Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Venturi Swirl]

I said probably not definitely Vertigo Swirl.

OK about cites

How about http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sl7pm3  - I have seen images of these tweets and they are genuine IMO.

I have already given a cite TWICE that Martin Brunt was given Brenda Leyland's name and Leicester (shire) as being her address.  Supporters on here keep saying that Martin Brunt found out her identity. He did not he was given it. If I said your name was ..... and you lived in .... and gave that to a reporter. If they they doorstepped you would they have found you or been given your identity.

I still stand by that.

Point taken.  A most unedifying bullying set of tweets on both sides I agree, though I’d not seen those before I don’t think.  Why do people lose all sense of propriety on twitter? 

[misty]

And of course all of this was before her information was passed onto the media IMO. This gives an indication of what Brenda Leyland was dealing with on twitter. No wonder some of her posts come across as vitriolic if she was trying to discuss the case with such as these.

Do you also have copies of the tweets from which Brenda (incorrectly) identified a certain poster as being the nanny Amy T?

[Venturi Swirl]

Jus a comment based on a bit of research I did on posters on this forum from 5 years ago.

Would you care to elucidate, because it seems to me you are once again insinuating that I am a hypocrite or lacking in self awarenes.  Is my description of what appears on the #McCann tag incorrect then, because if it is please explain why.

PS”research on posters” - what, like a dossier or something?

[Sunny]

Point taken.  A most unedifying bullying set of tweets on both sides I agree, though I’d not seen those before I don’t think.  Why do people lose all sense of propriety on twitter?

But now you will agree that twitter is not for the faint hearted and also that Brenda was "outed" by supporters prior to Martin Brunt's involvement and my other cite (shown twice before here) shows that Brunt was given Brenda's identity so he had the easy bit....doorstep her IMO.

Why on earth anyone would join the twitter mob on either side I have no idea. It seems to be madness with no chance of discussion possible and only abuse reigning supreme.  I read occasionally as I have said but who wants to get into that. Thankfully I joined this forum.

Brenda's tweets though need to be read in that context as they appear to have been made in the cut and thrust of the twitter storm.

[Sunny]

Do you also have copies of the tweets from which Brenda (incorrectly) identified a certain poster as being the nanny Amy T?

I have already given a link to Brenda Leylands tweets. I think it was buzzfeed. I have already also said several times that I disagreed with what Brenda did regarding AT and I still believe that what happened to Brenda far outreached what she had done. Even a police visit would have been better than the mass media besmirching with TROLL everywhere simply for tweeting.

I am sure a convicted murderer would have caused significantly more harm and received less media coverage than middle class Brenda Leyland did simply for tweeting on the McCann case.

[slartibartfast]

Would you care to elucidate, because it seems to me you are once again insinuating that I am a hypocrite or lacking in self awarenes.  Is my description of what appears on the #McCann tag incorrect then, because if it is please explain why.

PS”research on posters” - what, like a dossier or something?

Sure, if you look at posts from 5 years ago from this forum, you find vitually identical posts to ones posted by the same posters today. Hence priceless.

[Brietta]

To be honest I can't see that you can still make that claim without proof. How many years back are you making that claim for.

Please provide a cite for "Sceptics or supporters - who are and were more numerous on the #McCann tag that Brenda favoured?  A simple question, with a very simple answer.  Sceptics - massively."

You appear to have some firm preconceived ideas regarding the reality of the situation regarding the trolling of the McCann family using the vehicle of social media.

There was a bit of reaction in other places at the news that academics from Huddersfield were conducting a study which would throw some light on how twitter was being abused to abuse this particular family,

I find it extraordinary that such a situation was not only possible but that people had gone out of their way to pass their time doing something so evil in the first place but that it had been going on without let for at that time more than eight years.  More than eleven now.  The mind boggles at the inhumanity of that and I really don't see how it is possible to try to justify what has been done and what continues to be done to a family who have already suffered the unbearable pain of not knowing what has happened to their daughter.

