JAYELLES OF MYTHS ON LOWLIFE LOONIES ie HATER TROLLS

 Jayelles » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:19 pm

An observer made the excellent comment that these people have a very tiny audience which mainly comprises of themselves. Mostly everyone else is repelled by them, laughs at them or ignores them. They make a lot of noise, but they are largely ineffectual. Normal people see a bunch of low-life loonies fighting an imaginery, pointless and rather evil war against the grieving family of a missing child. Their motives are based upon myths and misunderstandings of facts. When all else fails, they resort to "but they left the children aloooooone" which is an argument worthy of dismay at most and out of all proportion in terms of the real child neglect we see in the media every day. Cases which this group completely ignore - thus making a complete mockery of their claims to care about neglected and abused children.

The haters (most of them do not fit the definition of internet troll) get all excited when there is anti-McCann coverage in the form of richard Hall's DVDs or Pat Brown's rushed to press pamphlet or Katie Hopkins tweets. They think this means that "the tide is turning". They seem oblivious to the fact that the people who do this are "controversial" individuals who do not fit in with the vast majority or mainstream anyway. Yet again, they are alternative people preaching to alternative, but nevertheless minority viewpoint.

Author, Rosalinda Hutton can well don a Guido Fawkes mask and march in London on Nov 5th carrying a banner stating "I am Brenda Leyland", and a handful of her loony friends might join her as part of the Anonymous march. Or they can all pile into the inquest into Brenda Leyland's death as an act of solidarity in claiming her as one of their group. These acts may get them some publicity but they will also once again highlight the abuse which this group subject the McCanns to on a daily basis. There is no doubt that there ARE still some journalists who are interested in this sub culture which attaches itself to the case. The very real problem of internet trolling is current and normal, decent people are both horrified and disgusted by the trolling of the family of a missing child.

What the above actions will NOT do is sway the majority into believing that these are rational, decent people with a just cause because at the end of the day, this group have steadfastly fought AGAINST every effort there has been to find out what happened to this missing child. They have tried to sabotage every awareness campaign there has been, they have raised petitions against the police investigation, they have graffitted Portugal, they have leafletted the public, they have tried to poison the minds of the public with their campaigns of misinformation and smearing, they waste police time and money with their frivolous Freedom of information requests about the investigation, they jam police information phonelines with hoax calls. They stalk and malign anyone who openly supports the family. They negative-review bomb Amazon if an author writes a book which supports official view that the McCanns were not involved in Madeline's disappreanace. So desperate are they to hurt the McCanns as much as they can, that they cannot contain their hateful thoughts and so we see the violent threats and fantasies and the sickening, obscene images of the couple which they describe as "satire" and "fun".

Normal people do not "get" this at all. Because of the news coverage, I have discussed the issue with my family more in recent weeks than I have ever done. Unlike many of the hounders, I don't post in secret, but I don't often discuss the case with my family unless there is something on the news because my interest in the case is a relatively tiny part of my life. Like the majority of the nation, my family are disgusted by the abuse they have seen directed at the McCanns. So too are our friends. They do not understand the fact that there are people who take the trouble to meddle in a family's every effort to find their missing child. They wonder at the sad lives these meddlers must live for the McCanns to have such a priority in them. One friend suggested that they have almost a kind of crush on the McCanns - the way teenage girls will obsess about a pop star. I can't answer that, but i do know that there is more of an interest in them because of the Sky report and that academics and medics are interested in identifying what makes them tick.

These people have one trait in common - they perceive no comment as agreement or approval. They think that the fact that most people do NOT comment on the case or tweet on #mccann to mean that these people agree with them. They believe that because this forum has a small membership of people who are not prolific posters to mean that the McCanns have little support. When any of us don't post for a day or so or stop tweeting at 8pm, they conclude that our support is waning or that we aren't being paid enough to continue posting into the middle of the night. The fact that they do not recognise a normal life (which does not include bickering about the McCann case 24/7 for seven long years) is very telling.

