Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[jassi]

Not really a strict definition of what a vigilante is.  People who participate in those sort of activities you listed are trouble makers or hooligans imo.

That description could equally apply to the dossier makers - IMO

[kizzy]

You obviously approve of the vigilante type action of those sceptics involved in that behaviour.

what behaviour, what vigilanti type action.

You are either a vigilante or not - what you posted in your list was not vigilantes.

[kizzy]

What would you do

What i do - what i am entitled to do.

[Robittybob1]

Quite possibly because he was still alive to fight his case while she was dead.

At least you are observant.

[jassi]

At least you are observant.

Oh aye, Hawkeye that's me.

[Erngath]

what behaviour, what vigilanti type action.

You are either a vigilante or not - what you posted in your list was not vigilantes.

Ok.

Most of it was exceptionally disgraceful, against most people's sense of decency , completely unwarranted and troublesome.
Better ?

[Robittybob1]

Oh aye, Hawkeye that's me.

M.A.S.H

[jassi]

M.A.S.H

Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'

[Erngath]

Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'

Sadly not to those left behind.

[Brietta]

  Remember the Lord MacAlpine debacle?

He was outed ( by a concerned citizen) on live TV as being a suspect of child abuse.  He won various apologies, damages and OFCOM ruled;

' both programmes had breached the broadcasting code and had treated Lord McAlpine unfairly, causing him distress and embarrassment.'

He was found to have done nothing illegal. So why did he get apologies and damages when Brenda got thrown to the dogs?  Is it because he had more money and influence than she did and she was a disposable 'no-body'?

Do you have any idea what Brenda Leyland's economic situation was to enable you to make that assessment which sounds a bit like the tired old class argument used by some in relation to Madeleine's family v council house families.

Lord McCalpine took legal action and won redress as a result.  Tragically Brenda Leyland did not and denied herself the right to use the due process referred to in the thread title.

Ironically Gerry McCann was actively campaigning to allow ordinary individuals a measure of protection from press barons and intrusion while Brenda Leland was busying herself in her tweeting campaign involving him and his family.
Funny old world.

Snip
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.

“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout

[Robittybob1]

Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'

Sorry I didn't mean to be callous.  I had forgotten that till you reminded me.

The song ends "and you can do the same thing if you please".    Strange to have a song that advocates suicide on a very popular program in its day.

[kizzy]

You are making a very serious accusation there carly.    No one knows what drove BL to kill herself,  she had attempted it once before.   It could have been a row with one of her sons for example.   Martin Brunt stated she was in a good frame of mind when he last spoke to her.

IMO you are very very wrong with that post L

nothing to do with any row with sons


Asked by the coroner if there was anything which indicated a concern for her life, Mr Brunt said: "No, but when I asked her how she was, she said 'oh I have thought about ending it all but I am feeling better - I have had a drink and spoken to my son'".



The key issues in this case skilfully avoided and evaded by everyone - a vulnerable woman

pushed over the edge by a bullying, story-hungry, pro-McCann media empire,

A and no-one seems to bat an eyelid or raise even a whisper of protest. IMO

[kizzy]

Ok.

Most of it was exceptionally disgraceful, against most people's sense of decency , completely unwarranted and troublesome.
Better ?

You don't have to please me E

But thanks for the attempt. 

[kizzy]

Do you have any idea what Brenda Leyland's economic situation was to enable you to make that assessment which sounds a bit like the tired old class argument used by some in relation to Madeleine's family v council house families.

Lord McCalpine took legal action and won redress as a result.  Tragically Brenda Leyland did not and denied herself the right to use the due process referred to in the thread title.

Ironically Gerry McCann was actively campaigning to allow ordinary individuals a measure of protection from press barons and intrusion while Brenda Leland was busying herself in her tweeting campaign involving him and his family.
Funny old world.

Snip
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.

“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout

Ironically Gerry McCann was actively campaigning to allow ordinary individuals a measure of protection from press barons and intrusion while Brenda Leland was busying herself in her tweeting campaign involving him and his family.
Funny old world.


In short.

None of the messages sent by Brenda Leyland were directed personally at the mcns,


It wasn't a campaign it was her right. of opinion and free speech B

[Mr Gray]

What i do - what i am entitled to do.

You are not entitled to do much... That's why I asked