Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Mr Gray]

Ihave no problem with what anyone does - to get to the truth of what happened to maddie.


That behaviour is obviously from people who do not believe maddie was abducted.

How can it be acceptable to leave babies on there own

How can you call spending other peoples money to do a witch hunt on GA etc etc common decency.

There is many photos of mcn twins on internet allowed by mcns when it suits.

You believe mcns did nothing wrong ...I Don't.

And neither did brenda leyland.

She never had the chance to say why she did it apart from being entitled - and she was.

All this is off topic... Or is every thread going to be an acceptable  child care thread

[Gertrude]

  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'?

During a live broadcast of This Morning on 8 November 2012, presenter Phillip Schofield produced a list of people linked to allegations of child abuse, which he said he had put together by searching on the internet.

He handed the list - which included Lord McAlpine's name - to Prime Minister David Cameron, asking whether there should be an overarching inquiry into the recent scandal.

The list was briefly and inadvertently broadcast by ITV.

ITV accepted this was "an uncharacteristic lapse in editorial judgement on the part of the programme's editorial team".

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

Both the BBC and ITV subsequently apologised to Lord McAlpine and paid substantial libel damages.

At the time the Tory peer had said it was "terrifying" to find himself "a figure of public hatred".

ITV also fell foul of rules relating to providing adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of harmful material.

 

[Erngath]

Ihave no problem with what anyone does - to get to the truth of what happened to maddie.


That behaviour is obviously from people who do not believe maddie was abducted.

How can it be acceptable to leave babies on there own

How can you call spending other peoples money to do a witch hunt on GA etc etc common decency.

There is many photos of mcn twins on internet allowed by mcns when it suits.

You believe mcns did nothing wrong ...I Don't.

And neither did brenda leyland.

She never had the chance to say why she did it apart from being entitled - and she was.

Your attitude and philosophy is neatly stated in this part of your post."I have no problem with what anyone does-to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie"
Exactly!

[Erngath]

All this is off topic... Or is every thread going to be an acceptable  child care thread

It' has developed into what is acceptable behaviour on the part of sceptics and supporters in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance.

[jassi]

  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'?

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

[kizzy]

  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'?

snip
  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'?



Exactly great post it more or less what i was trying to point out

Brenda didn't have the money

T

[kizzy]

Your attitude and philosophy is neatly stated in this part of your post."I have no problem with what anyone does-to get to the truth of what happened to Maddie"
Exactly!

OH right 

Well i would certainly have my due process if anyone doorstepped me.

[Gertrude]

Vigilantes are the ones who leaflet the public accusing a couple of being complicit in their child's disappearance.
Vigilantes are the ones who organise meetings to further discuss their campaign progress against the family of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who send FOI requests to obtain information about the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who leaflet the neighbours of the parents of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who visit and leave a leaflet at the work place of a parent of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who photograph the siblings of a missing child and put said photos on the internet.
 Vigilantes are those who set up Facebook sites dedicated to maligning the parents of a missing child.
I'm sure I haven't listened all the vigilante behaviour.

  The definition of vigilante is  "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate."

 Dropping leaflets is not 'law enforcement' and neither is setting up facebook sites, or sending off for FOI requests. Do you really think people who lawfully request information are doing something wrong?

   The taking of photographs thing would be stalking, which is an offence obviously. The things you listed are irrelevant to Brenda Leyland, as she didn't do any of them.

[Erngath]

OH right 

Well i would certainly have my due process if anyone doorstepped me.

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

[Mr Gray]

OH right 

Well i would certainly have my due process if anyone doorstepped me.

What would you do

[Erngath]

  The definition of vigilante is  "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate."

 Dropping leaflets is not 'law enforcement' and neither is setting up facebook sites, or sending off for FOI requests. Do you really think people who lawfully request information are doing something wrong?

   The taking of photographs thing would be stalking, which is an offence obviously. The things you listed are irrelevant to Brenda Leyland, as she didn't do any of them.

Change my post to vigilante type of behaviour then and it applies to the disgraceful behaviour listed.

[Angelo222]

Vigilantes are the ones who leaflet the public accusing a couple of being complicit in their child's disappearance.
Vigilantes are the ones who organise meetings to further discuss their campaign progress against the family of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who send FOI requests to obtain information about the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who leaflet the neighbours of the parents of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who visit and leave a leaflet at the work place of a parent of a missing child.
Vigilantes are the ones who photograph the siblings of a missing child and put said photos on the internet.
 Vigilantes are those who set up Facebook sites dedicated to maligning the parents of a missing child.
I'm sure I haven't listed all the vigilante behaviour.

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.

[Erngath]

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

The word vigilante was brought into the thread and I used it to make my post.
I agree trouble makers would be a better word but I still find some of the behaviour verging on vigilante type of behaviour.

[Angelo222]

  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'?

Could it be that some of the comments made by BL as @sweepyface were morally wrong rather than being illegal?

[Mr Gray]

Could it be that some of the comments made by BL as @sweepyface were morally wrong rather than being illegal?

Of course