There are a few journalists who are still champing at the bit to get a story about the hounders. They will be VERY interested in who turns up at any inquest or in a group who will join the Anonymous march in order to promote the activities of Brenda Leyland.

And there will be more tears before bedtime.

Jayelles » Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:24 pm
It occurred to me recently that the anti McCann are actually like a cult. I think it was a post URC made (?) likening them to terrorists which sparked the thought.

I have said all along that they seem to attract a lot of obviously vulnerable people who are easily indoctrinated by the hate propaganda. They, in turn, are rewarded with a sense of "belonging" - something which many of them may lack in real life. I think back to one particular woman who came on Twitter to join in with the discussion. Although other pros said they didn't trust her too much, I liked her and she and I became as friendly as you can be with someone on twitter (or at least as friendly as I would become). She took a lot of abuse from the antis. They threatened her, they reported her to her union and outed her workplace. They were just vile to her. Then one day, the woman tweeted a horrible comment about Kate McCann and I was shocked because it was nasty, uncalled for and (I felt) out of character. I politely said so and her response was defensive and quite cutting so I unfollowed her. She didn't like this and tried to back-pedal. She deleted her original comment and admitted it was callous. She sought my approval, but I chose not to respond - as much for her reaction to my disapproval as the original comment. I then watched as she rapidly joined the ranks of the McCann haters, who, seeing a recruitment opportunity, waded in with gusto. Soon, all the original insults and threats were forgotten as the woman in question worked hard to gain group acceptance. She has since become one of the nastiest antis there is. I have often looked back with a great sense of relief that I didn't trust her too much with personal information because she has publicly posted personal information which another McCann supporter trusted her with in a private communication. Now she accuses the supporters of being the ones to threaten her and expose her (in fact, she has always been open about who she is and where she works). IMO, she classically fits the profile of a lonely person participating in anti-social online activities because of the sense of validation it gives her. I have wondered - is it my fault that she became such a vicious hater? If I had been more forgiving of what she called her "slip of the tongue", would she have remained a decent person who supports the search for a missing child and decries online abuse and harassment of a grieving family? Who knows?

In terms of psychology, a lot of classic group dynamic stuff goes on within the ranks - the shunning of anyone who is seen to breach the party line, the praise for anyone who goes above and beyond the call of duty (for example someone who reports that they have shouted out an insult to the McCanns in public). The haters accuse us of the same and I have seriously questioned whether we do. I think we do to a certain extent, but we are infinitely more polite and less aggressive about it. Like others here, I prefer interaction with real people than online. I dislike online social networking as a rule and would never have created a Twitter account in the first place if I knew of an alternative means of contacting Bren (someone whom I consider to be a decent human being).

I honestly do not know what the answer is. I think to some extent people ARE just going to have to grow thicker skins because the alternative is probably some pretty heavy duty policing which flies in the face of responsible free speech. Some people are simply incapable of self-regulation when they find themselves online and anonymous.

I just hope that the ringleaders of this vile campaign of abuse and disinformation are caught and dealt with because IMO, they are criminals who are just as guilty of abusing some of their more vulnerable members as they are the McCanns.

Jayelles » Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:33 am
The hypocrisy of the Hopkins woman is quite stunning actually. She contradicts herself all the time. However, it was her rather triumphant claim that she had NEVER been sued for any of her comments which stood out for me. I thought to myself how that could be a red rag to a bull, but on the other hand, I thought that perhaps the people she offends don't want to give her any more attention since that is basically ALL she is about. The woman is a professional attention-seeker and a lot of what she says is utter tripe. A lot of the time she talks like a precocious child and you can see those around her gasping in disbelief. She makes a living from saying inflammatory things about minority groups - many of whom are already subjected to abuse and ridicule through no fault of their own. Her latest attack is on mothers of children who get nits. She blames these mothers for neglecting their children - i.e. that only neglected children get nits! I daresay outbreaks of nits might be rare in the posh schools which her children no doubt attend, but they are a common, if unpleasant reality in most schools. Her comments about nits, like her comments on many subjects merely demonstrate her astonishing level of ignorance about "real life".

