Brenda Leyland was tried and convicted by the media long before SY had looked at the facts surrounding her tweets and found she had broke no law.Are you suggesting that the media should be denied the opportunity to report on anything they believe is in the public interest lest it leads to the suicide of the subject of its news story?
Is it right that, although not charged with any crime, she was vilified like a common criminal or was she, like ever other U.K. citizen, entitled not to have her identity made public until she was actually accused of a crime ?
None of the other people in that infamous dossier was outed following Brunt's 'scoop'. None of them was prosecuted by the police either. Their 'crimes' existed only in the eyes of those who took it upon themselves to compile the dossier and hand it to the media. That's something neither they nor Sky News were qualified to decide in my opinion.
Respect for the law is important because we live by the rule of law. If the law is wrong it's OK to campaign to change it, it's not OK to take it into your own hands.
None of the other people in that infamous dossier was outed following Brunt's 'scoop'. None of them was prosecuted by the police either. Their 'crimes' existed only in the eyes of those who took it upon themselves to compile the dossier and hand it to the media. That's something neither they nor Sky News were qualified to decide in my opinion.
Respect for the law is important because we live by the rule of law. If the law is wrong it's OK to campaign to change it, it's not OK to take it into your own hands.
A Question.
If you were aware of intimidating posts, hate posts etc being made against a named family and this was continuing week after week.
What would you do?
And if you chose to do nothing, how would you feel if one of these posters did carry out their threats.
I know of a young girl who hanged herself because of continuing social media intimidation.
Brenda Leyland was tried and convicted by the media long before SY had looked at the facts surrounding her tweets and found she had broke no law.
Is it right that, although not charged with any crime, she was vilified like a common criminal or was she, like ever other U.K. citizen, entitled not to have her identity made public until she was actually accused of a crime ?
Brenda Leyland got vilified and didn't break any laws,Cliff Richard's on the other hand broke no laws but won compensation, go figure.
Who decides whether a crime has been or is about to be committed? The police. The police were made aware and there the 'concerned citizen's' involvement ends.
Did her family take any action against Sky?
Not necessarily legal action but did they express any grievance with Sky.
If I felt a family member had committed suicide because of the behaviour of a television channel, I would certainly make my opinion known.
But perhaps the family knew her better than any of us and perhaps because she had attempted suicide before, they were aware perhaps that it was much more complex than any of us would know.
A Question.
If you were aware of intimidating posts, hate posts etc being made against a named family and this was continuing week after week.
What would you do?
And if you chose to do nothing, how would you feel if one of these posters did carry out their threats.
I know of a young girl who hanged herself because of continuing social media intimidation.
Surely you should:
a) contact the social media platform and point out someone is breaking it's rules ( if they are)
b) consult lawyers if you think someone is committing libel ( but you have to be the alleged victim to do this)
b) contact police if you believe someone is committing the crimes of harassment or stalking. ( with evidence )
c) not take it upon yourself to contact the media about one particular individual and encourage them to single that person out before the police have investigated that person.
Or maybe I would ignore the posts as they were someones opinion and not threats against someone. It's called freedom of speech. You mention threats, where did Brenda ever make a threat?
From Sky news "she had tweeted or retweeted 2,210 posts, of which 424 mentioned the McCanns. Her tweets did not constitute a criminal offence, the inquest heard. ''
The people who compiled the dossier took it upon themselves to define what is acceptable or not for individuals to say and then in contacting the press engaged in harassing an individual, which is something they were supposedly against!
exactly its been a taboo subject for supporters but i have no doubt if they had not taken it on themselves to act on the mcanns behalf brenda would be alive right now
Does behaviour have to be criminal before it is deemed wrong?
Surely you should:
a) contact the social media platform and point out someone is breaking it's rules ( if they are)
b) consult lawyers if you think someone is committing libel ( but you have to be the alleged victim to do this)
b) contact police if you believe someone is committing the crimes of harassment or stalking. ( with evidence )
c) not take it upon yourself to contact the media about one particular individual and encourage them to single that person out before the police have investigated that person.
Or maybe I would ignore the posts as they were someones opinion and not threats against someone. It's called freedom of speech. You mention threats, where did Brenda ever make a threat?
From Sky news "she had tweeted or retweeted 2,210 posts, of which 424 mentioned the McCanns. Her tweets did not constitute a criminal offence, the inquest heard. ''
The people who compiled the dossier took it upon themselves to define what is acceptable or not for individuals to say and then in contacting the press engaged in harassing an individual, which is something they were supposedly against!
Cliff Richard has been vilified for years on the internet, and probably still is being to this day, "Brenda Leyland - internet troll" was a storm in a teacup and had she not chosen to end her life, her brush with infamy would have been yesterday's fish and chip paper by the weekend. As it is, I doubt her name or her story now means anything whatsoever to 99.9% of the country's population.
Brenda Leyland got vilified and didn't break any laws,Cliff Richard's on the other hand broke no laws but won compensation, go figure.
Yes, the McCanns supposedly were unaware of twitter and didn't use it. So how could they say any of it impacted on them?
The people compiling the dossier couldn't get Brenda banned from twitter because she wasn't breaking their rules and the police weren't particularly interested because she made no threats or stalking ( as defined in law) occurred.
They used the press before the police had concluded anything, intimidating someone as their preferred method of stifling free speech.
None of the other people in that infamous dossier was outed following Brunt's 'scoop'. None of them was prosecuted by the police either. Their 'crimes' existed only in the eyes of those who took it upon themselves to compile the dossier and hand it to the media. That's something neither they nor Sky News were qualified to decide in my opinion.What do you think of the Hacked Off campaign? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.
Respect for the law is important because we live by the rule of law. If the law is wrong it's OK to campaign to change it, it's not OK to take it into your own hands.
Who decides whether a crime has been or is about to be committed? The police. The police were made aware and there the 'concerned citizen's' involvement ends.Your complete and utter trust in the police to decide when to pursue a criminal prosecution is very surprising to me.
Deemed wrong by some, but who decides that their opinion is right? Them?
Most right minding folk would deem it wrong to post threatening and abusive posts to a family of a missing child, even if the recipients of such posts are unaware of them.
Surely you should:The people who compiled the dossier did just that - compile a dossier. There's no law against it. There is no law against sending it to the media, it's up to the media if they act on it. No one held a gun to anyone's head as far as I'm aware, nor was Brenda specifically targeted but was one of dozens of anonymous tweeters, Brunt tracked down her identity himself. What exactly are you suggesting - that concerned members of the public, who are ignored by the police, should just put up with things, as the police have the final word on all matters? Tell that to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, to child sex grooming gangs, and thousands of other injustices that have been highlighted by the media, forcing the police to finally get their arses in gear and act.
a) contact the social media platform and point out someone is breaking it's rules ( if they are)
b) consult lawyers if you think someone is committing libel ( but you have to be the alleged victim to do this)
b) contact police if you believe someone is committing the crimes of harassment or stalking. ( with evidence )
c) not take it upon yourself to contact the media about one particular individual and encourage them to single that person out before the police have investigated that person.
Or maybe I would ignore the posts as they were someones opinion and not threats against someone. It's called freedom of speech. You mention threats, where did Brenda ever make a threat?
From Sky news "she had tweeted or retweeted 2,210 posts, of which 424 mentioned the McCanns. Her tweets did not constitute a criminal offence, the inquest heard. ''
The people who compiled the dossier took it upon themselves to define what is acceptable or not for individuals to say and then in contacting the press engaged in harassing an individual, which is something they were supposedly against!
Brenda leyland commited no crime so what threating and abusive post's are you refering to?
So if you read continuing threatening and nasty posts against a named person who were themselves unaware of these threats, you would deem these posts as unimportant just because the person being threatened was unaware of the threats.
Just because the rules of posting on social media are so futile does not make it acceptable to post hate!
Your complete and utter trust in the police to decide when to pursue a criminal prosecution is very surprising to me.
Cliff Richard has been vilified for years on the internet, and probably still is being to this day, "Brenda Leyland - internet troll" was a storm in a teacup and had she not chosen to end her life, her brush with infamy would have been yesterday's fish and chip paper by the weekend. As it is, I doubt her name or her story now means anything whatsoever to 99.9% of the country's population.
Nasty is a subjective term. 'threat' is not so subjective. Where did Brenda threaten anyone, she didn't!
The problem with the 'troll dossier' is people taking it upon themselves to be moral police and trying to silence other people based on their opinions. no-one has a right to do that IMO, there are laws there for if someone makes threats towards you, having 'nasty' opinions is not against the law, so people shouldn't be contacting the police and media about it.
The people who compiled the dossier did just that - compile a dossier. There's no law against it. There is no law against sending it to the media, it's up to the media if they act on it. No one held a gun to anyone's head as far as I'm aware, nor was Brenda specifically targeted but was one of dozens of anonymous tweeters, Brunt tracked down her identity himself. What exactly are you suggesting - that concerned members of the public, who are ignored by the police, should just put up with things, as the police have the final word on all matters? Tell that to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, to child sex grooming gangs, and thousands of other injustices that have been highlighted by the media, forcing the police to finally get their arses in gear and act.
If you don't describe the abuse and threats made on social media to the McCanns as nasty, then we have different standards of acceptable behaviour.
There are now two threads about this lady and for today I am finished posting on either.
In modern terminology, we are in the process of a a major refurbishment and I will be very busy.j
exactly the dossier creators and sky news uk are to blame for brenda killing herself imo
Brenda Leyland was tried and convicted by the media long before SY had looked at the facts surrounding her tweets and found she had broke no law.
Is it right that, although not charged with any crime, she was vilified like a common criminal or was she, like ever other U.K. citizen, entitled not to have her identity made public until she was actually accused of a crime ?
I never said I trusted them, I said it's their job not the public's or the media's.So if the police refuse to investigate serious allegations of misconduct within their own ranks for example, then tough shit, live with it, don't take the evidence to the media. Okie dokes. Sounds a bit police state-ish to me.
So if the police refuse to investigate serious allegations of misconduct within their own ranks for example, then tough shit, live with it, don't take the evidence to the media. Okie dokes. Sounds a bit police state-ish to me.
Shouldn't two innocent parties receive the same amount of privacy?Well you'll be pleased to learn that Cliff's Law means that anyone simply suspected of any crime by the police will be protected from any media coverage in future.
Well you'll be pleased to learn that Cliff's Law means that anyone simply suspected of any crime by the police will be protected from any media coverage in future.
Yes Brenda was unfairly targeted. It was her doorstep that Sky turned up on. Was she someone with resources or a press team of her own to handle such intrusion? If we want to get into moral debates then there's one for you. Why did sky not want to doorstep some male 'trolls' or was an older single woman on her own an easier target?
Brenda's name was unfairly linked with other people's messages in the Daily Mail giving the impression that she was responsible for most of what was said. She was set up as a scapegoat.
The concerned members of the public in this case chose not to wait for the police to investigate, this is not the same as Hillsborough where police refused to investigate! Also Brenda committed no crime by expressing her opinions, so how was the situation an 'injustice'? How you can compare it to Hillsborough, I don't know.
Yes Brenda was unfairly targeted. It was her doorstep that Sky turned up on. Was she someone with resources or a press team of her own to handle such intrusion? If we want to get into moral debates then there's one for you. Why did sky not want to doorstep some male 'trolls' or was an older single woman on her own an easier target?I am talking about the principle of alerting the media to perceived injustices or criminal behaviour. You either believe in the right of any individual to go to the media with their concerns when the police seem disinterested, and in the right of the media to decide whether or not what has been brought to them is worthy of reporting, or you don't - whether it's a big tragic case like Hillsborough in which police failings seemed to be brushed under the carper by a police force closing ranks and protecting its own, or the sustained and lengthy campaign of a bunch of online anonymous commentators who use social media to intimidate, mock, deride, insinuate, threaten, accuse and spread lies about the family of a missing child and anyone associated with them, including their supporters. Phew! Long sentence. Sorry about that.
Brenda's name was unfairly linked with other people's messages in the Daily Mail giving the impression that she was responsible for most of what was said. She was set up as a scapegoat.
The concerned members of the public in this case chose not to wait for the police to investigate, this is not the same as Hillsborough where police refused to investigate! Also Brenda committed no crime by expressing her opinions, so how was the situation an 'injustice'? How you can compare it to Hillsborough, I don't know.
Well you'll be pleased to learn that Cliff's Law means that anyone simply suspected of any crime by the police will be protected from any media coverage in future.
