telegraph even attributing it to an agency. The Leicester Mercury (who may well have had a reporter there) actually uses different words as a direct quote so your suggestion of a definitive and consistent quote from the media is ill placed.

I don't need any further reading thanks it is only you introducing non-existent powers for a coroner which is irrelevant to explaining the rationale for the presence of Sky's legal representation.

BIB ah right, a conspiracy theorist. indeed the leicester mercury didn't trouble themselves with the word 'foreseeabilty' but once again nowhere does the omission, allegedly independently verified, that many are up in arms about appear, which of course is the point of the discussion which you conveniently ignore. your final paragraph isnt really worth responding to as you appear to have chosen to ignore the point i was making; ain't i nice, could have put that much worse; but just for the hell of it, don't read too much into sky being legally represented. the polizie have spoken. no one called as witnesses will be charged. no one. at all.

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is that because it was never said in the first place.

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

that doesn't answer the question and since no one else seems willing to, it's now reasonable to consider that the coroner's statement as it appears in just about everywhere that carried the story, is as printed.

oh, legal presence doesn't necessarily equate to concern. read the coroners statement again. carefully. coroners don't charge people. the police do that.

BIB Why would you think otherwise from a clearly syndicated (or plagiarised) story? For example, both the Guardian & Telegraph wording for the overall report are too close not to be drawn from the same source with the Telegraph even attributing it to an agency. The Leicester Mercury (who may well have had a reporter there) actually uses different words as a direct quote so your suggestion of a definitive and consistent quote from the media is ill placed.

I don't need any further reading thanks it is only you introducing non-existent powers for a coroner which is irrelevant to explaining the rationale for the presence of Sky's legal representation.

BIB ah right, a conspiracy theorist. indeed the leicester mercury didn't trouble themselves with the word 'foreseeabilty' but once again nowhere does the omission, allegedly independently verified, that many are up in arms about appear, which of course is the point of the discussion which you conveniently ignore. your final paragraph isnt really worth responding to as you appear to have chosen to ignore the point i was making; ain't i nice, could have put that much worse; but just for the hell of it, don't read too much into sky being legally represented. the polizie have spoken. no one called as witnesses will be charged. no one. at all.

Who is suggesting a conspiracy apart from you trying to defend a statement found lacking in substance about consistency? I haven’t ignored anything, someone who was there claims the wording used differed from that reported by the media. You on the other hand are seeking to make a case on "quantity" based on reports carried by those who were clearly not there to question that view. It is you who seems to have a problem suggesting a motive other than accuracy from someone who has disagreed with the media reports despite hearing the coroner first hand. Perhaps it is you who should be tagged the conspiracy theorist. Personally I am not greatly excited either way but I would like to think the coroner remains open minded at the present time and if so I am happy to accept she qualified her statement pending hearing the evidence. Having said that, I don’t (and never have) expect any charges to be made except in the very unlikely event foul play is determined. I haven’t suggested Sky’s legal team are taking an interest because of that eventuality as you appear to imply. It is much more likely their concern relates to possible criticism of their reporting and door stepping if the coroner chooses to make a narrative decision.