I think that the thing which would hurt her more than anything would be for people to ignore her. Maybe her upcoming TV programme will be a ratings flop. OTOH, she is so disliked that people will probably watch just in order to detest her!

Scoobydoo: If your children don't get nits its because they have greasy hair. Nits stick better to clean hair whereas people with diurty hair get nits. I went to very expensive schools and there were nits.
But this woman is a professional troll not Karen Brady, her opinions don't matter. She has no self awareness, I saw a before and after photo of her weight gain programme and she had obvious contouring body make up in the first picture and was sucking in her stomach, and looked repulsive. That was meant to be the photo showing her look good.

Hopkins is one of the weakest people on TV. She plays the game of trashing everything and anything to make a fast buck.

She panders directly to the scum of society who go out and kick the sides of the vans carrying prisoners and scream profanity at the people inside, the fools who attack paediatricians believing them to be p.a.e.d.o.philes, the bullies who enjoy tormenting children online till they can take it no more and kill themselves, the mentally ill who are called names and laughed at on the street. That is her audience, the 'Kyle' generation. They are the ones egging her on and loving her deliberate nastiness.

She screeches that the "right to free speech" is sacrosanct. She doesn't listen to the reasoned, and as it happens legal, arguments that such free speech is limited and comes with responsibilities. She has the childishly naive idea that there should be no restrictions on what we can say.

Her only defence is that she doesn't personally care, that abuse washes over her, that people should never "allow" themselves to be victims, that they should grow a thick skin or get off social media.

These ghastly ideas are anathema in decent society. This woman may be putting this face on to make up for bullying she received as a child, for a depressively horrendous childhood; I have no idea. Something made her so hard-faced, so lacking in compassion, so lacking in empathy and so desperate to be liked, but what it was only she knows.

The problem is that the media are lapping up the controversy she causes because it brings in viewers who laugh and point either at her if they are thinking in a human way or with her if they enjoy poking fun at those least able to handle bullies.

Everything she says is a defence of bullies. She defends the "right" of people on Twitter to hound children to commit suicide. She says they should just get off twitter if they cannot stand the heat. She says that nobody should be a victim, forgetting that the tweeting can be from gangs of bullies who literally harass people they consider weaker than they are.

But her biggest failing is the lie at the centre of her attempted defence. She pretends that online bullying is not real, that it can be separated from real life. That is simply a lie. She tells us that online bullying is not the same as someone coming up to you in the street shouting at you, that it is not the same as someone sending letters through your door. She is a bloody liar. Or she is so stupid that she doesn't follow the news or the stories she is so desperate to commentate on with any real understanding.

The fact is that online bullying of children is very often part and parcel of a real-life bullying campaign. The fact is that the two aspects of the bullying contribute to the suicides of these children.

I listened to this woman telling us how much she defended Brenda Leyland for her actions. But Brenda Leyland not only hounded the McCanns online, she did so in Rothley too. The two actions are part of the same hate campaign.

I have no doubt that this publicity-seeking woman has no actual understanding of the full nature of the abuse conducted by Brenda Leyland, the libelous allegations against politicians, the trolling of a witness in the McCann case as well as the thousands of tweets directed at the McCanns. She pronounces on things simply because she is a mouth for rent, available to anyone who will pay her either with money or with the exposure she so craves. It doesn't matter to her what the subject is, how well-informed others might be on the subject, she has the right to voice an opinion even from her position of ignorance. It is called "her free speech, don't cha know?".

The one good thing to remember about this woman is that she is (as the haters and hounders of the McCanns are) creating a truly horrific legacy for herself. Unfortunately her children will suffer ridicule for the actions of their mother but it is her fault and her decision to leave her children open to such ridicule and abuse. I hope they are stronger than she is because no matter what she says, her front looks false to me and she is just looking to cover up her own weaknesses.