If you don't describe the abuse and threats made on social media to the McCanns as nasty, then we have different standards of acceptable behaviour.
There are now two threads about this lady and for today I am finished posting on either.
In modern terminology, we are in the process of a a major refurbishment and I will be very busy.j
I believe BL was in conversation with Martin Brunt on twitter. He was not to know she was mentally delicate, on the contrary she sounded by her tweets to be a very confident woman. Her tweets were among those others that were taken from the internet. Martin Brunt no doubt knew BL and where she lived. Its a journalists job to confront people, he was doing his job. It is very unfortunate that he chose BL to confront as unknown to him she was mentally ill. Martin Brunt said he was devastated by her death. BL didn't have to take Martin Brunt into her home, she didn't have to converse with him at all. When asked why she was sending her tweets she replied 'I have a right to' or similar words, she could have just left it at that. BL made it quite clear in the area where she lived her views on the McCann's.
It's obvious that people have different opinions on what is 'nasty'. Some think its nasty to criticise the McCann's childcare arrangements. I think it's not. Some think it's OK to make fun of policemen in another country. I think it's nasty. Standards of acceptable behaviour are based on opinion. Opinion can't be used as a benchmark. Law is the universal benchmark.
So why not phone her up first? Don't you think a well known TV journalist turning up with a camera crew at an ordinary member of the publics house might be intimidating? She was not a TV personality or head of some large organisation or politician with a press office that was used to dealing with the press.Do you think the media considered the possible fragile mental state of Kate McCann before going to print with their outrageous lies? Where's your anger at those news stories?
Why not give her the chance to engage some representation or at least advice from family members before plastering her all over the nations media? Why did Brunt not try and arrange a meeting with and a few of these 'trolls'? You say he didn't know she was ill, so then maybe he should have done better research and not put her in the such a David and Goliath scenario up against the entire press. It was a very bad judgement on his part.
Do you think the media considered the possible fragile mental state of Kate McCann before going to print with their outrageous lies? Where's your anger at those news stories?
I am talking about the principle of alerting the media to perceived injustices or criminal behaviour. You either believe in the right of any individual to go to the media with their concerns when the police seem disinterested, and in the right of the media to decide whether or not what has been brought to them is worthy of reporting, or you don't - whether it's a big tragic case like Hillsborough in which police failings seemed to be brushed under the carper by a police force closing ranks and protecting its own, or the sustained and lengthy campaign of a bunch of online anonymous commentators who use social media to intimidate, mock, deride, insinuate, threaten, accuse and spread lies about the family of a missing child and anyone associated with them, including their supporters. Phew! Long sentence. Sorry about that.
Do you think the media considered the possible fragile mental state of Kate McCann before going to print with their outrageous lies? Where's your anger at those news stories?
No I am certainly not saying that what Brenda did is on a par with Hillsborough, I am talking about a princple, the freedom to go to the press with your concerns when the police seem disinterested - it is then up to the media whether they do anything with the information. If you have a beef it seems to be with Sky, not the person or people who compiled the dossier, unless you think the act of sending information to the media about activities to the press whether technically illegal or not should be outlawed?
Can you not see that all those things you describe come under the banner of freedom of speech, except 'threaten' - but Brenda Leyland did not threaten anyone and the police did not find evidence of any threats in the dossier.
This is a completely different matter than Hillsborough where people died and family wanted it investigating properly. You seem to be saying that what Brenda is on a par with the Hillsborough cover up and refer to it as a 'case'.
It was not a case, it was someone's opinions, no crime was committed.
In a letter to the campaigners, Leicestershire Police Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister said: "While finding that much of the material was extremely distasteful and unpleasant in nature, it was determined that none of the messages/postings constituted a prosecutable offence."
No I am certainly not saying that what Brenda did is on a par with Hillsborough, I am talking about a princple, the freedom to go to the press with your concerns when the police seem disinterested - it is then up to the media whether they do anything with the information. If you have a beef it seems to be with Sky, not the person or people who compiled the dossier, unless you think the act of sending information to the media about activities to the press whether technically illegal or not should be outlawed?
Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case.
No I am certainly not saying that what Brenda did is on a par with Hillsborough, I am talking about a princple, the freedom to go to the press with your concerns when the police seem disinterested - it is then up to the media whether they do anything with the information. If you have a beef it seems to be with Sky, not the person or people who compiled the dossier, unless you think the act of sending information to the media about activities to the press whether technically illegal or not should be outlawed?
What lies exactly? Is criticism lies? As was determined in the Supreme Court ruling in 2017, the McCanns, through Kate's book and voluntarily engagements with the press on various stories and interviews, were complicit in bringing criticism to themselves.Oh please. If you're going to pretend the media didn't print outright lies about the McCanns is there really any point in even continuing this discussion with you?
This really for me is about balance. The McCanns, suspects in a high profile crime, had a P.R. spokesman to engage and field the media, help from politicians etc. Opportunity to engage lawyers backed by a large 'fund'. What did Brenda Leyland have at hand when Brunt decided to make an example of her?
So why not phone her up first? Don't you think a well known TV journalist turning up with a camera crew at an ordinary member of the publics house might be intimidating? She was not a TV personality or head of some large organisation or politician with a press office that was used to dealing with the press.
Why not give her the chance to engage some representation or at least advice from family members before plastering her all over the nations media? Why did Brunt not try and arrange a meeting with and a few of these 'trolls'? You say he didn't know she was ill, so then maybe he should have done better research and not put her in the such a David and Goliath scenario up against the entire press. It was a very bad judgement on his part.
Oh please. If you're going to pretend the media didn't print outright lies about the McCanns is there really any point in even continuing this discussion with you?
Once again your beef appears to be with the media (not the dossier compilers), who you seem to believe should treat everyone with kid gloves unless their targets have a high powered lawyer, political support, a bucket of cash and PR firm on hand. This would no doubt be welcomed by those cowboys and shysters who get doorstepped by programmes like Watchdog, certainly.
No offence but I think it's a really poor choice to use Hillsborough to illustrate this principle.That's a good idea. Prosecute anyone who brings their concerns to the police when the concerns don't result in a criminal investigation. That's really going to encourage people to come forward to the police with vital information about potentially criminal activities.
Hillsborough was a tragedy where many people died and the inquest was a whitewash, the 'Troll Dossier' was a case of members of the public trying to police the free speech of other members of the public who were giving opinions on other members of the public. No comparison IMO.
The person/s who compiled the dossier should be done for wasting police time imo!
I'm not pretending anything. The McCanns engaged with the media and have pretty much been able to repeat their version of events unhindered. The media should be balanced, if McCanns can engage the media with their version of events, the media should be able to write critical pieces. Sorting out what percentage were downright lies would be another topic and a bit pointless. I said nothing about kid gloves, I'm talking about fairness and balance.I think that's utterly ridiculous for the reason I have given above.
I said up thread, I think the dossier compilers should be charged for wasting police time because they were acting as moral police on the subject of free speech.
That is you will have to take up with Sky news. Sky news give a statement saying that Martin Brunt was just doing his job, so it seems that is how they work.
How would Martin Brunt know that BL was ill? What 'research' could he have done beforehand?
On the other hand all those tweeters tweeting abusive threats to the McCann's, would know that he McCann's were vunerable, their child was missing how do you think they were feeling? Some of them were stalking the McCann's saying how they saw them and where they went, that is so creepy.
That's a good idea. Prosecute anyone who brings their concerns to the police when the concerns don't result in a criminal investigation. That's really going to encourage people to come forward to the police with vital information about potentially criminal activities.
And please stop wilfully misunderstanding my posts - I was talking about a principle, which can be applied to ALL cases, big and small of members of the general public taking concerns to the media in the absence of police interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/resources/aztopics/door-stepping.html
It didn't say doorstepping was illegal. Do the Sky management have a policy as does the BBC.
Then it is a decision of the editor before it is sent to air.
Would there be the same uproar if it hadn't been aired?
I'm not wilfully misunderstanding, members of the public being concerned about what other individuals said say online is really not in the same league as using the press to put pressure on the government for inquiries into tragic events. One is 'member of the public vs another member of the public'. One is - 'member of the public vs. large public body'. So I don't see how one principal covers them. It's your insistence only, that the two scenarios should be protected by some kind of principal.You ARE wilfully misunderstanding IMO - the dossier was not about one member of the public against another member of the public. It was a compilation of dozens (hundreds?) of tweets and other social media posts made by numerous different individuals brought to the attention to the police out of (presumably) concern for the safety of a high profile couple, incidentally whose home address has been widely circulated amongst the same online group.
And the prosecution idea is just my opinion with regards to people who get in a flap over 'nasty' things said on the internet. It should never be a police matter unless specific threats are made.
Did her family take any action against Sky?
Not necessarily legal action but did they express any grievance with Sky.
If I felt a family member had committed suicide because of the behaviour of a television channel, I would certainly make my opinion known.
But perhaps the family knew her better than any of us and perhaps because she had attempted suicide before, they were aware perhaps that it was much more complex than any of us would know.
Does behaviour have to be criminal before it is deemed wrong?
So if you read continuing threatening and nasty posts against a named person who were themselves unaware of these threats, you would deem these posts as unimportant just because the person being threatened was unaware of the threats.
Just because the rules of posting on social media are so futile does not make it acceptable to post hate!
The people who compiled the dossier did just that - compile a dossier. There's no law against it. There is no law against sending it to the media, it's up to the media if they act on it. No one held a gun to anyone's head as far as I'm aware, nor was Brenda specifically targeted but was one of dozens of anonymous tweeters, Brunt tracked down her identity himself. What exactly are you suggesting - that concerned members of the public, who are ignored by the police, should just put up with things, as the police have the final word on all matters? Tell that to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, to child sex grooming gangs, and thousands of other injustices that have been highlighted by the media, forcing the police to finally get their arses in gear and act.
But that’s the point. The police had not finished their investigation.What were the timings then? When was the dossier handed in? When was it handed to Sky? When did the police inform the dossier compilers that they won't taking any action?
I believe BL was in conversation with Martin Brunt on twitter. He was not to know she was mentally delicate, on the contrary she sounded by her tweets to be a very confident woman. Her tweets were among those others that were taken from the internet. Martin Brunt no doubt knew BL and where she lived. Its a journalists job to confront people, he was doing his job. It is very unfortunate that he chose BL to confront as unknown to him she was mentally ill. Martin Brunt said he was devastated by her death. BL didn't have to take Martin Brunt into her home, she didn't have to converse with him at all. When asked why she was sending her tweets she replied 'I have a right to' or similar words, she could have just left it at that. BL made it quite clear in the area where she lived her views on the McCann's.
How many members of the public have been doorstepped for tweeting by Sky News? I don't think it's typical of how Sky news work.
re. the dossier, the police found no crimes to prosecute, doesn't really matter if it seemed 'creepy' does it? If someone specifically threatens you, that is a crime which the police will prosecute.
When did Brunt start conversing with BL ? Was it after the dossier had been handed to him ?
I have no idea how many members of the public have been door stepped for tweeting. You don't understand do you, these people were stalking the McCann's, finding out where they went and what they did. It only takes one person to decide to carry out a threat that had been tweeted about on line.I think it was Richard Bacon who made a whole TV programme about confronting a specific troll who had relentlessly targeted him. That was above and beyond doorstepping if I recall. They had a meeting in which the troll was very contrite (I think, I may have made this last bit up, relying on memory). I suppose Bacon would have been vilified for naming and shaming had the troll then gone on to kill himself.
No I am certainly not saying that what Brenda did is on a par with Hillsborough, I am talking about a princple, the freedom to go to the press with your concerns when the police seem disinterested - it is then up to the media whether they do anything with the information. If you have a beef it seems to be with Sky, not the person or people who compiled the dossier, unless you think the act of sending information to the media about activities to the press whether technically illegal or not should be outlawed?
Did BL ever threaten the McCanns ?
Oh please. If you're going to pretend the media didn't print outright lies about the McCanns is there really any point in even continuing this discussion with you?
Once again your beef appears to be with the media (not the dossier compilers), who you seem to believe should treat everyone with kid gloves unless their targets have a high powered lawyer, political support, a bucket of cash and PR firm on hand. This would no doubt be welcomed by those cowboys and shysters who get doorstepped by programmes like Watchdog, certainly.
But that’s the point. The police had not finished their investigation.Did she leave a note saying why she did it?
