Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Lace]

You don't seem to understand - The thread is about Brenda Leyland. Not the others that might have stalked the McCanns.

   Funnily enough Brunt went after Brenda rather than these 'others' that we are told issued death threats and engaged in stalking behaviour worse than hers. Then the police found there were no threats or stalking to prosecute. Why do you think that was? probably because there were no credible threats.
   Wishing someone would suffer or saying you hate someone is not the same as credible threats, after all Kate McCann has done the same on a public platform.

I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter,  she give her real name away.    Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.


Credible threats were made,   they threatened to kidnap the twins,  to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.   


IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide.    Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats.   Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.

[Gertrude]

At the risk of fuelling one sceptics erroneous notion that I have knowledge of the dossier contents, I will add my thoughts..
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the social media platforms.
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the police.

The threats continue even to this day, and perhaps the people who compiled the dossier felt that if many of these posts were detailed and given to the police, some form of caution would be given.
As previously stated, I see no wrong in presenting evidence of concern to the media.
And as previously stated  the presentation of this evidence is outwith the control of those who were involved in the compilation of the dossier.

Can anyone answer my question?
I genuinely don't know that if a member of the public is stopped by a TV crew and asked questions which cause unease, can that person ask or demand that the footage be not shown.

 You can't object to footage being broadcast when it's live can you?

As for the 'threats'.  Brenda made no threats. No credible threats were made or the police would have taken action, they didn't. Saying you want someone to 'burn' or joking about it is not a prosecutable offence...unless people here think every time a driver shouts at another driver in his car or someone says 'I'll kill' my boss, kid, friend whatever they should be arrested.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Neither is publishing a book referring to a policeman as a f....ing tosser three times.

And instrumental in sending a media pack to hound RM and his elderly mother, the staff of MW and neighbours for 'gossip' they were also instrumental in the vilifying the police in particular Sr Amaral who also took a media beating- the media were directed away and then only had to print .nice things with nice pictures and nice fluffy stories about how wonderful their family life was...

Kate did say she wanted Amaral to suffer.... nice one Kate!

[Angelo222]

What lies exactly?  Is criticism lies?  As was determined in the Supreme Court ruling in 2017, the McCanns, through Kate's book and voluntarily engagements with the press on various stories and interviews, were complicit in bringing criticism to themselves.

  This really for me is about balance. The McCanns, suspects in a high profile crime, had a P.R. spokesman to engage and field the media, help from politicians etc. Opportunity to engage lawyers backed by a large 'fund'.   What did Brenda Leyland have at hand when Brunt decided to make an example of her?

Exactly, it was cowardly and that's why Brunt disappeared for so long afterwards. News organisations should not be going after vulnerable people and that is why Jonathan Levy and Martin Brunt were so very out of order in what they did. This was trial by media pure and simple which on this occasion went up in flames in their faces when a woman died.

[Gertrude]

I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter,  she give her real name away.    Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.


Credible threats were made,   they threatened to kidnap the twins,  to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.   


IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide.    Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats.   Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.

It should be made clear it's your opinion they were credible.  The police issued a statement saying they didn't find anything unlawful.  The 'threat' about the twins was relayed from McCann's friend of the family in the libel court. It was therefore his interpretation of the forum conversation that the threats were credible.

The police go by the law which says that threats must be credible and have some degree of being likely to be carried out, people letting off steam and making bad taste jokes is not considered unlawful.

   

Leicestershire Police Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister said: "While finding that much of the material was extremely distasteful and unpleasant in nature, it was determined that none of the messages/postings constituted a prosecutable offence."

[Erngath]

I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter,  she give her real name away.    Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.


Credible threats were made,   they threatened to kidnap the twins,  to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.   


IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide.    Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats.   Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.

Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!

[Lace]

It should be made clear it's your opinion they were credible.  The police issued a statement saying they didn't find anything unlawful.  The 'threat' about the twins was relayed from McCann's friend of the family in the libel court. It was therefore his interpretation of the forum conversation that the threats were credible.

The police go by the law which says that threats must be credible and have some degree of being likely to be carried out, people letting off steam and making bad taste jokes is not considered unlawful.

 

#

So you think it was ok for them to tweet threats?   Threats against innocent children?   What if one of them actually acted on it?

They were obviously stopped by the process,  they deleted their tweets and stopped being so vicious,  they weren't prosecuted but that doesn't mean the police didn't caution them.  I think some were banned from twitter too.

[Angelo222]

At the risk of fuelling one sceptics erroneous notion that I have knowledge of the dossier contents, I will add my thoughts..
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the social media platforms.
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the police.

The threats continue even to this day, and perhaps the people who compiled the dossier felt that if many of these posts were detailed and given to the police, some form of caution would be given.
As previously stated, I see no wrong in presenting evidence of concern to the media.
And as previously stated  the presentation of this evidence is outwith the control of those who were involved in the compilation of the dossier.

Can anyone answer my question?
I genuinely don't know that if a member of the public is stopped by a TV crew and asked questions which cause unease, can that person ask or demand that the footage be not shown.

We don't know what was given to Sky News and Martin Brunt. I suspect that BL's private address was also given to them thus why they were able to turn up on her doorstep unannounced.

The media don't require permission before publishing photos or video.  They are bound by the journalists charter but we have all seen how much that is worth as a result of the failed Leveson Enquiry.

[Lace]

Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!

I know it beggars belief doesn't it,  aren't they changing the law though, I think I read something about the law regarding tweeting.

[Erngath]

We don't know what was given to Sky News and Martin Brunt. I suspect that BL's private address was also given to them thus why they were able to turn up on her doorstep unannounced.

I believe she engaged in Twitter conversations with Martin Blunt or had at  least made some approach to him on Twitter.
It would be very easy for him to find.

[Erngath]

I know it beggars belief doesn't it,  aren't they changing the law though, I think I read something about the law regarding tweeting.

I hope so.

[Angelo222]

I believe she engaged in Twitter conversations with Martin Blunt or had at  least made some approach to him on Twitter.
It would be very easy for him to find.

I dont see how as Twitter users are anonymous.  I think someone who knew her snitched on her.

Brenda did have a right to due process and that right was denied to her. I think Sky News did very wrong and got off very lightly.

[G-Unit]

Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!

I thought it was just Portuguese law which people had trouble understanding. It seems some find English law equally mystifying.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is very noticable that supporters on here are talking about other people who made threats .  This is about Brenda and the treatment of her by sneaky cowardly supporter trolls, and the consequenses of that.

Brenda did not make threats about the McCanns or to kill twins so please refrain from trying to tie her into that.

why not start a thread about 'nasty trolls'...and not use this thread. Don't forget to condem supporter trolls to make is all even and such.

[Angelo222]

28 seconds in

"They are considering a whole file".

If you watch the beginning of that video you will see that Brenda answered NO three times when asked for an interview but Brunt pushed it.  Despicable man.