The Sun on Gonzo - 'Monster who made a mint out of Maddie'

bb1 wrote:Here's a thing.

Last week, we were treated to announcements from the haters that Gonzo had really 'won', and that the judge's decision was good for him.

So, why is he appealing against such a 'good' court ruling?

Permission to retire to a dark room and lie down for a few years? LL

Haters' idea of politics - It's a good night, Clarrie lost.

Utterly, totally, hopelessly, blindly, obsessed.

And the illiterate half-wit 'jeanmunroe' is beside herself with excitement over McVey losing her seat.

I don't think they quite grasp that, for 99.9999999% of the population, there are more important things to worry about than the McCann case.

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=7689&start=50

sidmouth wrote:
If they need to duplicate donations then they are pretty much admitting that Amaral doesn't have the support they thought. Pity they didn't listen

They never do. And now they're saddled with supporting Gonzo for years to come.

That is where they all might come unstuck.  

Leanne Baulch ‏@JusticeForMM 15m15 minutes ago
Does anyone else have any ideas to keep interest in the fund? It's done brilliantly because of most of you on #McCann, so thank you so much.

So, no 'big donors'? Same handful of people having to keep on donating, either anonymously or under the names of people who support the McCann family? Whoever would have seen that happening?

Remember, A Gonzo is for life, not just for a libel trial when you're feeling self-righteous.

bb1 wrote:Delusional Hounder:


The money is not a gift to Dr. Amaral.  The money is for a fund with a very clearly description of how it will be used.

Yes, it IS a gift to Gonzo. Because if he doesn't have to pay, say, £10,000 of legal fees because of these fools, then that is another £10,000 he has with which to compensate the McCann family.

It is unearned income - and considering all his other debts, the Portuguese taxman might have something to say about that. Portugal is really clamping down on corruption and tax dodgers these days.

Unless it has been set up legally as a fund, it's a gift.

HelenMeg wrote:
On a lighter note - there are some good comments tonight on GoFuNDMe for Amaral - especially one from Clarence Mitchell MP

Why do they think it is big and clever to impersonate other people? It's TROLLING, pure and simple. And why hasn't it sunk in that there are only a couple of hundreds of individuals putting money into that lost cause? Hence the fake names?

Trolling instructions:


Re: Dr Amaral's Defence Funds
Post Freedom Today
Someone posted earlier that you couldn't post a comment on the site if you remained anonymous. I see that there is a way round this - per the link below, you can put things like From Belgium, Je Suis Troll and Anonymous From Spain and then post comments.

That should make it easier for them to impersonate normal, decent people, and hide how few are actually donating.

I hope they don't imagine that they are going to get away with only donating £25,000 to Gonzo - between all the debts he ran up pre-2007, his debts since then, his debts to other courts, and his debts for damage, he now owes round about ONE MILLION EUROS.

He needs every penny they give him - those shrimps and beer won't buy themselves, and they surely don't expect a Great Man like Rocky to live within his income - even though it is currently MORE than the Portuguese average.

Oh dear, looks like the bleats from the Gonzo Fan Club, are, predictably, falling on stony ground.

Some numty:

Gerald Bentley
37 mins
Dear Mr Bentley,
I am sorry if the article upset you.
I think we need to make clear here that this is a couple who lost their little girl in tragic circumstances, a heart-breaking event in anybody’s life, but made worse by the accusations that have been made against them personally but which have never been proven. They have never been charged with anything.
Kate and Gerry McCann have just been awarded 500,000 Euros in libel damages by a Portuguese court against Gonçalo Amaral, who accused them of faking their daughter’s abduction.
In the circumstances the newspaper is entitled to editorialise that those who accuse the couple of crimes are behaving in an unsubstantiated way. Online messages supporting Mr Amaral are frequently cruel and critical of the McCanns. In tabloid terms that is called ‘trolling’.
The article does not claim that everybody who donates to the fund is a ‘troll’. Some are just people who believe that Mr Amaral has been badly treated. However, some contributors do qualify.
I do not believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached in this instance.
Yours sincerely
Philippa Kennedy OBE
Sun Ombudsman

Let the carpet-chewing begin!

Actually, they have NO excuse for screeching - after all, they're the ones that demand Free Speach, je suis Charlie, etc.

So they can't really demand censorship in the Sun if they don't like what it says - Free Press and all that. Unless, of course, they are total, complete hypocrites.