Finally and in relation to Brenda Leyland I would ask Katie Hopkins to try to explain (if not for me at least for her own peace of mind) how she can possibly defend the right of this woman to harass the McCanns with streams of abuse and questions for year after year? Is she defending the right of Brenda Leyland to harass the McCanns but criticising her for turning herself into the victim? Hopkins is clear, nobody should be so weak as to be a victim but isn't that what many are claiming Leyland is? Isn't she a victim of the freedom of speech of the journalist to ask Leyland a polite question about her behaviour? Should the freedom of speech of the journalist be restricted? Or is Hopkins suggesting that what Leyland did online posting abuse daily for years is perfectly alright but the challenge to her behaviour with polite questioning was somehow harassment of her? Was it OK for Brenda Leyland to be a victim because Brunt ahould not have harassed her by actually meeting her offline on that one occasion to put his questions to her? And what about the fact that Brenda Leyland is reported to have harassed the McCanns more directly in the village in which they live? Or what about the harassment by legal lackbrain, Bennett of Gerry McCann both physical and online? How can these all be reconciled by using simplistic phrases as Hopkins does?

It is very clear to me that Katie Hopkins is shallow. She has never shown an original thought, or for that matter, expressed a complex thought in any of the interviews I have heard her take part in. She shouts over the people she is speaking with and repetitively repeats the Daily Mail style quotes that she seems to rely on as her mental crutches: never be a victim (even if you are not mentally able to defend yourself), always defend free speech (even if it directly leads to the death of a child), always attack the attempts by people to make themselves look better or to improve themselves (even though it makes you look incredibly jealous), always take the controversial viewpoint because that will gain most publicity and therefore media attention (even though most people are pointing the finger at her and laughing at her rather than with her).

A very sad woman with some really serious personal issues which she buries beneath the hard-face she is known for. Does she ever look to be enjoying her role? Not in my opinion. That is really sad, a z list celeb who always looks to be defensive.

And for proof that the media are laughing at her while using her look at the bottom left corner of the picture. Yes, this horrendously unflattering picture of Hopkins was the one chosen by ITV to illustrate one of their online articles. So many times the hounders and haters have told us that the MSM are choosing deliberately to portray the McCanns this way or that way by the use of certain pictures. Well they can hardly say the MSM think highly of this woman after seeing that picture can they?

Jayelles: Well said Tiger.

Katie Hopkins claims to be passionate about peoples' freedom of speech and expression and says that everyone should be allowed to say what the hell they like regardless of whether it is offensive or not. Saying offensive things is something she practices daily.

Now, I wonder how she reconciles this with her role as a mother? She has already come out and said that she is picky about her childrens' friends and that she would not allow them to have friends with certain names. But does she insist that her children are polite? Would she want them to have polite friends? Is she bringing her children up to be kind and considerate to others? Or is she encouraging them to say and do whatever they like whether that be swearing, making offensive comments to each others? Would she be happy for he children to have friends around who said and did exactly as they pleased? Is she true to herself or is it a case of "Do as I say, not as I do and encourage others to do?" I have to say that I wouldn't care so much about what my childrens' friends names are or whether they live in council estate or a mansion. I don't care what colour or creed they are either. What I do care about is that they are kind and decent human beings.

I would bet that every single person reading this has, at some point in their lives, been appreciative of an act of kindness. Appreciation of acts of kindness is usually greater in times of need. It costs nothing to be kind to others. Kindness often goes a very long way and sometimes, that act of kindness might simply be to say or do nothing.

OTOH, acts of cruelty can have devastating consequences. I would urge those who are reading this to try and recall a specific act of kindness which they have been on the receiving end of at a time of need. Remember how grateful you felt to the kind person and then try to imagine what it would have been like if the kind person had instead been unspeakably cruel. How would that have felt?

Katie Hopkins is undeniably a woman who says cruel things. She says cruel things to gain herself attention and I suppose she must be making money out of it because I cannot see that she is doing much more than capitalising on the publicity she gains from being cruel and controversial. In that respect, she is no better than any crook or conman who makes their living through inflicting pain and misery on others. Whether this is just to make money or whether it is the real person, I have no idea.