And if BL had been charged ? Don’t you think vilifying her on rolling news would have jeopardised any resulting court case ?How was she vilified exactly? What nasty things did Martin Brunt say about her? You could of course use the same argument about the media who vilified the McCanns, to the power of 100. Which is worse - internet troll or child neglecter / body occulter?
Do you agree with Sonia Poulton’s doorstepping of Kate and if not, why not ?
Do you agree with Sonia Poulton’s doorstepping of Kate and if not, why not ?I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal and she is exercising her right as a journalist to do so. I presume you think it was a heinous thing to do?
What were the timings then? When was the dossier handed in? When was it handed to Sky? When did the police inform the dossier compilers that they won't taking any action?
No before.
I think it was Richard Bacon who made a whole TV programme about confronting a specific troll who had relentlessly targeted him. That was above and beyond doorstepping if I recall. They had a meeting in which the troll was very contrite (I think, I may have made this last bit up, relying on memory). I suppose Bacon would have been vilified for naming and shaming had the troll then gone on to kill himself.
BL belonged in a group who threatened and stalked the McCann's, they boasted there were thousands in their group.
BL was also one of the tweeters who drove a young girl from twitter, they said she was one of the nannies. BL tweeted 'I bet she's scared now we know her address' she also tweeted that the young woman was a prostitute, I won't say what other nasty accusations she made about her. Did BL care that this girl was probably scared that some of them would turn up at her address?
How was she vilified exactly? What nasty things did Martin Brunt say about her? You could of course use the same argument about the media who vilified the McCanns, to the power of 100. Which is worse - internet troll or child neglecter / body occulter?
I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal and she is exercising her right as a journalist to do so. I presume you think it was a heinous thing to do?
A Question.
If you were aware of intimidating posts, hate posts etc being made against a named family and this was continuing week after week.
What would you do?
And if you chose to do nothing, how would you feel if one of these posters did carry out their threats.
I know of a young girl who hanged herself because of continuing social media intimidation.
I have no idea how many members of the public have been door stepped for tweeting. You don't understand do you, these people were stalking the McCann's, finding out where they went and what they did. It only takes one person to decide to carry out a threat that had been tweeted about on line.
No offence but I think it's a really poor choice to use Hillsborough to illustrate this principle.
Hillsborough was a tragedy where many people died and the inquest was a whitewash, the 'Troll Dossier' was a case of members of the public trying to police the free speech of other members of the public who were giving opinions on other members of the public. No comparison IMO.
The person/s who compiled the dossier should be done for wasting police time imo!
That's the problem.
It would seem posting nasty and abusive posts is not a crime.
You ARE wilfully misunderstanding IMO - the dossier was not about one member of the public against another member of the public. It was a compilation of dozens (hundreds?) of tweets and other social media posts made by numerous different individuals brought to the attention to the police out of (presumably) concern for the safety of a high profile couple, incidentally whose home address has been widely circulated amongst the same online group.
What you seem to be saying is that taking your concerns to the police should be a criminal matter if the police don't view your concerns seriously. That is utterly absurd IMO.
The correct procedure is to report the user to the social media platform involved and to the police if necessary. Sky News and Brunt had no business doing what they did, it was a cowardly thing to do just to create a story. It is very noticeable that they don't approach hard criminals in the street but soft targets like pensioners.
You ARE wilfully misunderstanding IMO - the dossier was not about one member of the public against another member of the public. It was a compilation of dozens (hundreds?) of tweets and other social media posts made by numerous different individuals brought to the attention to the police out of (presumably) concern for the safety of a high profile couple, incidentally whose home address has been widely circulated amongst the same online group.
What you seem to be saying is that taking your concerns to the police should be a criminal matter if the police don't view your concerns seriously. That is utterly absurd IMO.
You don't seem to understand - The thread is about Brenda Leyland. Not the others that might have stalked the McCanns.
Funnily enough Brunt went after Brenda rather than these 'others' that we are told issued death threats and engaged in stalking behaviour worse than hers. Then the police found there were no threats or stalking to prosecute. Why do you think that was? probably because there were no credible threats.
Wishing someone would suffer or saying you hate someone is not the same as credible threats, after all Kate McCann has done the same on a public platform.
At the risk of fuelling one sceptics erroneous notion that I have knowledge of the dossier contents, I will add my thoughts..
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the social media platforms.
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the police.
The threats continue even to this day, and perhaps the people who compiled the dossier felt that if many of these posts were detailed and given to the police, some form of caution would be given.
As previously stated, I see no wrong in presenting evidence of concern to the media.
And as previously stated the presentation of this evidence is outwith the control of those who were involved in the compilation of the dossier.
Can anyone answer my question?
I genuinely don't know that if a member of the public is stopped by a TV crew and asked questions which cause unease, can that person ask or demand that the footage be not shown.
Neither is publishing a book referring to a policeman as a f....ing tosser three times.
What lies exactly? Is criticism lies? As was determined in the Supreme Court ruling in 2017, the McCanns, through Kate's book and voluntarily engagements with the press on various stories and interviews, were complicit in bringing criticism to themselves.
This really for me is about balance. The McCanns, suspects in a high profile crime, had a P.R. spokesman to engage and field the media, help from politicians etc. Opportunity to engage lawyers backed by a large 'fund'. What did Brenda Leyland have at hand when Brunt decided to make an example of her?
I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter, she give her real name away. Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.
Credible threats were made, they threatened to kidnap the twins, to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.
IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide. Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats. Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.
Leicestershire Police Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister said: "While finding that much of the material was extremely distasteful and unpleasant in nature, it was determined that none of the messages/postings constituted a prosecutable offence."
I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter, she give her real name away. Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.
Credible threats were made, they threatened to kidnap the twins, to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.
IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide. Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats. Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.
It should be made clear it's your opinion they were credible. The police issued a statement saying they didn't find anything unlawful. The 'threat' about the twins was relayed from McCann's friend of the family in the libel court. It was therefore his interpretation of the forum conversation that the threats were credible.#
The police go by the law which says that threats must be credible and have some degree of being likely to be carried out, people letting off steam and making bad taste jokes is not considered unlawful.
At the risk of fuelling one sceptics erroneous notion that I have knowledge of the dossier contents, I will add my thoughts..
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the social media platforms.
Perhaps individual threats etc had been reported to the police.
The threats continue even to this day, and perhaps the people who compiled the dossier felt that if many of these posts were detailed and given to the police, some form of caution would be given.
As previously stated, I see no wrong in presenting evidence of concern to the media.
And as previously stated the presentation of this evidence is outwith the control of those who were involved in the compilation of the dossier.
Can anyone answer my question?
I genuinely don't know that if a member of the public is stopped by a TV crew and asked questions which cause unease, can that person ask or demand that the footage be not shown.
Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!
We don't know what was given to Sky News and Martin Brunt. I suspect that BL's private address was also given to them thus why they were able to turn up on her doorstep unannounced.
I know it beggars belief doesn't it, aren't they changing the law though, I think I read something about the law regarding tweeting.
I believe she engaged in Twitter conversations with Martin Blunt or had at least made some approach to him on Twitter.
It would be very easy for him to find.
Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!
28 seconds in
"They are considering a whole file".
If you watch the beginning of that video you will see that Brenda answered NO three times when asked for an interview but Brunt pushed it. Despicable man.brunt ran away from the world media for weeks afterwoods too didnt he??
brunt ran away from the world media for weeks afterwoods too didnt he??
I think that's utterly ridiculous for the reason I have given above.
Also, if the McCanns can be criticised by the media, why can't an unmasked internet troll?
I believe Brunt went after Brenda because he had been conversing with her on twitter, she give her real name away. Brenda's tweets were among those others who had been stalking and threatening the McCann's.
Credible threats were made, they threatened to kidnap the twins, to kidnap the McCann's and beat the truth out of them among other threats.
IMO the police didn't procecute because BL committed suicide. Suddenly they deleted their tweets and stopped the threats. Now though things are starting to go back to how it was.
Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!
Again Lace I will ask. How do you know that Brunt started conversing with BL before Sky received the dossier ?
Somehow these threats are deemed to be acceptable in the name of free speech and because these threats are on social media and not voiced in the street.
Strange!
I thought it was just Portuguese law which people had trouble understanding. It seems some find English law equally mystifying.
Because the former by their own actions courted the media whereas BL didn't.So only people who “court the media” should be allowed to be criticised by the media? Again, what utter nonsense IMO.
They weren't credible threats. The people who compiled the dossier had the opinion that they might be, the police didn't agree. The law says a threat has to have a reasonable chance of being carried out to be prosecutable.
If you don't agree then your standard would also be applied to Kate McCann who said Amaral "deserves to be miserable and feel fear'" ..... its an opinion.
Before her encounter with Brunt, Leyland was a keen Sky News viewer. On 29 September, five days before she died, Leyland tweeted that Brunt had started following her on Twitter. This was the day she stopped tweeting and appears to also have been when the @Sweepyface account was deleted.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/10/enhanced/webdr04/longform-original-7415-1412605501-3.jpg?downsize=1200:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto
Exactly what is it all you angry Brenda supporters want? For people to not be allowed to contact the media with their concerns about online threats and abuse? For the media not to be allowed to report on individuals who have been unmasked as internet trolls or online abusers? What?
Personally I want reports of threats and abuse passed on to the police dealt with by the police. What is so bizarre about that ?I believe that is what happened in this case too, but you have failed to answer my question (no surprise there of course!)
I believe that is what happened in this case too, but you have failed to answer my question (no surprise there of course!)
Right for all of the supporters saying Brenda gave her name to Martin Brunt.
No she did not. That was give by the dossier gatherers. Here is my cite
A dossier compiled by a third party came into Martin Brunt's hands. He was not willing to say where the dossier had come from.
Martin Brunt was asked how did he make the connection between the dossier and @sweepyface as she was not named and there was no indication of a name and address.
One of his sources told him that she was Brenda Leyland and Leicester(shire/area?)
Brunt said he had done basic Internet searches and found two Brenda Leyland's in Leicester.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm
So Martin Brunt was given her name and her county. Hardly he found her all by himself. Even he has said that he only did basic internet searches to find. He was given her on a plate IMO.
Did Martin Brunt ever converse with Brenda on twitter. I have read her tweets and seen no replies from Brunty and a mention that he was following her.
So IMO unless someone can provide cites there is no evidence that Brenda had any idea that Martin Brunt was taking any interest in her apart from following her on twitter.
Right for all of the supporters saying Brenda gave her name to Martin Brunt.
No she did not. That was give by the dossier gatherers. Here is my cite
A dossier compiled by a third party came into Martin Brunt's hands. He was not willing to say where the dossier had come from.
Martin Brunt was asked how did he make the connection between the dossier and @sweepyface as she was not named and there was no indication of a name and address.
One of his sources told him that she was Brenda Leyland and Leicester(shire/area?)
Brunt said he had done basic Internet searches and found two Brenda Leyland's in Leicester.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm
So Martin Brunt was given her name and her county. Hardly he found her all by himself. Even he has said that he only did basic internet searches to find. He was given her on a plate IMO.
Did Martin Brunt ever converse with Brenda on twitter. I have read her tweets and seen no replies from Brunty and a mention that he was following her.
So IMO unless someone can provide cites there is no evidence that Brenda had any idea that Martin Brunt was taking any interest in her apart from following her on twitter.
If BL’s name was specifically given to Brunt by the compilers of the dossier then they are indeed complicit in her death.
This is what you asked ‘Exactly what is it all you angry Brenda supporters want? and I told you. How is that avoiding your question?I meant as a result of Brenda’s sad demise. What do you want to happen? A change in the law to prevent this happening again? If not, why not?
If BL’s name was specifically given to Brunt by the compilers of the dossier then they are indeed complicit in her death.Isn’t being complicit in someone ‘s death a criminal matter?
Isn’t being complicit in someone ‘s death a criminal matter?
I meant as a result of Brenda’s sad demise. What do you want to happen? A change in the law to prevent this happening again? If not, why not?
You don't seem to care that I have shown the dossier was given with names and at least part addresses to Martin Brunt and I believe the Daily Mail too.
So it wasn't just a random list of tweets with usernames was it. It was a full dossier with the information on all of those who had posted anything that the dossier gathers though interesting.
Martin Brunt was given the ENTIRE story by an unnamed group of McCann supporters. The question is why chose an elderly lady from Burton Overy who had made no threats to the McCanns. Who suggested Brenda to Martin Brunt. Was it the dossier gatherers?