Oh, you don't suppose the Sun staff saw the heap of abuse, much of it personal, which the haters aimed at the Sun editor on the Gonzo Scrounge site, do you?

Vikki Scott Gerald Bentley. Ignore that. She works for the Sun. Nothing more than their paid mouthpiece. You need to complain to the Press Council. She is a Murdoch hag.Appointed to deal with internal complaints.
35 mins · Edited · Like · 4

Gerald Bentley Yes a complaint went to the PC who I am still waiting to hear from. For some reason it went via The Sun. Kennedy is an employee of The Sun so I wasn't expecting anything else from her. She's only a parrot.

And then they wonder why the media detests them.

Looks like all the moaning haters are getting the same reply.

Meanwhile over at the Sun, they know they are dealing with real thickos.......

They sure are....



'Would of? Liable charges'?

Yes, the Sun will be mightly impressed - not.

"questioning my intelligence".  

No question about it, it's all there for everyone to see.  

Next year's GCE Question for The English Examination. "What is wrong with this? It just about covers everything about bad everything.

Sabot wrote:Next year's GCE Question for The English Examination.  "What is wrong with this?  It just about covers everything about bad everything.

Morning, ma petite. Since the truancy figures are rising every year, as many kids prefer to spend the day in internet cafes twitting and facebooking than in class, I'm not at all surprised. After all, benefits are available, and as many have the example of their dole-dosser parents right in front of them, why stay in school to learn when you can get free dosh from the Government and pretend to be looking for work? As Judge Judy says, 'collect cans'. People who get a good schooling - maybe not uni, but at least as far as they can get - work hard all their lives and then get a state pension that is far less than the benefits scroungers get in one week. LL

Morning, LL.

I don't think that my English is perfect, but at least I got the basics. And I've tidied up a few bits and pieces from reading Forums where all of the people I agree with write good English.
I did have a bit of confusion with Whose and Who's until a cyber friend explained it to me. But I've never had a problem with Have and Of.
So I have to wonder if this frightful grammar and spelling is something to do with their twisted mindset.

However, bad grammar is usually learned by example.

Sabot wrote:Morning, LL.

I don't think that my English is perfect, but at least I got the basics.  And I've tidied up a few bits and pieces from reading Forums where all of the people I agree with write good English.  
I did have a bit of confusion with Whose and Who's until a cyber friend explained it to me.  But I've never had a problem with Have and Of.  
So I have to wonder if this frightful grammar and spelling is something to do with their twisted mindset.

However, bad grammar is usually learned by example.

Indeed. If one's parents are less than perfect in their knowledge of the written word then there is a high probability one will be at the same level, unless one decides to better oneself. The inmsistance that 'we are owed because we pay taxes' falls apart when one sees the benefits stats - so many claimants have never paid tax in their lives, let alone held down a job, however poorly paid. LL

I sometimes wonder if I over emphasise my working class background. Both of my parents had good jobs, so I think it was probably more to do with London in general, the aftermath of War, and the hideous accent. Now that I did change. But neither of them spoke bad English despite being a bit idiomatic, which is where I got it from.

Sabot wrote:I sometimes wonder if I over emphasise my working class background.  Both of my parents had good jobs, so I think it was probably more to do with London in general, the aftermath of War, and the hideous accent.  Now that I did change.  But neither of them spoke bad English despite being a bit idiomatic, which is where I got it from.

Ma petite, anyone who works, whether born to wealth or not, is working class. These labels are from a time when them and us' was the norm. Class has nothing to do with how you behave, why should it? I may have been 'well-born' and lacked for nothing, but I still worked - I could have lazed my life away at home and done nothing, but I chose to do something I really enjoyed. I see absolutely no class divison between us, though some might. You, and all the people on here, are my friends and I do not pass judgment on anyone here. LL

Both of my parents despised the middle and upper classes, LL. And I was constantly reminded not to get ideas above my station.
So what was that all about then?

Sabot wrote:Both of my parents despised the middle and upper classes, LL.  And I was constantly reminded not to get ideas above my station.
So what was that all about then?

Conditioning. Remember, they were products of an era that was overshadowed by the Victorian ethics, which made definite distinctions between people, their background, their wealth, their education. Whatever chaos WW2 caused, it did start the demise of those strict distinctions, and now Joe and Jane Public can actually aspire to, and often succeed, in breaking down those barriers. Sure, there are still rich and poor, but as we have seen over the past 70 years, people from 'humble backgrounds' can make it to the top. Small blessings, but from tiny acorns, great oaks grow. LL