Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Sunny]

The one thing I find singularly revealing is the absolute silence emanating from Brenda Leyland's family as far as condemnation of anything or any one is concerned.
I think it would be worthwhile and definitely respectful if the obvious privacy from the notoriety they found themselves associated with was given some consideration. 

greptweet.com
Her son, Ben, posted this on Facebook yesterday. 
But nothing remains except ... "This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed."

In my opinion this is a family yearning for privacy ... in my opinion that should be respected but unfortunately that is never going to happen as long as there are those who see her as a vehicle to continue whatever vendetta of choice they may be pursuing.


As far as you appear to be concerned the only individuals who should be considered at risk due to the activities of abusers on social media are the abusers themselves.
Whose choice it is ... whose empowerment it is ...to either persist or desist.

You do not appear to be giving a single thought to the effects of internet abuse on the victims at whom the unsolicited abuse is directed.
They are not empowered to make it all cease and go away ... they have no choices in the matter other than to remove themselves from social media platforms entirely.

But we have seen ... it doesn't work like that.  The McCanns have no social media presence ... but it didn't stop their abuse to which Brenda Leyland was a contributor.

The people most at risk from taking their own lives ... and it is happening more and more often ... are the abused, not the perpetrators of the abuse.
Therefore were I you I would give more thought to the vulnerability of victims of this cowardly anonymous crime and direct some of your sympathy in their direction.

Did you have Brenda's facebook saved Brietta so you could go back to it?  I have found that if her page was gone it would simply not appear in searches but then I am not particularly experienced in facebook.

I however do agree that a number of tweets were abusive to the McCanns and that other posters on there are far worse than Brenda was.  I do have immense sympathy for the McCanns family regarding some of the horrible threats that had been posted online of course I am not heartless, threats that Brenda didn't post.

Although I still believe that what was done to Brenda was far beyond her so called suspected crime.  I was totally unaware of what was happening on this case at the time and it was constant media from pretty much every UK media outlet calling her troll, troll, even after her death and also after the police said she had not committed a crime.


Can you point me out to a similar case of character assassination based on on 4500 tweets please?

[Sunny]

I think we need to look at his whole quote...rather than a snippet... What do you think hemeans by the final straw and why does he mention it. We know brenda had been treated by a psychiatrist... That indicates a more, severe condition than would be treated by a psychologist... We know she had attempted suicide before..we know she was estranged from her son and committed suicide on his birthday... I think it's clear that there us a lot more going on there  than be outed by sky... You and others can blame sky but it's just opinion... Without the full facts we don't know why she committed suicide... I don't put the blame at sky's door... Neither did the coroner

Davel you say "we need to look at his whole quote" yet you don't share his "whole quote"


Her death was on fourth of October 2015

Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm

So Brenda was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred. That sounds like one massive straw to me.   I am not surprised it destroyed her, it would destroy most private people.

Yes Brenda was wrong to post some of the posts she made but did she deserve what she got and should her information simply have been given to the police? 100% yes but passing it to the media who crucified her?, 100% no.

[Venturi Swirl]

The press should be a last resort when all other channels of highlighting the issue have been exhausted. It should never be the first port of call.

But let’s be clear. This was never about justice. This was about ritual humiliation. Humiliation that would discourage further negative comment on the case. As Voltaire wrote in his novel Candide "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

You seem keen to lay down the law about when concerned individuals may or may not go to the press.  Perhaps more restrictions on the freedom of the press is the answer, eh Faithlilly?

[Erngath]

Davel you say "we need to look at his whole quote" yet you don't share his "whole quote"


Her death was on fourth of October 2015

Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm

So Brenda was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred. That sounds like one massive straw to me.   I am not surprised it destroyed her, it would destroy most private people.

Yes Brenda was wrong to post some of the posts she made but did she deserve what she got and should her information simply have been given to the police? 100% yes but passing it to the media who crucified her?, 100% no.

One wonders why when having so many difficulties in her life, her estrangement from her son, her divorce, her difficulties with a neighbour, her health issues and her depression, anxiety, her difficulty in connecting with people, she chose to spend so much of her time tweeting about the family of a missing child.