You don't seem to care that I have shown the dossier was given with names and at least part addresses to Martin Brunt and I believe the Daily Mail too.I have no idea, nor any idea why you replied as you did to the question I asked.
So it wasn't just a random list of tweets with usernames was it. It was a full dossier with the information on all of those who had posted anything that the dossier gathers though interesting.
Martin Brunt was given the ENTIRE story by an unnamed group of McCann supporters. The question is why chose an elderly lady from Burton Overy who had made no threats to the McCanns. Who suggested Brenda to Martin Brunt. Was it the dossier gatherers?
What change in the law would you suggest ? That old busybodies be forced to go to lunch clubs and knitting bees to stop them taking the law into their own hands ?Do you have a pathological hatred of old people by any chance? You do seem to enjoy trotting out the stereotypes. I take it from your response then that you are satisfied with the laws as they stand and that should allow any concerned members of the public to compile dossiers on any activity they consider worth further investigation and pass it on to the police and/or media.
And you can guarantee that the threats made this week are not credible?
I believe she had been estranged from her own son for quite some time.
This must have caused her huge heartache.
She had attempted suicide before.
She seemed a sad lady who filled her time in obsessive tweeting and posting about the family of a missing child.
I've googled her name and many of her tweets appeared, one in particular about how she hates the McCanns.
Such a pity that she couldn't find a more worthwhile cause.
All very sad.
Do you have a pathological hatred of old people by any chance? You do seem to enjoy trotting out the stereotypes. I take it from your response then that you are satisfied with the laws as they stand and that should allow any concerned members of the public to compile dossiers on any activity they consider worth further investigation and pass it on to the police and/or media.
Right for all of the supporters saying Brenda gave her name to Martin Brunt.
No she did not. That was give by the dossier gatherers. Here is my cite
A dossier compiled by a third party came into Martin Brunt's hands. He was not willing to say where the dossier had come from.
Martin Brunt was asked how did he make the connection between the dossier and @sweepyface as she was not named and there was no indication of a name and address.
One of his sources told him that she was Brenda Leyland and Leicester(shire/area?)
Brunt said he had done basic Internet searches and found two Brenda Leyland's in Leicester.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm
So Martin Brunt was given her name and her county. Hardly he found her all by himself. Even he has said that he only did basic internet searches to find. He was given her on a plate IMO.
Did Martin Brunt ever converse with Brenda on twitter. I have read her tweets and seen no replies from Brunty and a mention that he was following her.
So IMO unless someone can provide cites there is no evidence that Brenda had any idea that Martin Brunt was taking any interest in her apart from following her on twitter.
I believe she had been estranged from her own son for quite some time.
This must have caused her huge heartache.
She had attempted suicide before.
She seemed a sad lady who filled her time in obsessive tweeting and posting about the family of a missing child.
I've googled her name and many of her tweets appeared, one in particular about how she hates the McCanns.
Such a pity that she couldn't find a more worthwhile cause.
All very sad.
The only way the McCanns would have known about her tweets directed at them would be if they went searching for them or were told. She was harmless really and didn't deserve what happened to her. She was to be pitied more than anything imo
I believe, as I have consistently said, that any information passed on to the police should be dealt with by the police and until a decision on their part is made there should be no part played by the media. If BL had been found to have performed an unlawful act then I would have had no issue with the involvement of the media but that wasn’t allowed to happen. The reason why we can only guessed at.So therefore do you believe the law needs to be changed, and if you belive the dossier makers are complicit in Brenda’s death are you not concerned that they have not been prosecuted for a criminal act themselves?
Have you considered Brunt's source for Brenda's details may have been Sonia Poulton, another Sky employee?
Harmless but more importantly, in the eyes of the law, innocent of any wrongdoing.But Brenda did set out to harm, to harm the reputation of at least three people using tweets to do so.
So therefore do you believe the law needs to be changed, and if you belive the dossier makers are complicit in Brenda’s death are you not concerned that they have not been prosecuted for a criminal act themselves?
I believe SP is freelance and why in heaven’s name would she pass on BL’s details to Brunt ? Was she even aware of NL at the time ?
Your faux sympathy does you no credit.
No the law doesn’t need to be changed. Certain individuals simply need to grow a conscience.So you think being concerned by the unrelenting hateful campaign against the McCanns and sending a dossier about it to the media indicates a lack of conscience do you?
Did I say criminally complicit ?
But Brenda did set out to harm, to harm the reputation of at least three people using tweets to do so.
So you think being concerned by the unrelenting hateful campaign against the McCanns and sending a dossier about it to the media indicates a lack of conscience do you?
Catch yourself on.What does “catch yourself on” mean? And what is the relevance of this article to my post? The blog even agrees that she was involved in a lot of mud slinging and could have found herself up to her neck in legal issues - what would they be then? I am correct when I say Brenda set out to cause further harm to reputations, not least of whom was Amy Tierney’s a perfectly innocent young woman. Do you approve of individuals being defamed in such a manner?
https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/womens-issues/brenda-leyland-wasnt-troll-didnt-deserve-die-544755.html
I think the dossier compilers suffered from a lack of judgement fuelled by self-importance. I think Martin Brunt showed a lack of conscience....for heaven’s sake the woman told him she had thought of suicide over the doorstepping and yet he still ran the VT.Martin Brunt clearly had a conscience as he professed to be devastated by her death. I’m sure he regrets his actions, but I am glad we have established that no laws were broken, no laws need to be changed and that the dossier compilers are not complicit in Brenda’s death ( I don’t think you can be complicit in another’s death and it not be a criminal matter tbh).
What does “catch yourself on” mean? And what is the relevance of this article to my post? The blog even agrees that she was involved in a lot of mud slinging and could have found herself up to her neck in legal issues - what would they be then? I am correct when I say Brenda set out to cause further harm to reputations, not least of whom was Amy Tierney’s a perfectly innocent young woman. Do you approve of individuals being defamed in such a manner?
As I have told you before a young physiotherapist with my name was threatened with having their employer contacted by a supporter. Do you approve of that kind of behaviour?If you are going to reply to my posts at least have the good manners to reply to my questions before posimg you own. You answer, you ask, I answer, easy.
Martin Brunt clearly had a conscience as he professed to be devastated by her death. I’m sure he regrets his actions, but I am glad we have established that no laws were broken, no laws need to be changed and that the dossier compilers are not complicit in Brenda’s death ( I don’t think you can be complicit in another’s death and it not be a criminal matter tbh).
I have no idea, nor any idea why you replied as you did to the question I asked.
Apologies Vertigo Swirl, I had a post all ready to go then I had to go out. Sorry for replying in a different way I was just intrigued to get your answer to my new post.The executioner flicks the switch, but he doesn't break the law.
As regards your question can you be complicit in someones death without breaking the law. I have no idea but I imagine that there is case law somewhere about it.
The executioner flicks the switch, but he doesn't break the law.Oookay, the exception that proves the rule... 8((()*/
The executioner flicks the switch, but he doesn't break the law.
Apologies Vertigo Swirl, I had a post all ready to go then I had to go out. Sorry for replying in a different way I was just intrigued to get your answer to my new post.
As regards your question can you be complicit in someones death without breaking the law. I have no idea but I imagine that there is case law somewhere about it.
One can be morally complicit with others in an endeavor which ultimately results in a death. IMO the dossier compilers were complicit with Martin Brunt and he with them in what occurred. By attempting to gain the moral high ground they ultimately lost it because of what occurred. Unfortunately, two wrongs do not make a right!
Calling them that affords them a sense a credibilty and importance which traits they no doubt crave.
I would have thought there were more accurate descriptions.
"Dossier Compilers! ?; makes 'em sound like something from SOE or SIS..... @)(++(*
Deranged Tpots more like.
It's something they will have to carry with them to the grave.
And the disapprobation of every right thinking member of their families.
One of the dossier gatherers has already fallen out with his family as I remember, but under different circumstances IMO.
It's something they will have to carry with them to the grave.
I don''t think it will worry them having read some of the opinions on this thread.
If you are going to reply to my posts at least have the good manners to reply to my questions before posimg you own. You answer, you ask, I answer, easy.
If Amy Tierney was defamed then it is up to her to seek a resolution.
It is interesting though that while condemning the actions of Brenda you have yet to condemn the actions of your fellow supporter.
If Amy Tierney was defamed then it is up to her to seek a resolution.I asked you if you approved of Brenda’s posts in which she defamed an individual, interesting that your support for Brenda is such that you can’t bring yourself to answer the question. As for your other point I brlieve I did already condemn those vile tweets but there was no evidence that they were made by a McCann supporter, no previous posts made on the subject, just an out and out troll. And even if they WERE a regular McCann supporter posting under a new account created solely for that purpose then I would still condemn them absolutely.
It is interesting though that while condemning the actions of Brenda you have yet to condemn the actions of your fellow supporter.
I asked you if you approved of Brenda’s posts in which she defamed an individual, interesting that your support for Brenda is such that you can’t bring yourself to answer the question. As for your other point I brlieve I did already condemn those vile tweets but there was no evidence that they were made by a McCann supporter, no previous posts made on the subject, just an out and out troll. And even if they WERE a regular McCann supporter posting under a new account created solely for that purpose then I would still condemn them absolutely.
One can be morally complicit with others in an endeavor which ultimately results in a death. IMO the dossier compilers were complicit with Martin Brunt and he with them in what occurred. By attempting to gain the moral high and do the rebuking, they ultimately became the ones rebuked. Unfortunately, two wrongs do not make a right!
Best to leave these things to the police.
Sorry John I disagree, the dossier compiler/s did what they thought was right, they were worried about consequences, Martin Brunt then [knowing who BL was as she had put her name on the internet] confronted her about the tweets she and the group she was in were posting on the internet. Now I am sorry but journalists confront people in this way all the time, they don't go out and take their life over it. Are you saying that citizens shouldn't gather information together if they think something bad was going to happen? What about the boy who tweeted he was going to kill? His fellow pupils ignored it thinking he was just a weirdo, he went on to kill how do you think those children feel? Do you think they are thinking 'if only'. BL decided to take her own life, she had attempted it before, no one is to blame IMO
If they thought it was right why was it all done anonymously then.
Why did they not contact the police - if they honestly thought something bad was going to happen
I asked you if you approved of Brenda’s posts in which she defamed an individual, interesting that your support for Brenda is such that you can’t bring yourself to answer the question. As for your other point I brlieve I did already condemn those vile tweets but there was no evidence that they were made by a McCann supporter, no previous posts made on the subject, just an out and out troll. And even if they WERE a regular McCann supporter posting under a new account created solely for that purpose then I would still condemn them absolutely.
I doubt if they were anonymous to the police.
I doubt if they were anonymous to the police.
Are you asking did they hand the dossier to the police first?
So did they hand it to the police first.
Are you asking did they hand the dossier to the police first?
Yes
They did Kizzy but imo when the police failed to hand out quickly enough the retribution the compilers so obviously craved they handed it to Sky news.
No one knows the pressures suffered by an individual which leads them to despair of their lives and give up by ending it all.
We know from the evidence presented at her inquest that Brenda Leyland had previously attempted suicide; we know that on this occasion her attempt was successful; what we cannot know is what exactly was going through her mind when she went out and purchased the means of ending her life.
As an aside ... she had 'friends' on twitter. Did any perhaps contact her either with support when she was 'outed' or condemnation for not making a better case?
Or was this fragile and perhaps desperately lonely woman ignored.
Martin Brunt (who did not know her medical history) did speak with her and she spoke with her son (who did know her medical history) who thought she was devastated by being headline news ... but neither man ~ or the neighbour with whom she made arrangements for the care of her cat ~ had an inkling of the action she would take later.
Did Brenda Leyland have the right to due process?
I sincerely think she did.
Why didn't she take it?
Wasn't her son a lawyer who could have advised her of the best course of action to take in the circumstances?
Something which has been conspicuously absent from this whole internet fest is any comment from Brenda Leyland's family.
There has been no public statement of outrage or any attempt to take legal action against anyone associated with either compiling the hate dossier or anyone revealing her role in the now more than eleven year continual internet onslaught directed at the McCann family.
I think respect for Brenda Leyland's family is sadly lacking by those turning an incredibly sad and troubled woman into an icon for the hatred that burns in their hearts which refuses to allow her to rest in the peace she didn't have in her life.
All the more reason he should not have done what he did. Hopefully a lesson learned but unfortunately a hard one for some.
