Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

"When is a "troll" not a troll? Why, when it is a licensed troll." Blacksmith's latest (Friday, March 27) www.blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com

Good post by Blacksmith. It is not the doorstepping that Brunt did that bothers me so much, but the airing of that doorstepping on national television without regard for Ms Leyland, the truth, or any sense of decency. Does the UK have laws requiring permission for a private citizen to be aired on public television? Did Ms Leyland sign anything giving permission for the footage to be aired? In the US, we see blurred out faces all the time in news footage, as some private citizens choose not to be exposed to the public, and rightfully so if they have not done anything that has been proven wrong in a court of law.

In the case of Ms Leyland, Brunt was acting as both judge and jury. Even though the police had not determined that Ms Leyland had done anything illegal, he felt it was perfectly okay to blast her name and image all over the news along with the allegations in the dossier, which were just that, allegations. Brunt's defense is that the story was in the public interest. But how can a non-story be in the public interest? If I were to turn in a dossier of allegations about some public figure, would that dossier in itself (though unproven or even investigated by the authorities) make that story fair game? According to Brunt and the MSM, the answer appears to be yes.

jinvta wrote:Good post by Blacksmith. It is not the doorstepping that Brunt did that bothers me so much, but the airing of that doorstepping on national television without regard for Ms Leyland, the truth, or any sense of decency. Does the UK have laws requiring permission for a private citizen to be aired on public television? Did Ms Leyland sign anything giving permission for the footage to be aired? In the US, we see blurred out faces all the time in news footage, as some private citizens choose not to be exposed to the public, and rightfully so if they have not done anything that has been proven wrong in a court of law.

In the case of Ms Leyland, Brunt was acting as both judge and jury. Even though the police had not determined that Ms Leyland had done anything illegal, he felt it was perfectly okay to blast her name and image all over the news along with the allegations in the dossier, which were just that, allegations. Brunt's defense is that the story was in the public interest. But how can a non-story be in the public interest? If I were to turn in a dossier of allegations about some public figure, would that dossier in itself (though unproven or even investigated by the authorities) make that story fair game? According to Brunt and the MSM, the answer appears to be yes.

Spot on...

ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Marky wrote:ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Why? Care to elaborate?...

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Why? Care to elaborate?...

why? the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

The only thing constant with blacksmith is his transparent envy of any journalist who has a career as most know the drunken Sharples was a complete failure.

His usual complete bullshit.

Lioned wrote:The only thing constant with blacksmith is his transparent envy of any journalist who has a career as most know the drunken Sharples was a complete failure.

His usual complete bullshit.

he's a rabble rouser. no more no less.

jinvta wrote:Good post by Blacksmith. It is not the doorstepping that Brunt did that bothers me so much, but the airing of that doorstepping on national television without regard for Ms Leyland, the truth, or any sense of decency. Does the UK have laws requiring permission for a private citizen to be aired on public television? Did Ms Leyland sign anything giving permission for the footage to be aired? In the US, we see blurred out faces all the time in news footage, as some private citizens choose not to be exposed to the public, and rightfully so if they have not done anything that has been proven wrong in a court of law.

In the case of Ms Leyland, Brunt was acting as both judge and jury. Even though the police had not determined that Ms Leyland had done anything illegal, he felt it was perfectly okay to blast her name and image all over the news along with the allegations in the dossier, which were just that, allegations. Brunt's defense is that the story was in the public interest. But how can a non-story be in the public interest? If I were to turn in a dossier of allegations about some public figure, would that dossier in itself (though unproven or even investigated by the authorities) make that story fair game? According to Brunt and the MSM, the answer appears to be yes.

i think you're being selective here. as is your right. in a free country. just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. you can't have it both ways. unfortunately.

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Why? Care to elaborate?...

why?  the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

A quote from a recent Blacksmith post:

Brunt’s MSM (already covering his raincoated arse)  –  will muffle and then bury mention of her death. Just watch.

That doesn’t mean that we have to.

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Why? Care to elaborate?...

why?  the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:ah, you lot make laugh. grow up.

Why? Care to elaborate?...

why?  the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Why? Care to elaborate?...

why?  the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

ah, you make me laugh.

Marky, you must be the much-indulged love child of one of the owners of this site. Why else would you be humoured so much and and allowed to denigrate the opinions of just about everyone else... sneering and smirking and all... Yawn....

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

why?  the coroner has spoken. it's over. no laws were broken and no guidelines crossed. you play with matches you get burned.

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

ah, you make me laugh.

No, I simply make you look a fool...

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

But the discussion is not over. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a right to continue discussing the case and express their opinion on it. You should respect that instead of making the usual inane sarcastic comment...

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

ah, you make me laugh.

No, I simply make you look a fool...

carry on kidding yourself.

It was proved Brenda didn't do anything wrong - so why should she have got burnt! - to use your expression Marky!

cherry1 wrote:It was proved Brenda didn't do anything wrong - so why should she have got burnt! - to use your expression Marky!

oh, now you want me to answer a question having refused to answer one yourself.

ive given my thoughts many many times Marky on what I think could be a possible reason for coverup which I would have thought you would know as you have been following case.

Brenda it was stated clearly had done nothing wrong, she was not trolling Mccanns, they were not even on social media, many of her tweets she included the police in them, she was asking valid questions which many of us ask. So in no way did she deserve to be 'burnt' If you mean by playing with fire she had the temerity to raise questions about the Mccanns, she did no different from what many people had done including Criminal Profiler Lee Rainbow, Forensic Psychologist Christian Ludke, Criminal Profiler Pat Brown, former Police Officer John Stalker, Prof. Barclay, George Galloway, Alex Thomson, John Gaunt, Steve Allen etc. etc., so did all of those people deserve to get 'burnt' then!

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

but it's not a discussion is it? this is just a few individuals who don't like the way things have turned out and are reacting in ways children do when they're told "no".

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

ah, you make me laugh.

No, I simply make you look a fool...

carry on kidding yourself.

I rest my case...

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Of course it’s a discussion. It doesn’t matter whether or not the inquest is over, people have the right to continue commenting on it and expressing their opinions for as long as they want.

And no amount of tantrums and childish sarcasm from you is going to stop them…

ah, you make me laugh.

No, I simply make you look a fool...

carry on kidding yourself.

I rest my case...

just as well. you don't have one.

I think he has one, may just not be one you agree with Marky!

cherry1 wrote:

I think he has one, may just not be one you agree with Marky!

he's a troll. disappeared for months until october last year. most of his posts since then have been directed at me. he adds nothing to anything but has an ego. been to told to get ignore him but when you have that fly that irritates well, it's hard.

When the death halloos ring out from the forest, it is time to blow the whistle, even if the poor doe has in fact teeth and balls