'TWO YEARS JAIL FOR VILE TROLLS'

What a rude baitch. "Honey, go Google?" "Get back to me and we will talk?" It's a good job I wasn't on that bus. "Oh God. Trolls get everywhere these days." and "You have just committed multiple Libel to a bus load of people. What's your name?"
"Anyone know this idiot?"

And I would. Don't doubt that.

I hope she told them that she was an expert on Bennett's forum.

Just another attention-seeker - the hate sites are full of them, all vying to be noticed. Then they whine and cry when they are noticed, and end up in the media tagged as VILE TROLLS.

Personally, I would have been tempted to call the police and tell them someone with mental health issues was causing a scene on the bus. Assuming any of it ever happened, of course.

I think she looks like that woman on that buses comedy?

How do they know she's not the swan-feeder they are so intent on tracking down? Consider the evidence - she talks utter sh*te and makes them look utterly ridiculous - sample, If you call your offspring 'children' instead of kids it means you are an abuser; if you have more than one bath or shower a month, it means you're having pervy sex - and claims to indulge in attention-seeking antics on public transport.

Perfectly placed to be a Spy Troll Mole!

And she most definitely has cankles and fat arms......

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · Oct 31
I believe Madeleine #McCann case will be 1st one solved with aid of social media detectives. Let's face it, the police aren't going to do it

Hobs is a ringer for this person, yes?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTmVcPr8gfA

Sonia Poulton is beyond out there, Bonny.  

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=6589&sid=3963a17982b675c2d53c74a9ac60deb0&start=275

I have it on very good authority the birds in the background of the sky report were mute swans.

OMG, the swans must be IN IT!

Of course they are.  Do all the swans still belong to the Queen?

lily wrote:Hobs is a ringer for this person, yes?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTmVcPr8gfA

Sonia Poulton is beyond out there, Bonny.  

Hobs isn't quite so good looking.

Sonia Poulton? The less said about her then the better. I do try not to be classist.

I can't watch Soya, she has too many irritating tics. And I can't bear that way she twists her mouth, it's most unpleasant, IMO.

Lily's right, the swans do belong to HM. So that proves they're IN IT.

She must be in it up to her best crown.  

bb1 wrote:I can't watch Soya, she has too many irritating tics. And I can't bear that way she twists her mouth, it's most unpleasant, IMO.

Lily's right, the swans do belong to HM. So that proves they're IN IT.

Well, she has got a rather large mouth, and a slightly unfortunate face. But such is life.

Not The Queen, I hasten to add.

Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"
Post  Tony Bennett Today at 10:02 pm

PeterMac wrote:
IF he was the last person to see her alive - (other than a couple of hotel staff) - he may well be a material witness which HM Coroner Mrs C E MASON has already summoned.
He may be preparing his statement as we speak.


The news report annoncing when the resumed inquest will be held included this sentence:


Police Sergeant Kevin Taylor told the coroner he was informed that Mrs Leyland was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel in Enderby.


I guess four questions that HM Coroner has already got lined up (or will soon have) are:

1. P/Sgt Taylor, WHO informed you that Mrs Leyland was SENT to the Marriott Hotel at Enderby?

2. (To everyone) WHO sent Mrs Leyland to the Marriott Hotel? and

3. WHEN? and

4. WHY?


P.S.  Enderby is a large Leicester commuter village S.W. of Leicester - which just happens to be where Leicestershire Constabulary H.Q. is also located  


It wasn't Leyland that was SENT to the hotel, it was Sgt Taylor. Hounder research strikes again!

Oh, and I suspect the inquest is going to reveal that rather  a lot of people were in touch with Ms Leyland before her death. Neighbours, whoever she was off to lunch with...and then there's that new-fangled invention called a telephone.

Incidentally, unless Ms Leyland was in the habit of going out for lunch at breakfast time, it may well transpire that the meeting with Brunt was recorded at least a day previously. Especially as Sky had contacted other haters earlier that week, and they'd declined to share their views on camera.

They really should wait for the inquest and stop jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

Bennett's always doing that.  The only assumption, after being sent and on and on.

He should learn to read and engage his brain before sending his spindley fingers flying on the keyboard.

If he spent as much time learning to understand the English language, as he does with stupid demands and petitions, he would get himself into far less trouble.

He makes such utterly basic errors as to be an embarrassment to those who read it let alone himself. 

There are times when I can't be bothered.  But Brenda was going out to Lunch with a friend.  I can't think of anything else to say.

They would be well advised to ZIP IT until the inquest, Sabot. None of us knows the whole story, or what happened over that period of time. For all anyone knows, Ms Leyland's estranged son went ballistic when he saw what his mother was doing, and told her so, becoming even more estranged, and something like that is what drove her to take her own life - it's pretty unlikely, IMO, that she had a sudden heart attack in the hotel.

We simply do not know, so if the haters have any genuine respect for her family (which I doubt) then silence would be a good idea until the whole story comes out.

And they are going to be utterly, bl**dy awful if the coroner says anything that they don't want to hear - like, the truth.

It's just another day of entertainment for the ghouls judging from what they are planning.  Going to the inquest....

Yer well, there you go.  I really can't cope for the minute.

I actually mind that some stupid middle aged woman needed to kill herself for a pile of rubbish.

In the end there are two types of people. Those who survive, and those who don't.

bb1 wrote:They would be well advised to ZIP IT until the inquest, Sabot. None of us knows the whole story, or what happened over that period of time. For all anyone knows, Ms Leyland's estranged son went ballistic when he saw what his mother was doing, and told her so, becoming even more estranged, and something like that is what drove her to take her own life - it's pretty unlikely, IMO, that she had a sudden heart attack in the hotel.

We simply do not know, so if the haters have any genuine respect for her family (which I doubt) then silence would be a good idea until the whole story comes out.

And they are going to be utterly, bl**dy awful if the coroner says anything that they don't want to hear - like, the truth.

They seem to fondly imagine that the inquest will be like a trial. With the McCanns and "dossier complier" in the dock. And plod waiting outside with the handcuffs.

They are going to be sorely disappointed.

Dommage.

Oh, that would be like when they imagined Bennett was going to be able to call the McCanns as witnesses, and his dazzling invective and deep knowledge of the law would have them quivering with fear? And then Amoral was going to be the final Surprise Witness and sweep in and Play His Ace?

And then they woke up and realised no, Bennett isn't actually the Perry Mason of Harlow, and found they were still in their dark, horrible, conspiraloon world that bears no resemblance to reality?

That sort of thing?

bb1 wrote:Oh, that would be like when they imagined Bennett was going to be able to call the McCanns as witnesses, and his dazzling invective and deep knowledge of the law would have them quivering with fear? And then Amoral was going to be the final Surprise Witness and sweep in and Play His Ace?

And then they woke up and realised no, Bennett isn't actually the Perry Mason of Harlow, and found they were still in their dark, horrible, conspiraloon  world that bears no resemblance to reality?

That sort of thing?

Exactly. And no, Bennett will not be one of those entitled to ask questions or give evidence.

My apologies for using Wikipedia, but the explanation is succinct and accurate:

The purpose of the inquest is to answer four questions:

• Identity of the deceased
  Place of death
  Time of death
  How the deceased came by his/her death
  

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted. It is not for the inquest to ascertain "how the deceased died" or "in what broad circumstances", but "how the deceased came by his death", a more limited question. Moreover, it is not the purpose of the inquest to determine, or appear to determine, criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame.

It is more than likely to be a short hearing, and the verdict one of suicide or natural causes.