All the supporters here who have been accused of taking part in the dossier seem appalled at the suggestion even though they are also anonymous here and would not be exposed by admitting it. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the actions taken is it ?
I'm not appalled at the suggestion.
They stay anonymous so that crazy abuse threatening morons don't take revenge.
Does behaviour have to be criminal before it is deemed wrong?
I think we have all learned a valuable lesson from the incident and the repercussions which followed and that is not to interfere in what is really an issue which must be decided by the police and ultimately the CPS or its devolved equivalents. I'm sure we can all agree that trial by media is totally unacceptable?
Judging by the comments on this thread no-one has learned anything from what happened imo. I get the impression that if people feel the police and the law don't deal with what IN THEIR OPINION is criminal behaviour then it's OK to use other methods to deal with these 'criminals'.
That includes informing the media and then letting them do as they think fit; after all, it wasn't the fault of the 'concerned citizens' if the media chose to doorstep one of these 'criminals' and broadcast the results, was it.
When tragic consequences follow, it's no-one's fault either because none of them knew they were pursuing a vulnerable person, did they?
Talk about passing the buck!
But were quite happy to behave as 'crazy abuse threatening morons' in the first place.
Perhaps they should have thought about potential consequences before unleashing their ire on others
Best if it is.
So what are you proposing as an alternative?.
I don't think you would actually like the alternative unless you were on the dispensing end.
But in those circumstances "might is right" and your "might" may not hold sway.
You do sound like an adolescent in a 1950s/1960s dance hall.
If someone has an elderly parent whom they only visit or contact once or twice a year, then in my opinion that is wrong but not criminal.
If someone skips their place in a queue by barging in front, then in my opinion that is wrong but not criminal.
If a partner cheats on their wife or husband then in my opinion that is wrong but not criminal
If someone posts hate on social media then in my opinion that is wrong and should be a crime.
I do wonder why you feel the need to add sneering personal remarks to other posters.
Sorry John I disagree, the dossier compiler/s did what they thought was right, they were worried about consequences, Martin Brunt then [knowing who BL was as she had put her name on the internet] confronted her about the tweets she and the group she was in were posting on the internet. Now I am sorry but journalists confront people in this way all the time, they don't go out and take their life over it. Are you saying that citizens shouldn't gather information together if they think something bad was going to happen? What about the boy who tweeted he was going to kill? His fellow pupils ignored it thinking he was just a weirdo, he went on to kill how do you think those children feel? Do you think they are thinking 'if only'. BL decided to take her own life, she had attempted it before, no one is to blame IMO
Trial by media is what started it all John. People decided the McCann's were guilty and took it upon themselves to try them on media like a pack of crazy mediaeval witches. Not satisfied with posts proclaiming the McCann's were guilty they formed groups where they met to stir up hatred for the family, then the threats about what should happen to them to get to the 'truth' as they called it.
Still it goes on to this day.
The Mccanns were official asuspects in a case and who admitted leaving young children alone night after night... no wonder people have negative opinions and express them.
then you have Brenda Leyland, like many others expressing this opinion but she is doorstepped and singled out on national TV without any warning. Why anyone could condone this or think it fair treatment I can't understand.
Even the McCanns had time to pick who they spoke to in the media/ interviews, on the night of the abduction, they got consular support, Embassy support and days after flew out family members, police and secured lawyers / P.R to represent them.
Yes people's opinions are still expressed today, that is not the same as 'threats'. Maybe a cite should be required for claims of 'threats', as the police found no credible threats in an 80 page document. Even the police could only describe it as 'unpleasant'. Why did the concerned dossier compilers have to collate so much discussion from fora and online when none of it turned out legally to be threats? IMO it was an attempted intimidation exercise in order to curtail free discussion on an issue they didn't want people to discuss. Brenda was the scapegoat in this exercise.
The Mccanns were official asuspects in a case and who admitted leaving young children alone night after night... no wonder people have negative opinions and express them.
then you have Brenda Leyland, like many others expressing this opinion but she is doorstepped and singled out on national TV without any warning. Why anyone could condone this or think it fair treatment I can't understand.
Even the McCanns had time to pick who they spoke to in the media/ interviews, on the night of the abduction, they got consular support, Embassy support and days after flew out family members, police and secured lawyers / P.R to represent them.
Yes people's opinions are still expressed today, that is not the same as 'threats'. Maybe a cite should be required for claims of 'threats', as the police found no credible threats in an 80 page document. Even the police could only describe it as 'unpleasant'. Why did the concerned dossier compilers have to collate so much discussion from fora and online when none of it turned out legally to be threats? IMO it was an attempted intimidation exercise in order to curtail free discussion on an issue they didn't want people to discuss. Brenda was the scapegoat in this exercise.
No one knows the pressures suffered by an individual which leads them to despair of their lives and give up by ending it all.
We know from the evidence presented at her inquest that Brenda Leyland had previously attempted suicide; we know that on this occasion her attempt was successful; what we cannot know is what exactly was going through her mind when she went out and purchased the means of ending her life.
As an aside ... she had 'friends' on twitter. Did any perhaps contact her either with support when she was 'outed' or condemnation for not making a better case?
Or was this fragile and perhaps desperately lonely woman ignored.
Martin Brunt (who did not know her medical history) did speak with her and she spoke with her son (who did know her medical history) who thought she was devastated by being headline news ... but neither man ~ or the neighbour with whom she made arrangements for the care of her cat ~ had an inkling of the action she would take later.
Did Brenda Leyland have the right to due process?
I sincerely think she did.
Why didn't she take it?
Wasn't her son a lawyer who could have advised her of the best course of action to take in the circumstances?
Something which has been conspicuously absent from this whole internet fest is any comment from Brenda Leyland's family.
There has been no public statement of outrage or any attempt to take legal action against anyone associated with either compiling the hate dossier or anyone revealing her role in the now more than eleven year continual internet onslaught directed at the McCann family.
I think respect for Brenda Leyland's family is sadly lacking by those turning an incredibly sad and troubled woman into an icon for the hatred that burns in their hearts which refuses to allow her to rest in the peace she didn't have in her life.
He was doing his job, John, in the time honoured way rolling news is covered.
There are those who would perhaps revel in the notoriety (apparently you were no-one unless you were named in the dossier).
If individuals devote their lives to joining a very active hate campaign against named individuals without realising how easy it is to be 'outed' there should be some means of warning them that this is not the case.
I have no doubt Brenda Leland's easy exposure made a few think twice about their internet use ... particularly those who have chosen to 'anonymously' pursue a different abuse target from the McCann family.
Some of whom have committed suicide as a result of suffering such abuse.
The legislation is already in existence to combat internet misuse ... it just isn't being used.
I find the notion that Brenda was an 'incredibly sad troubled woman' a bit patronising really. Many people suffer from depression. It doesn't mean Brunt, Sky or the compilers of the no substance dossier are resolved of responsibility for what they set into motion.
Her son said she once attempted suicide 'a long time ago', yes he was a lawyer and he had spoken to her about trying to get the media not to publish her photo in the paper after she phoned him in a panic. A bit of a tall order after being plastered live all over sky news the day before!
Saying people want to use her and make her an icon of their 'hatred' is absurd to me, I for one am appalled that she was unjustly hounded in this way for expressing her views in a country where we supposedly have freedom of speech.
He was doing his job, John, in the time honoured way rolling news is covered.
There are those who would perhaps revel in the notoriety (apparently you were no-one unless you were named in the dossier).
If individuals devote their lives to joining a very active hate campaign against named individuals without realising how easy it is to be 'outed' there should be some means of warning them that this is not the case.
I have no doubt Brenda Leland's easy exposure made a few think twice about their internet use ... particularly those who have chosen to 'anonymously' pursue a different abuse target from the McCann family.
Some of whom have committed suicide as a result of suffering such abuse.
The legislation is already in existence to combat internet misuse ... it just isn't being used.
I wasn’t talking about Raine, I believe, but the supporter who threatened to contact a wholly innocent young woman’s employer simply because she had the same name as me.Anyone who contacts someone’s place of work out of spite is to be comdemned utterly, and as I’m sure you are already aware this has also happened to McCann supporters. Don’t ask for cites as I’m not prepared to drag up anciemt history and would have to name names. I’m sure you know I’m right however. It’s all incredibly childish behaviour IMO.
As to Brenda, I believe it was tit for tat with none of those taking part in the twitter dialogue being covered in glory.
IMO if Brenda had been contrite & apologised (on camera at the time) for any hurt her words may have caused to the McCanns or other individuals then it is probable she would not have been the subject of rolling footage. Her defiant attitude in appearing to not accept she had done anything wrong was her undoing imo & why she was made an example of. Had she been charged, the exchange with Brunt would have been used as further evidence against her.
Who really would like to be on the receiving end of you regularly dispensed withering contempt andd occasional obscenity?
See my post.
Your post is living proof you like to dispense not to receive.
QED
But our freedom of speech is constrained in many ways which I hope you believe is correct.
We cannot venture out into public and voice hatred towards any person because of their ethinticity, religion, sexual preference. etc.
None of this is allowed either on social media.
She could certainly express her views on whether she believed that Madeleine was abducted but why did she express hatred.
Why hate?
The Mccanns were official asuspects in a case and who admitted leaving young children alone night after night... no wonder people have negative opinions and express them.I don’t believe Martin Brunt conducted a live broadcast from outside Brenda’s house -that would have been very risky.
then you have Brenda Leyland, like many others expressing this opinion but she is doorstepped and singled out LIVE on national TV without any warning. Why anyone could condone this or think it fair treatment I can't understand.
Even the McCanns had time to pick who they spoke to in the media/ interviews, on the night of the abduction, they got consular support, Embassy support and days after flew out family members, police and secured lawyers / P.R to represent them.
Yes people's opinions are still expressed today, that is not the same as 'threats'. Maybe a cite should be required for claims of 'threats', as the police found no credible threats in an 80 page document. Even the police could only describe it as 'unpleasant'. Why did the concerned dossier compilers have to collate so much discussion from fora and online when none of it turned out legally to be threats? IMO it was an attempted intimidation exercise in order to curtail free discussion on an issue they didn't want people to discuss. Brenda was the scapegoat in this exercise.
Who really would like to be on the receiving end of you regularly dispensed withering contempt andd occasional obscenity?
Who would really care?Well I doubt you would let it stand if you were on the receiving end would you? It would be deleted in seconds and penalty points issued in a jiffy, ergo you would really care, obviously.
We can be quite strong in our condemnation of others behaviour without crossing the bounds of legality.
It all comes down to whether you are commenting on a person or their actions.
Hate is a very strong comment to use to the parents of a missing child.
Even if in the context of their baby sitting arrangements.
I assume that would be what Brenda was condemning.
I still don't understand the hatred.
IMO if Brenda had been contrite & apologised (on camera at the time) for any hurt her words may have caused to the McCanns or other individuals then it is probable she would not have been the subject of rolling footage. Her defiant attitude in appearing to not accept she had done anything wrong was her undoing imo & why she was made an example of. Had she been charged, the exchange with Brunt would have been used as further evidence against her.
Anyone who contacts someone’s place of work out of spite is to be comdemned utterly, and as I’m sure you are already aware this has also happened to McCann supporters. Don’t ask for cites as I’m not prepared to drag up anciemt history and would have to name names. I’m sure you know I’m right however. It’s all incredibly childish behaviour IMO.
IMO if Brenda had been contrite & apologised (on camera at the time) for any hurt her words may have caused to the McCanns or other individuals then it is probable she would not have been the subject of rolling footage. Her defiant attitude in appearing to not accept she had done anything wrong was her undoing imo & why she was made an example of. Had she been charged, the exchange with Brunt would have been used as further evidence against her.
Can you cite this hate?
I must say I agree totally with you Alf, it is extremely childish.
As an aside ... she had 'friends' on twitter. Did any perhaps contact her either with support when she was 'outed' or condemnation for not making a better case?
Or was this fragile and perhaps desperately lonely woman ignored.
I don’t think anyone would disagree.Brenda’s mistake was getting swept along on a twitter tidal wave of childish spite, where she seemed rather gleeful at the prospect of someone’s employer being contacted. What turns perfectly nice respectable people into such nasty online personas?
Brenda’s mistake was getting swept along on a twitter tidal wave of childish spite, where she seemed rather gleeful at the prospect of someone’s employer being contacted. What turns perfectly nice respectable people into such nasty online personas?