The research by Dr Synott's team revealed ...
Snip
The sheer volume of tweets by the anti-McCann group – and by supporters of Madeleine’s parents – meant that it would be an excellent case study.  A sample of 400 McCann-related tweets obtained from 37 user accounts and containing a total of 7,600 words was analysed by the research team.  The article describing the project contains samples of the abusive, often illiterate language used by trolls.

It was found that “the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCanns and the pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended”.‌
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key discovery of the research conducted by Dr Synnott, his Huddersfield colleague Dr Maria Ioannou and postgraduate student Andria Coulias, is that far from operating in isolation – as has usually been argued – trolls form “anti-social networks” that reinforce their behaviour.  Also, media reports that condemn the trolls’ actions have the effect of “showering them with the very attention they appear to covet”.
http://news-archive.hud.ac.uk/news/2017/february/exploringtheworldofthemadeleinemccanntrolls.php


So there you have it from the McCann research based in academia ... research not opinion.  The most horrible of which was the stated conclusion ... " ... that “the damaging impact the McCann trolls’ behaviour has had on those victimised” makes necessary “the continuation of research exploiting the ways in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them”.

The victims are the McCann family two of whom are Madeleine's siblings.  Who could possibly be proud of deliberately damaging children.

I believe it has been claimed on this thread that Brenda was not part of a group ... the Huddersfield research suggests otherwise.


Unless stated otherwise content is my informed opinion.

[slartibartfast]

The McCann group was the most obvious place for us to start.  Stage two, which is currently in development, will be an analysis of the Pro-McCann group, to explore any differences or similarities between them.”

Maybe you have access to stage 2?

[Venturi Swirl]

Sure, if you look at posts from 5 years ago from this forum, you find vitually identical posts to ones posted by the same posters today. Hence priceless.

And if you look on twitter you will find the same. so what precisely do you find “priceless” about what I wrote?  Am I someone who dedicatedly trots out the same mantras on a daily if not hourly basis, in your view? 

[misty]

I have already given a link to Brenda Leylands tweets. I think it was buzzfeed. I have already also said several times that I disagreed with what Brenda did regarding AT and I still believe that what happened to Brenda far outreached what she had done. Even a police visit would have been better than the mass media besmirching with TROLL everywhere simply for tweeting.

I am sure a convicted murderer would have caused significantly more harm and received less media coverage than middle class Brenda Leyland did simply for tweeting on the McCann case.

Do you consider the media coverage was excessive when compared to the precedent of the Sally Bercow/Lord McAlpine twitter affair, which related to one specific tweet? Do you consider she was "lucky" to not be legally pursued by the McCanns at the time?

[slartibartfast]

And if you look on twitter you will find the same. so what precisely do you find “priceless” about what I wrote?  Am I someone who dedicatedly trots out the same mantras on a daily if not hourly basis, in your view?

Why, do you think you do?

[Venturi Swirl]

Maybe you have access to stage 2?

Rather than wait for stage 2, why don’t you publish your own research which was presumably done on McCann supporters rather than sceptics?  Or was it for private use only? 

[Venturi Swirl]

Why, do you think you do?

Deflection.  Can you give a straight answer or not?

[Venturi Swirl]

Am I alone in finding it a bit creepy that a moderator of this form has admitted to “researching” members of this forum over the last 5 years?

[Brietta]

Some of the above I can substatiate Brietta. The rest is probably opinion.

Brenda was named by supporters and discussed on twitter prior to the dossier being shown by Brunt. This included her name and county of residence.

Otherwise I think I have shown it was my opinion eg using words like "it would appear" and "possibly"

I stand by Martin Brunt did not find Brenda he was handed her on a plate. He was.

Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

You are giving me problems with this ... I am not happy at all with your response ... but I am probably going to have to leave it for John to fix because it has all moved on from where we were.

Unfortunately it appears your signature is just for show since in my opinion you have failed to implement it on a few occasions now.
Perhaps I will steal it from you ... because I do intend to implement it immediately in future without giving a period of grace for amendment.