I don't think she is stupid and I have thought that she can be quite funny at times, but it takes so much more talent to be funny without it being at the expense of those who may already struggle for inclusion or acceptance.

She says she stands up for a woman's right to post cruel, vile and hateful comments about people who are already suffering the most unimaginable grief. And we are not just talking about one or two random cruel comments, we are talking about thousands over a number of years. Would she still defend that right if the target were one of her children? Would she accept people forming groups to attack her child, to stalk him or her around their daily life? Would she accept the hideous photoshopped images being posted and Lolled at if it was one of her children? Would she accept a group of people creating websites for the sole purpose of posting lies and abuse about one of her children? Does she see that as a regular entitlement of members of a civilised society?

Jim Gamble states the difference between peoples' freedom to express their opinion and the relentless, sustained campaign of abuse which exists against the McCanns. Katie Hopkins doesn't seem to get this at all. She says that it's "only the internet", but in fact, the anti McCann commentary INCLUDES the posting of the McCanns' address, photos of their home, photos taken surreptitiously of their children, discussion about where the children go to school, what bus they take... Katie Hopkins claims to be "man" enough to receive online abuse, but I very much doubt she would be capable of enduring all that the McCanns have endured and still be defending the rights of her attackers to do and say as they please. Her inability to empathise therefore (IMO) makes her very much less of a "man" than she thinks she is.

Kindness is such an essential part of human society. It is our ability to empathise which sets us apart from other species. Someone likened Twitter to Beirut and over the past week or so, I am inclined to see what they mean. The world would be a much better place if people could just be kinder. I doubt many people would like to live in a society where everyone behaved in real life the way trolls behave online.

Finally, Katie Hopkins spoke about how awful it would be if we turned into Korea where no-one has freedom of speech, but she fails to recognise that that is more likely to happen if people cannot act responsibly online. If her kids were having a party and behaviour got totally out of hand so that the kids were acting like animals and smashing the house and each other up...is she going to put that down to the exercising their freedom of expression? Would she think it was healthy? Or is she going to ban those kids from ever partying at her house again for their own and everyone else's good?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1529443800612966/?pnref=lhc

Cass Sidebotham
15 hrs
'KATIE HOPKINS; AN APPRECIATION'
A new McCann bashing article has appeared in today's Daily Mail, after being widely circulated online yesterday, and I don't think we've witnessed this much excitement in Haterville since The Yorkshire Ripper came out as an anti.
To give her her due, Hopkins (who is a baw-bag) merely shows psychopathic traits, whereas The Ripper is a psychopath and a paranoid schizophrenic; so a slight improvement there I'm sure you'll agree.
This, let us remind ourselves, is a mother who prevents her kids from playing with children who have the 'wrong' names (ones she considers 'tacky', such as Tyler, Chardonnay and Charmaine); who told the mother of a disabled child she should have had him aborted and branded him 'it', and who's been contacted by social services over concerns her abhorrent views were causing her own children to be bullied at school.
Her other 'achievements' include -
Writing a column in The Sun labelling migrants 'cockroaches'.
Saying she was completely unmoved by the sight of a dead child washing up on a Greek beach.
Saying boats in North Africa should be 'burned' to cut immigration, just hours after 900 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean.

Sparking outrage after being accused of making a Holocaust joke aimed at the wife of Ed Miliband, after saying the Labour leader could 'gas' his wife Justine in a tweet, which read; 'Pollsters say Justine is the least popular of party wives. He might stick her head in the oven and turn on the gas.' (Milliband's Jewish parents had to flee the Nazis).
Tweeting 'Life expectancy in Scotland is 59.5. Goodness me. That lot will do anything to avoid working until retirement' within 24 hours of a helicopter crashing into the Clutha pub in Glasgow, killing 9 people.
Calling a nine-year-old autistic girl a ‘t***’ whilst comparing her to a pig.
Labelling dementia patients 'bed blockers'
In short, she's paid to be vile and a bully.
So antis, what's your excuse?