You use the word "crucify"  in regards to Brenda
In my opinion she willingly participated with others  in doing just that to Madeleine's family.

[Erngath]

You seem keen to lay down the law about when concerned individuals may or may not go to the press.  Perhaps more restrictions on the freedom of the press is the answer, eh Faithlilly?

Ironic isn't it that the clamour for free speech and freedom of the press has only to be in certain circumstances.

[Mr Gray]

Davel you say "we need to look at his whole quote" yet you don't share his "whole quote"


Her death was on fourth of October 2015

Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm

So Brenda was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred. That sounds like one massive straw to me.   I am not surprised it destroyed her, it would destroy most private people.

Yes Brenda was wrong to post some of the posts she made but did she deserve what she got and should her information simply have been given to the police? 100% yes but passing it to the media who crucified her?, 100% no.

If the dossier compilers wish to take the dossier to the press then that is their right... You seem to want to restrict peoples legal rights...you support brendas legal rights but not the compilers... That is hypocrisy....

[Mr Gray]

Davel you say "we need to look at his whole quote" yet you don't share his "whole quote"


Her death was on fourth of October 2015

Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm

So Brenda was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred. That sounds like one massive straw to me.   I am not surprised it destroyed her, it would destroy most private people.

Yes Brenda was wrong to post some of the posts she made but did she deserve what she got and should her information simply have been given to the police? 100% yes but passing it to the media who crucified her?, 100% no.

Do you have a cite for... Would destroy most private people... IMO that's absolute rubbish.... IMO many have been doorstepped.... First time I've heard if a suicide


If you don't provide a cite please stop demanding them from others

[G-Unit]

The press should be a last resort when all other channels of highlighting the issue have been exhausted. It should never be the first port of call.

But let’s be clear. This was never about justice. This was about ritual humiliation. Humiliation that would discourage further negative comment on the case. As Voltaire wrote in his novel Candide "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

The problem with the dossier compilers and Sky is that they thought the public shared their opinions about online trolling of the McCanns.

The truth was that the public didn't care;

In September 2007 only 20% of the UK population thought the McCanns were blameless.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1663733,00.html

[Erngath]

The problem with the dossier compilers and Sky is that they thought the public shared their opinions about online trolling of the McCanns.

The truth was that the public didn't care;

In September 2007 only 20% of the UK population thought the McCanns were blameless.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1663733,00.html

Were all Britons asked?
I wasn't, don't know anyone who was.
Anyone I have spoken to certainly disagrees with online abuse.

Rather worrying that online abuse is regarded as not important.

[Erngath]

If the dossier compilers wish to take the dossier to the press then that is their right... You seem to want to restrict peoples legal rights...you support bredndas legal rights but not the compilers... That is hypocrisy....

It does seem so.

[Eleanor]

Ironic isn't it that the clamour for free speech and freedom of the press has only to be in certain circumstances.

Free Speech, But Only For Me.  There's a lot of it about.

[G-Unit]

Were all Britons asked?
I wasn't, don't know anyone who was.
Anyone I have spoken to certainly disagrees with online abuse.

Rather worrying that online abuse is regarded as not important.

I was referring to online abuse of the McCanns, not online abuse in general. I think they chose the wrong example if they wanted to whip up public outrage. 

[Robittybob1]

The problem with the dossier compilers and Sky is that they thought the public shared their opinions about online trolling of the McCanns.

The truth was that the public didn't care;

In September 2007 only 20% of the UK population thought the McCanns were blameless.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1663733,00.html

"YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times of London this week found that only 20% of Britons think Gerry and Kate McCann are completely innocent."

Is "completely innocent" and "blameless" the same?

[Mr Gray]

I was referring to online abuse of the McCanns, not online abuse in general. I think they chose the wrong example if they wanted to whip up public outrage.

They wished to highlight the abuse against the McCann's.. Which they did... Quite right too... Imo

[Erngath]

I was referring to online abuse of the McCanns, not online abuse in general. I think they chose the wrong example if they wanted to whip up public outrage.

The public are outraged at online abuse but not if that online abuse is directed at the MCcanns??