I read Buzzfeed the deleted tweets of .........then her user name.
I "hate" cruelty, liars,those who profit from an others tragedy, ergo my "hate for Kate and "Gerry" is justified.
So do you believe the person that threatened to contact Gartnavel Hospital and attempt to ruin a young girl’s career should have been doorstepped too ?No, I think they should have been put in stocks and had rotten fruit thrown at them. That’d learn ‘em!!
No, I think they should have been put in stocks and had rotten fruit thrown at them. That’d learn ‘em!!
But the most Brenda seems to have done proactively is laugh at another tweeters outing and she was doorstepped. Surely actually outing, wrongly, a young professional and perhaps ruining her career deserves at least the same treatment?If you say so.
Did you notice the quotation marks?
If you say so.
“To Kate and Gerry, you will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!” - Brenda Leyland.
You really don’t want to answer do you ? I can understand why.If a reporter wants to doorstep some spiteful bitch to ask her why she tried to get someone the sack for supporting the McCanns then I really don’t have a problem with it. Is that frank and fulsome enough for you?
Did they read it ? Did that poor physiotherapist from Gartnavel do anything to deserve having her employers contacted by some deranged supporter?Deflection, deflection, deflection. Slarti asked for examples of Brenda’s hate as if it was all a figment of the imagination. The post outlines very well the depth of her hatred, it’s an utterly horrible tweet, any decent person would say so. Harping on about other hateful actions by other hateful people cannot detract from that fact.
Yes.
The article was quite supportive of Brenda.
Do you not find her obsessive tweeting and "hatred" of the McCanns strange, not criminal perhaps but worrying.if it was directed at one of your family?
If a reporter wants to doorstep some spiteful bitch to ask her why she tried to get someone the sack for supporting the McCanns then I really don’t have a problem with it. Is that frank and fulsome enough for you?
Did her "friends" on twitter know who she was (what her name was and where she lived) and I remember reading that she didn't read her twitter from the day Martin Brunt visited her so how would they get in touch with her?
Could you let me know how they could have done so please Brietta.
I have found a post on here where supporters discussing finding Brenda on twitter
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6144.195
Look at their mature sensible language..not. How nasty they were to her.
Some of the tweets from the link.
> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Are you alright in your bonce Sweepy? I have never used AB Mash nor would I ever. Sad life stalking the wrong person
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
is that her name? PM me how you know this will you Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
the name rings a bell with me but for why I just am trying hard to recall
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3
@sweepyface <<< you are right. I see her fb page! Same boxer dog & she's more of a dog herself!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
ugh! She is one ugly Mama
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
here she is on some fb page:https://t.co/IZAREOVYBR #McCann. Take a look at the boxer!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
yes that Brenda is sweepyface & lives too close to the #McCann s for my comfort tbh.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
rough looking isn't she?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
It is her Jasmine so look at other tweets.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @Josephodriscoll
I should have said she wruff! She only has doggies for companions & cruelly dresses them up like reindeer
Did her "friends" on twitter know who she was (what her name was and where she lived) and I remember reading that she didn't read her twitter from the day Martin Brunt visited her so how would they get in touch with her?
Could you let me know how they could have done so please Brietta.
For not supporting the McCanns.For ANY REASON.
The top sceptic troll on twitter posted a message of condolence on Brenda's son's Facebook page just a few hours (the Sunday) after he announced her passing, He lives in USA, as does the troll. Is that proof enough some sceptics knew exactly who Brenda was?
The moral of the story is - if you would feel ashamed of having your nasty, spiteful vindictive tweets splashed across the front pages of the Daily Mail or broadcast on Sky, probably best not to make them in the first place. If you are not to justify your actions or unable to take pride in the fact that you tried to get someone the sack for supporting the McCanns, don’t do it in the first place.
I can understand it, it's how social media like Twitter operates. Many users on twitter are anonymous and that adds to the attraction for some people. Any twitter user can block accounts which are abusive and that's what makes it workable.
Would you apply that same advise to the dossier Compiler in Chief ?What spiteful vindictive tweets did they make? Whose employer did they contact? Was their name splashed all over the media? I bet you wish it had been.
For ANY REASON.
What spiteful vindictive tweets did they make? Whose employer did they contact? Was their name splashed all over the media? I bet you wish it had been.
It was me she was targeting. The poor girl was just unfortunate to have the same name as me.Out of interest how do you know this?
Out of interest how do you know this?
Because the supporter tweeted the details of, she thought, my job and workplace.But how do you know they contacted “the poor girl”’s employer?
“To Kate and Gerry, you will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!” - Brenda Leyland.
I find hate an overrated emotion that gnaws away at ones inner self.Sadly it’s too late to suggest it to Brenda, perhaps if she had taken your advice before joining twitter she’d still be alive today.
I suggest anger management classes for those so afflicted.
I’m sure you don’t have a problem with it, I posted it as an example of Brenda’s hatred, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you agreed with it.
well i dont have a problem with that
If that is what B L thought of the mcns so be it - it was her prerogative to do so imo
Because the supporter tweeted the details of, she thought, my job and workplace.
I don't know who the top sceptic troll is and no I didn't know he/she had left a message on Brenda's son's page. I have never seen it. So do we know if she knew Brenda? That I know nothing about and if she knew Brenda then she should have got in touch with her.
As a matter on interest how do you know Erngath?
I believe some obsessives have visited the hospital where Gerry McCann works, have visited the farm where Madeleine used to go with her mother, have shadowed him at the Houses of Parliament, have photographed Magpreleines siblings and put those photos on the internet.Didn’t someone recently tweet the McCanns whereabouts in a restaurant?
None of this, nor what happened to you is acceptable.
"On Twitter she uses the name Sweepy face ..." Martin Brunt ~ from the Sky News report.
Some obsessive even visit PDL and take lots of photos and measurements around 5ASounds like something to do one day.
Sounds like something to do one day.
I’m sure you don’t have a problem with it, I posted it as an example of Brenda’s hatred, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you agreed with it.
A few points Lace regarding your post.
1)the dossier compiler/s did what they thought was right - How would you know if you were not at least aware of the dossier prior to it going to Sky etc.
2) Martin Brunt then [knowing who BL was as she had put her name on the internet] - NO her name was not "all on the internet" in connection with sweepyface. It took a few other supporters to find out who she is and I have read the thread on how they found her. Martin Brunt was given her full name and that she lived in Leicester(shire)
3) Now I am sorry but journalists confront people in this way all the time, they don't go out and take their life over it. - They may confont people all the time but generally not right outside their house and give it a full rolling news every 30 minutes or so, plus the other media screaming TROLL at Brenda Leyland.
4) What about the boy who tweeted he was going to kill? His fellow pupils ignored it thinking he was just a weirdo, he went on to kill how do you think those children feel? - So you think going to the media would save a person's life or wouldn't it be better to go straight to the police and bypass the outing of the person who made the tweets until after they were arrested.
5) BL decided to take her own life, she had attempted it before, no one is to blame IMO - you would say that wouldn't you.
Top sceptic troll makes it her business to know people's real-life identities & yes, Top Troll knew Brenda.
Why are you so interested about who I am or where I may know people from?
I believe some obsessives have visited the hospital where Gerry McCann works, have visited the farm where Madeleine used to go with her mother, have shadowed him at the Houses of Parliament, have photographed Magpreleines siblings and put those photos on the internet.
None of this, nor what happened to you is acceptable.
I will answer you using the number for each question.
1. I know as I watched the video of the person who handed the dossier in, she said she couldn't live with herself if she hadn't of acted. Didn't you see the video?
2. BL was tweeting Sky news she wanted them to investigate her ideas of what happened to Madeleine, did she use Sweepyface when she tweeted Sky news?
3. It was up to Sky news whether they used the footage Martin Brunt took.
4. I believe the dossier was taken to the Police.
5. No one is to blame are the words of the coroner in summing up the death of BL.
snipped - Brunt spoke to Brenda on the Wednesday night and explained what they would be doing. When asked by the coroner he said he hadn't detected anything in her voice at all. In the conversation she had said " Oh, I have thought about ending it all. But I am feeling better, I have spoken to my son in LA." There was a 10 minute conversation. Brunt said they wouldn't name her or identify the village. Martin Brunt had no serious concern about her (from her voice). She said it was a pleasure to meet you.
I didn't ask you Misty I asked Erngath and that was only because I hadn't heard of it before. I don't even know who this top troll is. I don't care who you or erngath is to be fair.
Some obsessive even visit PDL and take lots of photos and measurements around 5A
But how do you know they contacted “the poor girl”’s employer?
Please note that I accepted Faithlillys post as being true.
Didn't ask for a cite.
No reason to disbelieve her.
B L was allowed her opinion of the mcns...if she hated them that is not a crime.
As for me agreeing with it - the mcns are absolutely nothing to me.
LOL i wouldn't even waste my hate on them.
B L was allowed her opinion of the mcns...if she hated them that is not a crime.Did I say she wasn’t allowed an opinon? No. Did I say her hate was a crime? No. The McCanns are clearly beneath your contempt, thanks for clarifying.
As for me agreeing with it - the mcns are absolutely nothing to me.
LOL i wouldn't even waste my hate on them.
Did I say she wasn’t allowed an opinon? No. Did I say her hate was a crime? No. The McCanns are clearly beneath your contempt, thanks for clarifying.Something seen clearly shouldn't need clarifying.
Please note that I accepted Faithlillys post as being true.
Didn't ask for a cite.
No reason to disbelieve her.
I will answer you using the number for each question.
1. I know as I watched the video of the person who handed the dossier in, she said she couldn't live with herself if she hadn't of acted. Didn't you see the video? - OK yes I see what you mean Lace
2. BL was tweeting Sky news she wanted them to investigate her ideas of what happened to Madeleine, did she use Sweepyface when she tweeted Sky news? - She didn't tweet using her name Brenda Leyland. Martin Brunt was given that by someone else.
3. It was up to Sky news whether they used the footage Martin Brunt took. - True.
4. I believe the dossier was taken to the Police. - That doesn't answer my question regarding your quote about the boy tweeting about killing people at all. Any sensible person would not take it to the media they would simply take it to the police and quickly at that.
5. No one is to blame are the words of the coroner in summing up the death of BL. - That is a matter of opinion IMO.
snipped - Brunt spoke to Brenda on the Wednesday night and explained what they would be doing. When asked by the coroner he said he hadn't detected anything in her voice at all. In the conversation she had said " Oh, I have thought about ending it all. But I am feeling better, I have spoken to my son in LA." There was a 10 minute conversation. Brunt said they wouldn't name her or identify the village. Martin Brunt had no serious concern about her (from her voice). She said it was a pleasure to meet you.
Perhaps because you know what I said is true ?
I accept it as true.Trust would be earned.
I just would like that trust to be reciprocated.
Trust would be earned.
Why would the supporter threaten if they weren’t going to follow through ? What would they have to gain ?Are you suggesting that all threats made on twitter are carried through? Then no wonder the dossier compilers had cause for concern! I take it you are only speculating that this”poor girl’s” employer was contacted then...?
Are you suggesting that all threats made on twitter are carried through? Then no wonder the dossier compilers had cause for concern! I take it you are only speculating that this”poor girl’s” employer was contacted then...?
Why would they threaten ? To intimidate? Why ?
Was the last paragraph to show that Brenda was fine about it? She may have expected the usual rogue trader type exposure not the rolling news item regularly all day on Sky followed by the Daily Mail etc all calling her a troll some evil troll, giving her name and village out and interviewing her friends etc and this going on solid for 3 days. Is it any wonder she cracked?
Video of dossier representative
https://news.sky.com/story/evil-trolls-in-hate-campaign-against-mccanns-10387832
Are you suggesting that all threats made on twitter are carried through? Then no wonder the dossier compilers had cause for concern! I take it you are only speculating that this”poor girl’s” employer was contacted then...?
They clearly had not thought it through very well.
In the real world one of two things would happen.
Any company fielding such a letter or phone call would pass it to the police were a name were given [ho ho]
or; chuck it in the bin/forget it if no name were given.
"They" [whomsoever "they" are] appear to have delusions of grandeur.
One concludes they only prepared to deal with those who are vulnerable.
Sez it all really.
Cite please
Rob said asking questions is goading.
