Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Alice Purjorick]

To be charged under any applicable law then tried and sentenced as that law demands. If there is no evidence of a crime having been committed show over.
The same as would apply to everyone else in England and Wales.
Unless you, in common with a lot of posters on here, believe the law is only for people you like and with whom you share a common opinion.

[faithlilly]

Brenda wrote abusive tweets addressing the McCanns directly which suggests she hoped her hateful messages would reach them.  She also actively engaged in the intimidation and bullying of a woman she believed to be Amy Tierney.  No more excuses please.

But they didn’t reach them so they can’t have felt hounded.

Supporters engaged in the very same sort of bullying and intimidation against Brenda.  It was tit for tat with, it would appear, the AT person willingly taking part.

[G-Unit]

The question still remains of why Brenda and others felt the need to hound the McCanns.
The why remains a puzzle.

It seems to have escaped some people's notice that their opinion of the McCanns isn't shared by everyone. Therefore their 'outrage' on the McCann's behalf isn't shared by everyone either.

[Venturi Swirl]

But they didn’t reach them so they can’t have felt hounded.

Supporters engaged in the very same sort of bullying and intimidation against Brenda.  It was tit for tat with, it would appear, the AT person willingly taking part.

It’s immaterial that the McCanns may not have seen Brenda’s tweets, what does matter is what Brenda intended.  She intended to write abusive tweets, she addressed some of these to the McCanns which suggests she wanted them to know what she thought of them.  IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

It seems to have escaped some people's notice that their opinion of the McCanns isn't shared by everyone. Therefore their 'outrage' on the McCann's behalf isn't shared by everyone either.

There’s a difference between simply being critical of and not liking the McCanns and regularly and for many years repeating the same contemptuous criticism on social media.

[Sunny]

Claire Hardacre of the Guardian disagrees with the dossierres and Martin Brunt

Snipped from a much longer article - here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns

But what was she actually dishing out? Looking over the 5,000-plus tweets from her @sweepyface account, there is clearly a fixation – even an unsettling obsession with the McCanns. She describes them as neglectful parents, objects to their ongoing media appearances, and complains that they are profiting from their daughter’s disappearance. And when people challenge her, she calls them unpleasant names, disputes their evidence and blocks them. In short, her conduct would aggravate some and deeply offend others – but much the same could be said of select comedians, journalists and celebrities who can reach millions. Leyland’s account had a mere 182 followers by the time it suddenly vanished. The crucial question is: did she incite others to harm the McCanns? Or threaten to abduct the McCanns’ other children? Or pose any clear menace?

On Twitter at least it doesn’t seem so. She regularly tweeted the Metropolitan police and Crimewatch, demanding they do more. She would highlight what she felt were untruths in the stories of major press outlets such as the Daily Mail. She railed at media outlets such as LBC for not airing what she felt was the other side of the story. And at the same time, she ensconced herself within a small network of other Twitter users who supported her, agreed with her, and perhaps gave her a sense of identity and importance as a figurehead campaigning for what she believed was justice for Madeleine.

Ultimately, individuals who troll or become obsessed with conspiracy theories can be driven by many factors – boredom, loneliness, a need for validation – and we cannot discount the possibility of mental health problems. At times, their behaviour may border on loathsome, but a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice.

[slartibartfast]

IMO Brenda didn’t write abusive tweets. Reading the reports on them they are little different from the statements made by both sides on here. I think describing them as abusive is a strawman to justify the outing and the subsequent death.

[Erngath]

It seems to have escaped some people's notice that their opinion of the McCanns isn't shared by everyone. Therefore their 'outrage' on the McCann's behalf isn't shared by everyone either.

No it hasn't escaped my notice at all.
The discussion and questioning of the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance I can understand but why some see the need to post some dreadful posts and tweets I do not understand.
I won't list again the activities of some "researchers" but again why?

[faithlilly]

It’s immaterial that the McCanns may not have seen Brenda’s tweets, what does matter is what Brenda intended.  She intended to write abusive tweets, she addressed some of these to the McCanns which suggests she wanted them to know what she thought of them.  IMO.

But they didn’t see them so could not have felt hounded.

[Erngath]

But they didn’t see them so could not have felt hounded.

But again you ignore the fact that others can and may feel outraged .
If you read a cruel or abusive post on a named person, does it not bother you at all?

[Eleanor]

Claire Hardacre of the Guardian disagrees with the dossierres and Martin Brunt

Snipped from a much longer article - here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns

But what was she actually dishing out? Looking over the 5,000-plus tweets from her @sweepyface account, there is clearly a fixation – even an unsettling obsession with the McCanns. She describes them as neglectful parents, objects to their ongoing media appearances, and complains that they are profiting from their daughter’s disappearance. And when people challenge her, she calls them unpleasant names, disputes their evidence and blocks them. In short, her conduct would aggravate some and deeply offend others – but much the same could be said of select comedians, journalists and celebrities who can reach millions. Leyland’s account had a mere 182 followers by the time it suddenly vanished. The crucial question is: did she incite others to harm the McCanns? Or threaten to abduct the McCanns’ other children? Or pose any clear menace?

On Twitter at least it doesn’t seem so. She regularly tweeted the Metropolitan police and Crimewatch, demanding they do more. She would highlight what she felt were untruths in the stories of major press outlets such as the Daily Mail. She railed at media outlets such as LBC for not airing what she felt was the other side of the story. And at the same time, she ensconced herself within a small network of other Twitter users who supported her, agreed with her, and perhaps gave her a sense of identity and importance as a figurehead campaigning for what she believed was justice for Madeleine.

Ultimately, individuals who troll or become obsessed with conspiracy theories can be driven by many factors – boredom, loneliness, a need for validation – and we cannot discount the possibility of mental health problems. At times, their behaviour may border on loathsome, but a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice.

Thanks, Sunny.

That is not an unfair assessment of the situation.

[G-Unit]

No it hasn't escaped my notice at all.
The discussion and questioning of the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance I can understand but why some see the need to post some dreadful posts and tweets I do not understand.
I won't list again the activities of some "researchers" but again why?

This case has aroused strong emotions in some people. Some seem to be 'outraged' that the McCanns have, in their opinion, got away with something. Others are 'outraged' because they see an innocent and bereft, in their opinion, family being questioned and denigrated. Insults are hurled by both sides and both are as bad as each other in my opinion. .

[Erngath]

This case has aroused strong emotions in some people. Some seem to be 'outraged' that the McCanns have, in their opinion, got away with something. Others are 'outraged' because they see an innocent and bereft, in their opinion, family being questioned and denigrated. Insults are hurled by both sides and both are as bad as each other in my opinion. .

But which came first?
If I hadn't read the Sky forum where the outrage of those who believed the McCanns had got away with something and the expressions of this outrage were indeed outrageous, then I would never have responded.
So which came first.The attack or the defence.?

[G-Unit]

There’s a difference between simply being critical of and not liking the McCanns and regularly and for many years repeating the same contemptuous criticism on social media.

Likewise with Goncalo Amaral.

[Venturi Swirl]

But they didn’t see them so could not have felt hounded.

You said that already and ignored my reply.