The suicide of an
English woman in a hotel room on the
4th of October, 2014 made worldwide
headlines. Her name was Brenda
Leyland from the village of Burton
Overy in Leicestershire. Leyland
died two days after a
well-publicized encounter with Sky
News crime reporter Martin Brunt.
Brunt is a well known
journalist in the UK; hence, one
would think Leyland was some public
figure accused of murder, sex
offending, or mass fraud. However,
Leyland, a 63-year-old mother of
two, was unknown to the public at
large. She had no criminal
convictions either; thus, what was
her heinous crime? Well, she was an
aggressive critic of the McCanns and
their supporters on Twitter!
This two-part
follow-up to our popular 2013
article here at TSW will discuss
“Team McCanns” targeting of Leyland
(something they deny). This woman is
the most recent, and tragic example
of their aggressive war on freedom
of expression and speech. Therefore,
in light of the support for Leyland
the author decided to address a
niggling question concerning the
McCanns current popularity
Twitter: An Online
Post-Apocalyptic Australia
Via her Twitter ID,
@Sweepyface, Leyland mentioned the
McCanns in some 5000 plus tweets.
Many were not nice; she was
decidedly obsessive and she did hang
out with some rather nasty
anti-McCann figures.
Nevertheless, Twitter
reminds me of the post-apocalyptic
Australia envisioned in the original
“Mad Max” films with Mudguts, Lord
Humungus, and Aunty Entity running
around.
Leyland appears to be
the typical online brawler you see
all over the wastelands, yet she
rarely used profanity, nor did she
threaten the McCanns physically. She
was not even the leader or
spokesperson of any anti-McCann
group. Hell, at the time of her
death, the woman only had 183
followers.
Apparently, the
McCanns do not have an official
Twitter presence (more about that
later). Therefore, most of her
tweets targeted media, the police,
and pro-McCann individuals. I hasten
to add there are some genuinely nice
people concerned about Maddie, who
believe/disbelieve the McCanns.
Nevertheless, online
there are far more critics of the
couple than supporters. This does
not sit well with a coordinated,
hard-core, pro McCann Internet
counter-offensive or their allies in
the MSM. Neither group will admit to
the dilemma of the McCanns online
unpopularity; because, in so doing
they risk admitting the McCanns
unpopularity in the real world
Blaming Everyone, But
Our PR Strategy
Media interest in the
McCann case was inevitable; however,
rather than tighten the screws and
go to ground, the pair made
themselves high profile celebrities
in the process.
Any-and-all public
figures get mean and nasty comments
said about them. The truly awful
stuff clearly does need
investigating. Furthermore, one can
only imagine the vitriol aimed at
people who made fortunes amidst
allegations of negligence with their
kids. Hell, regardless of the cash
bonus it would be horrible to lose
one’s child.
Thus, to a degree,
one empathizes with McCann
supporters’ mantra “let he who is
without sin cast the first stone.”
Nonetheless, the author also agrees
with a comment on Yahoo Answers…
-
I’d have a lot
more sympathy for them if they
used their fame to advertise
that you shouldn’t leave small
children without a responsible
adult in charge because of the
possible terrible consequences.
Instead, it’s all ‘it was
someone else’s fault, we demand
that even MORE public money is
spent investigating it.’ (1)
For all their
millions spent on getting crud
advice, why didn’t they employ this
bright spark as their PR guru?
Someone had to be sniffing glue when
their PR advocated the following.
On the third
anniversary of her disappearance,
the McCanns used an awkward image of
an unsmiling Madeleine in makeup
(clearly put on by an adult). Kids
playing dress up usually smear
makeup all over their faces.
Moreover, they look like they are
having a great time (she didn’t).
Sure, she may have just been tired;
nevertheless why take only one
photo? If there are more, why
release one of her looking grim? If
they were so concerned about
possible abduction by perverts why
did they use a picture of their kid
in make-up? Hell, why ignore
professional advice against their
bombarding the press with Maddie’s
image in the first place? (2)
The McCanns are now
concerned about their twins growing
up, going online and reading
horrible stuff about
Madeleine,
Mum, and Dad. Kate and Gerry were
not thinking too hard about their
children reading their own “horrible
stuff”.
In extracts from
Kate’s book published in the Sun,
she discussed her intimacy issues
with Gerry in the aftermath of Praia
De Luis. Moreover, at the same time
other parts of her book have leaked
online. If you couldn’t get enough
of sexy Gerry, you can read Kate’s
musings on her perfect daughters’
violation by kidnappers. Quite
clearly, the content is more vomitus
and disturbing than anything Brenda
Leyland wrote. (3)
Why No Opinion Polls
in the Press
Thomas K. Grose wrote
a Time article five months after
Madeleine’s disappearance, entitled
“The McCann’s Trial by Media”. He
pointed out a Yougov poll published
in the Sunday Times had found only
20 percent of Britains thought the
McCanns entirely innocent.
This is significant
because the McCanns like to make out
they ran the media gauntlet straight
away. In Portugal, they certainly
did; however, as Grose points out,
their treatment in Britain for the
most part was highly favorable
during that time.
Therefore, the few
dissenting voices against them were
hardly to blame for the low levels
of public support. Moreover, there
are even less dissenting views in
the press than there were seven
years ago. (4)
Nevertheless,
evidence indicates the McCanns are
still unpopular.
Post Leyland an
Easypoll established that 88 percent
of people believe the McCanns
abduction claims are bogus. I agree
with the McCann supporters that
these sorts of polls are easy to
manipulate. (5)
However, the above numbers are
similar enough to the Yougov poll.
Furthermore, there is much anecdotal
evidence corroborating the numbers.
Numerous MSM outlets like the
Express forego their comments
section entirely or delete negative
McCann comments. There is a reason
for this censure.
One month before
Leylands death IBT (International
Business Times) discussed McCanns
suing of the Sunday Times in 2013.
What is of interest is the McCanns
dissing the paper for allowing
comments from punters. As if to
prove a point, IBT and the
Independent (who also published an
article about the McCann trolling
manifesto) kept their comments
sections open. The opinions
concerning the McCanns were
unanimously negative on both sites.
(6) (7)
The McCanns leave us
with the two possibilities. The
first being they likely thought they
would win public support outing
Leyland. If this is the case, their
advisers are apparently mistaken.
Leyland, for all her
foibles, would now have Twitter
followers numbering in the tens of
thousands. The second possibility
conjoins with the first. Many
believe Team McCann also chose
Leyland as an “example” to scare
ordinary people out of speaking
critically. This is a rather scary
allegation, and it shall form the
basis of Part II of this article.
Stay tuned for more
on the McCanns and share your
thoughts below.