I remember watching throughout the day as the item about Brenda was continually broadcast and dissected in great detail by the usual commentators. It was appalling to watch if I'm honest, I really felt for her. Garbage television at its worst IMO, it had the whiff of The News of the World about it. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the former editor Rebekah Brooks had her grubby paws all over it too, her connections with the McCanns are well known.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rebekah-brooks-accused-of-bullying-government-over-mccanns-7737611.html
Is there a cite for the former editor Rebekah Brooks having her grubby paws all over it it too, or are you just allowed to say that?
Is there a cite for the former editor Rebekah Brooks having her grubby paws all over it it too, or are you just allowed to say that?"I wouldn't be surprised ...." is a statement of opinion. No cite is required.
Cite please
Why would they threaten ? To intimidate? Why ?You’d have to ask the threateners why they do it, but yes, to intimidate I would imagine.
Re: "Start by Asking Yourself What is a Supporter and Work on from There”"Goading could be via questions," is not the same as "Rob said asking questions is goading".
« Reply #330 on: Today at 09:41:31 PM »
Quote
Quote from: slartibartfast on Today at 09:34:51 PM
It’s a question?
You said
"Bordering on libel, bordering on goading, I think I was just letting everyone know they were bordering on goading.
Goading could be via questions, we had established that.
8**8:/:
There was allegedly an attempt to discredit/censor Enid O'Dowd by reporting her to her Professional body;
My report upset an unknown McCann supporter so much that he or she complained to my professional body, the ICEAW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales).
This happened in November 2012 but I only learned of it recently when by chance I came across a post which the person concerned had made on the Internet.
I was never contacted as the complaint did not meet the standards required by the ICEAW to warrant asking to hear my side of the story. The ICEAW reply to the complainant included the sentence:
‘Mrs O'Dowd is entitled to her opinions and views and freedom of speech’.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/106feb16/Enid_O_Dowd_01_02_2016.htm
You’d have to ask the threateners why they do it, but yes, to intimidate I would imagine.
Is there a cite for the former editor Rebekah Brooks having her grubby paws all over it it too, or are you just allowed to say that?
Didn’t Gerry contact the head of Yorkshire police to complain about Martin Grime ?Was that just a random question?
"Goading could be via questions," is not the same as "Rob said asking questions is goading".
Didn’t Gerry contact the head of Yorkshire police to complain about Martin Grime ?
Didn’t Gerry contact the head of Yorkshire police to complain about Martin Grime ?
So supporters go on Twitter to intimidate sceptics to do what, shut up ?I have no idea if they ALL do, but it is certainly not a one way street with all the dozens of poor honest decent little sceptics being intimidated and threatened by a handful of supporters if that’s what you’re suggesting.
"I'm about to go out". Here is an example "are you just concerning yourself with questions being asked by non supporters?" You are questioning me whether I'm biased and hence not moderating fairly (hence goading). I have no firm concepts of who is a supporter or non supporter. I have a feeling most of your posts tend to be non-supporting.
It reads that way! or are you just concerning yourself with questions being asked by non supporters?
Perhaps you could avail where a question is goading and where it isn't- any example would suffice.
Martin Grime wasn't working for SYP on 16/8/2007; he'd already retired.
I have no idea if they ALL do, but it is certainly not a one way street with all the dozens of poor honest decent little sceptics being intimidated and threatened by a handful of supporters if that’s what you’re suggesting.
Martin Grime wasn't working for SYP on 16/8/2007; he'd already retired.
From Martin Grime’s rogatory.So was that really a "yes" then?
‘
'At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case''
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.’
That didn’t answer my question.How do you expect me, someone who doesn’t take part in twitter wars, to speak on behalf of supporters that do, pray tell me?
From Martin Grime’s rogatory.
‘
'At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case''
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.’
How do you expect me, someone who doesn’t take part in twitter wars, to speak on behalf of supporters that do, pray tell me?
Take a wild guess.It seems you’ve already decided what the answer is and want me to say it. OK then. Here’s a wild guess: All McCann supporters on twitter are only there to threaten poor little honest decent sceptics into silence, not for any other reason. All they do all day long is threaten to call up sceptics employers to try and get them the sack. If it’s not that, then they are threatening to go round to the poor little sceptics’ houses, smash down their front doors and take a hammer to their laptops. Do you need cites for this, or are you satisfied with my answer?
I think we all should take responsibility for what we post and be prepared to justify it if necessary... It's just to easy to post anonymous abuse online.
Brenda had every right to hate the McCann's just as, we all have the right to hate anyone or any group... The problem arises when and how that hatred is expressed.
What Brenda did may not have been illegal but perhaps it should be... And if the police don't take action it's a normal procedure to take a greivance to the newspapers to highlight the issue and get the law changed... I see a, lot of sympathy for Brenda but I have far greater sympathy for her target.... Far more sympathy for the McCanns
Perhaps it should be against the law to leave your children alone every night to be 'abducted'. I do not have sympathy for the McCanns as their behaviour before, during and after their daughters disappearance was disgraceful imo.
They have moved on with their lives despite their selfish behaviour. I feel sorry for Madeleine and all the other victims.
It seems you’ve already decided what the answer is and want me to say it. OK then. Here’s a wild guess: All McCann supporters on twitter are only there to threaten poor little honest decent sceptics into silence, not for any other reason. All they do all day long is threaten to call up sceptics employers to try and get them the sack. If it’s not that, then they are threatening to go round to the poor little sceptics’ houses, smash down their front doors and take a hammer to their laptops. Do you need cites for this, or are you satisfied with my answer?
That's up to you... As I said.. My sympathies lie with the McCanns and I have explained why. How many suicides, are we seeing from people who are victims of online abuse.. That's why it needs to be addressed and I support those who compiled the dossier and brought the abuse to light
Yes, thank you.Indeed we do, we are a nest of Gollum-like creatures who live together in a stinky cave full of our own excrement, unlike sceptics who are so decent, so kind, so empathetic, so unthreatening, all these endearing traits are there to be seen on the #mccann tag, with delightful comments like the ones I have already highlighted from Brenda herself, whose tweets are perfect examples of kindness, empathy and decency.
So supporters use threats of exposure to intimidate sceptics into silence.
My what a murky world you supporters must inhabit.
Is there a cite for the former editor Rebekah Brooks having her grubby paws all over it it too, or are you just allowed to say that?
This alleged abuse had no impact on the McCanns as they didn't know about it as they don't do social media...are you suggesting supporters were so upset by the alledged abuse that they may have commited suicide? how strange.
I didn't say she had, I said I wouldn't be surprised if she had (given her history with the McCann case).
So was that really a "yes" then?
At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case? "YES"
I think we all should take responsibility for what we post and be prepared to justify it if necessary... It's just to easy to post anonymous abuse online.
Brenda had every right to hate the McCann's just as, we all have the right to hate anyone or any group... The problem arises when and how that hatred is expressed.
What Brenda did may not have been illegal but perhaps it should be... And if the police don't take action it's a normal procedure to take a greivance to the newspapers to highlight the issue and get the law changed... I see a, lot of sympathy for Brenda but I have far greater sympathy for her target.... Far more sympathy for the McCanns
That's pretty laughable, the suspect contacting the police to complain about the investigation. This just gets more crazy by the day. Was Gerry an expert dog handler then too?
Indeed we do, we are a nest of Gollum-like creatures who live together in a stinky cave full of our own excrement, unlike sceptics who are so decent, so kind, so empathetic, so unthreatening, all these endearing traits are there to be seen on the #mccann tag, with delightful comments like the ones I have already highlighted from Brenda herself, whose tweets are perfect examples of kindness, empathy and decency.
Indeed we do, we are a nest of Gollum-like creatures who live together in a stinky cave full of our own excrement, unlike sceptics who are so decent, so kind, so empathetic, so unthreatening, all these endearing traits are there to be seen on the #mccann tag, with delightful comments like the ones I have already highlighted from Brenda herself, whose tweets are perfect examples of kindness, empathy and decency.
A good post davel. I have more sympathy for Brenda though given that she died unnecessarily.
As regards.. Due process... Isnnt that exactly what BL and others, were denying the McCanns
I think as the PJ were completely misunderstanding the alerts it was reasonable for Gerry to get advice from those who undrstood
Faithlilly clearly hasn't followed Smiffy to his latest haunt........
So was Meredith Hughes an expert dog handler ? Or was Gerry actually complaining about one of his employees ?
All suicides are unnecessary.
Completely tragic.
I cannot imagine the pain of the family left behind.
Accidents and illness resulting in death, at least can be accepted but to know that a loved family member has chosen to take their own life must be a nightmare for their loved ones.
Do you have a cite for Gerry making a complaint during the 2 telephone conversations please?
What do you think he was talking about Misty ? Congratulating him on his wonderful dogs ?
You are mistaken that Brenda Leyland was "harassed to death". The inquest did not reach that conclusion.
He was doing his job, John,
Oh fgs. - you think that ok then to harass someone to imo death.
What about GA then - he was only doing his ...job.
Fair to say there i think B - a bit of double standerds going on there. imo
Didn’t someone recently tweet the McCanns whereabouts in a restaurant?
Some obsessive even visit PDL and take lots of photos and measurements around 5A
So was her name Brenda Leyland Sweepy Face or was her name hidden and not apparent on twitter. Looking at the tweets I have posted earlier it would appear it was the latter Brietta.Did you miss Misty's post?
Did you miss Misty's post?I'd be surprised if they didn't.
She posted as Sweepyface.
Martin Brunt identified her only with the name she used on Twitter ... which was Sweepyface.
Any of her twitter friends who wanted to show their support for her could have done so very easily using twitter ... did any of them bother?
That's pretty laughable, the suspect contacting the police to complain about the investigation. This just gets more crazy by the day. Was Gerry an expert dog handler then too?
I know Faithlilly has claimed to have taken photographs in Luz ... and I know that quite a few of our forum members took advantage of Shining's residency to ask him to photograph particular areas of interest in the village.
Obsessive? Perhaps? ... but a few of us post about Luz on a regular basis so it is helpful to get an idea of what we are talking about.
Then there is always Google earth as an obsessive's standby.
Did you miss Misty's post?
She posted as Sweepyface.
Martin Brunt identified her only with the name she used on Twitter ... which was Sweepyface.
Did you miss Misty's post?
She posted as Sweepyface.
Martin Brunt identified her only with the name she used on Twitter ... which was Sweepyface.
Any of her twitter friends who wanted to show their support for her could have done so very easily using twitter ... did any of them bother?
I have snipped from your longer post Brietta (sorry).I for one see nothing wrong with the compilation of the dossier and the handing of it to the police, and press... Abuse online needs to be addressed
No Martin Brunt did NOT just know her twitter name Sweepyface he was given her name and that she lived in Leicester(shire). He didn't find her himself.
How many times do I need to say this? Her details were fed to the media by someone, who clearly wanted her named and shamed so to speak. IMO
[That is opinion Sunny]
Timeline:
29/09/14. Sweepyface stops tweeting and deletes account
01/10/14. Doorstepped.
04/10/14. Found dead.
Brenda Leyland was found dead days after being accused on Sky News of trolling the parents of Madeleine McCann. Since then thousands of tweets from her deleted Twitter account have emerged.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.bb9jxaxjQ#.shz8BvB8Y
I for one see nothing wrong with the compilation of the dossier and the handing of it to the police, and press... Abuse online needs to be addressed
There are procedures for dealing with online abuse and doorstepping vulnerable pensioners isn't one of them.
Is that agreement of the timeline or an attempt to suggest it is incorrect?
Please note the link underneath my post which is missing from yours
I think it's important to remember that as regards the dossier Brenda, was not the victim.. She was one of the perpetrators... The McCann's were the victims
In the same way Madeleine was the victim...
Of course Madeleine was s victim... And so are her family.. Imo
And so was Brenda Leyland.
I think it's important to remember that as regards the dossier Brenda, was not the victim.. She was one of the perpetrators... The McCann's were the victims
Of course Madeleine was a victim... And so are her family.. Imo
Actually they weren't 'victims', they were targets as was BL.
That is yet to be determined by the Portuguese investigation. Nobody yet knows what happened to Madeleine, who was involved and who was behind what later took place.
I think it's important to remember that as regards the dossier Brenda, was not the victim.. She was one of the perpetrators... The McCann's were the victims
Misuse of the internet is becoming more and more of a major problem with the abuse rate being numbered in thousands ... it is recognised in parliament and is the subject of many reports and academic studies.
It is ironic that the plight of victims many of whom are teenagers who feel driven to kill themselves as a result is superseded by the mess a perpetrator found herself in as a direct result of her obsession with Madeleine's parents.
Brenda Leyland was not a case of mistaken identity ... she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family with thousands of posts over a long period.
That is yet to be determined by the Portuguese investigation. Nobody yet knows what happened to Madeleine, who was involved and who was behind what later took place.
Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ? Looking at the timeline she made that rather difficult to achieve.Do you have a cite for the timeline?
The PJ have said the McCann's, are not suspects... Rowley has said madduecwas abducted... Suttin said the McCann's are not being investigated... Could ut be any clearer
So you think she shouldn’t have been allowed to severely criticise the McCanns?
Do you have a cite for the timeline?
she was doing a lot more than that imo...she was part of a campaign spreading hatred towards the mccanns .......a word she used herself...up to 50 tweets a day
In response the now deleted tweets.
It was in the link you posted.So the one you posted ~ minus a cite ~ is false? Have you amended it in line with forum policy or have you allowed misinformation to stand?
Do you have a cite for the timeline?It was posted on the forum.
So the one you posted ~ minus a cite ~ is false? Have you amended it in line with forum policy or have you allowed misinformation to stand?
It was posted on the forum.I knew that Robitty ... but if you used the post I think you may have for reference, I believe the information it contained was wrong.
Misuse of the internet is becoming more and more of a major problem with the abuse rate being numbered in thousands ... it is recognised in parliament and is the subject of many reports and academic studies.
It is ironic that the plight of victims many of whom are teenagers who feel driven to kill themselves as a result is superseded by the mess a perpetrator found herself in as a direct result of her obsession with Madeleine's parents.
Brenda Leyland was not a case of mistaken identity ... she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family with thousands of posts over a long period.
I knew that Robitty ... but if you used the post I think you may have for reference, I believe the information it contained was wrong.
Her obsession with Madeleine’s parents ? From the GuardianYou've got "mentioned" but also "alluded to" and "referred to".
‘The inquest heard between November 2013 and September 2014, using the Twitter ID @sweepyface, she had tweeted or retweeted 2,210 posts, of which 424 mentioned the McCanns. Her tweets did not constitute a criminal offence, the inquest heard.’
So less than a quarter of her tweets mentioned the McCanns. To date you have chalked up over 13,000 posts, a great many more than a quarter mentioning the McCanns I’d warrant, so it would appear you have a bit of an obsession yourself. Just because your posts are supportive of the McCanns doesn’t make your behaviour any less obsessive.
I knew that Robitty ... but if you used the post I think you may have for reference, I believe the information it contained was wrong.Personally I have no idea if it was right or wrong but just the short time between the doorstepping and the suicide is surprising.
she was doing a lot more than that imo...she was part of a campaign spreading hatred towards the mccanns .......a word she used herself...up to 50 tweets a day
You've got "mentioned" but also "alluded to" and "referred to".
I knew that Robitty ... but if you used the post I think you may have for reference, I believe the information it contained was wrong.Would it be out by a week or just a day? How much out was it?
Would it be out by a week or just a day? How much out was it?
It shouldn't be hard to see when Brunt doorstepped her and when her death occurred.
Personally I have no idea if it was right or wrong but just the short time between the doorstepping and the suicide is surprising.There was a very short time between both ... but no cite given as yet to substantiate the date when Brenda closed her account.
Last time the subject was discussed the point was raised that Brenda committed suicide on her estranged sons birthday...which is strange...it might suggest a different reason for her suicide
Would it be out by a week or just a day? How much out was it?
It shouldn't be hard to see when Brunt doorstepped her and when her death occurred.
why wont you accept not everyone like the mccanns - or what they did.
How is it a campaign.
No one knows yet what happened to maddie
Or then again it might not.
Agreed, if my dates were wrong someone please say so.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/20/sky-news-mccann-brenda-leyland
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/20/sky-news-mccann-brenda-leyland
"Sky News offers condolences to family of Brenda Leyland, who was found dead in a Leicester hotel two days after channel broadcast footage of her"
So it is possible they held the footage for a while.
"On 30 September she was approached by Brunt and a cameraman outside her village home in Burton Overy, Leicestershire, after the journalist was given a dossier containing details of people allegedly posting abusive tweets about Kate and Gerry McCann, whose daughter Madeleine disappeared in Portugal in 2007. Leyland had posted or reposted more than 400 tweets about the McCanns, the inquest heard.
"Leyland was found dead in a hotel room in Leicester on 4 October last year, two days after Brunt’s report aired on Sky."
So the report seems to have been delayed for 2 days before it was aired.
it seems a very strange thing to do....commit suicide on your estranged sons birthday.....how can he ever enjoy a birthday again... It seems quite a cruel thing to do
There was a very short time between both ... but no cite given as yet to substantiate the date when Brenda closed her account.
What might have caused her to do that at just that moment in time do you think?
On 29 September, five days before she died, Leyland tweeted that Brunt had started following her on Twitter.
This was the day she stopped tweeting and appears to also have been when the @Sweepyface account was deleted.
Last time the subject was discussed the point was raised that Brenda committed suicide on her estranged sons birthday...which is strange...it might suggest a different reason for her suicide
I’m sure he’ll never forgive those who put his Mum in such a position in the first place.
From your link...maybe you missed it.
Oh my isn't it tragic enough - without insinuating an ulterior motive.
I think we would need to know more about their relationship before being sure of anything... You are making assumptions.. It could well be it was the breakdown of their relationship and the fact she would have no contact with her son on his birthday that triggered the suicide
Nothing evidenced at the inquest suggested her estrangement with her son caused her suicide so I think it is you Whois making assumptions.The evidence is the birthday
It's a discussion forum
Ok then - was there anything to suggest there was a reason BL committed suicide on her sons birthday.
have you got something to back up - there was a reason.
The state the poor woman was in she probably didn't even realise what day it was.
The evidence is the birthday
You said you are sure..
I said it may well be
I'm making no assumptions
No you are making something out of nothing.
No you are making something out of nothing.
Where is an emoticon depicting honking in a bucket over all the self righteous indignation expressed by the supporters ?
Don't think so.
It must have been very painful for her to not have any contact with her son.
Oh fgs the estranged will probably mean - he lived in los angelos.
Maybe his age might be a clue as well
Bens tribute to his mum. notice no apology for anything.
Ben had earlier paid tribute to his mother,
writing on Twitter: “I am love and I am light, thanks to you.
"I love you mum and I will miss you forever.
The evidence is the birthday
You said you are sure..
I said it may well be
I'm making no assumptions
I believe she had two sons.
supporters will blame anybody but their beloved mcanns and them selves
Oh fgs the estranged will probably mean - he lived in los angelos.
Maybe his age might be a clue as well
Bens tribute to his mum. notice no apology for anything.
Ben had earlier paid tribute to his mother,
writing on Twitter: “I am love and I am light, thanks to you.
"I love you mum and I will miss you forever.
Seems you don't understand the evidence D
Can you imagine the state her mind must have been in
the last thing on her mind would have been her sons birthday.
There are decisions to be made and you may be surprised that it rarely has to do with how the ones that love you will feel when you leave them behind. The reason why this isn’t considered is because people that are willing to commit to suicide rarely feel anything anymore.
Seems you don't understand the evidence D
Can you imagine the state her mind must have been in
the last thing on her mind would have been her sons birthday.
There are decisions to be made and you may be surprised that it rarely has to do with how the ones that love you will feel when you leave them behind. The reason why this isn’t considered is because people that are willing to commit to suicide rarely feel anything anymore.
She did...and
Her suicide was it, seems carefully planned ...and it was her estranged sons birthday... Estranged being the possible reason
It wasn't the son you mention in your post
It was another son from whom she was estranged.
That must have caused her immense pain.
It must but I wonder on that weekend what was her greatest fear ? I believe she had been estranged from her son for some time without committing suicide however she had never been shamefully exposed on worldwide TV before.
The McCann's are in no way to blame for Brendas death... Neither are the dossier compilers
She had attempted suicide before.
Long before she became the subject of Skynews.
It must but I wonder on that weekend what was her greatest fear ? I believe she had been estranged from her son for some time without committing suicide however she had never been shamefully exposed on worldwide TV before.If you and your posting history on the subject were exposed on national TV by a doorstepping journalist would you be ashamed or defiant? Do you think you would be supported by your friends and family or shunned by everyone? Just curious.
The McCanns are in no way to blame unless they or someone on their behest passed the dossier to Sky. The compilers are another matter and not because they compiled the dossier but because they singled out BL and specifically passed on her name to Brunt, who it would appear, is too stupid to know when he is being played.
Yes many years before but not since.
That's mostly your opinion
Well her son who knew her best opinion was.
The court also heard evidence from her son Ben, who said he believed the confrontation had been the final straw.
In a statement, he said he believed she was "completely destroyed" by what had occurred.
He said he heard "panic and fear" in her voice when he spoke to her after the Sky interview.
It wasn't the son you mention in your post
It was another son from whom she was estranged.
That must have caused her immense pain.
Only in your opinion.We don't have all the facts so it's, quite possible my suggestion is correct
You don't know what the circumstances was.
Or who estranged from who - unless you have a cite to back your post up E.
He said it was the final straw... The final straw is, a relatively small thing... So what were the other larger things happening... We don't know
We don't have all the facts so it's, quite possible my suggestion is correct
Possibly wrong as well.
Yes, we don't know... But some think they do
Ok D shall i be the adult and leave it at that.Yes.
I think the words "final straw" should not be taken lightly.
Misuse of the internet is becoming more and more of a major problem with the abuse rate being numbered in thousands ... it is recognised in parliament and is the subject of many reports and academic studies.
It is ironic that the plight of victims many of whom are teenagers who feel driven to kill themselves as a result is superseded by the mess a perpetrator found herself in as a direct result of her obsession with Madeleine's parents.
Brenda Leyland was not a case of mistaken identity ... she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family with thousands of posts over a long period.
It is the one that breaks the camels back.
Do you have a cite for "she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family" please Brietta as I have seen she had a facebook page and may have been a member of forums on many other topics for all we know.
Of course Brietta I have read some really horrendous trolling posts on both sides of this case so perhaps you would like the perpetrators from the supporter side to be charged by the police too?
Do we know if there were any supporter tweets, posts in the dossier sent to the police....sorry of course there weren't.
The dossier was Re abuse towards the McCann's... Not abuse on the net in general...
Do you have a cite for "she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family" please Brietta as I have seen she had a facebook page and may have been a member of forums on many other topics for all we know.
Of course Brietta I have read some really horrendous trolling posts on both sides of this case so perhaps you would like the perpetrators from the supporter side to be charged by the police too?
Do we know if there were any supporter tweets, posts in the dossier sent to the police....sorry of course there weren't.
So you do agree that some of your fellow supporters dish out abuse then.
If you and your posting history on the subject were exposed on national TV by a doorstepping journalist would you be ashamed or defiant? Do you think you would be supported by your friends and family or shunned by everyone? Just curious.
Oh I think if I was doorstepped by a journalist he would come off worse.
so you wouldnt follow due process
What due process? The same ones that the dossier collectors did? Some special supporters type weird due process that means you take evidence to the media not the police? That one Davel?
you need to read the post I responded to and you might understand what due process.....
And the post was
Oh I think if I was doorstepped by a journalist he would come off worse
So just what due process were you talking about davel?
He said it was the final straw... The final straw is, a relatively small thing... So what were the other larger things happening... We don't know
Oh stop making it up as you go along. You are actually contradicting her son? The dossier was a trigger-end of! feel proud and argue your corner, but it won't change a thing. A vulnerable woman was singled out- not those who actually DID threaten the McCanns alledgedly -oh no not them.
The death penalty was a sure big surprise for the dossier writers.. they were just expecting jail time!
a vulnerable woman was not singled out..lets start with the truth...no one knew Brenda had a history of suicide and mental illness
a vulnerable woman was not singled out..lets start with the truth...no one knew Brenda had a history of suicide and mental illness
Firstly how would you know that? Secondly Brunt as he was given Brenda Leylands name and roughly where she lived would certainly know her age and that she lived alone.
To me she looked very vulnerable yet they didn't show her once on Sky they showed her dozens of times.
Do you think that was right DaveL?
so you wouldnt follow due process
Yep!
Politely ask him to leave my property.
After that it's his call.
Resonable force to eject an undesirable is OK.
I think online abuse against known poeple is vile...i think it needs to be stopped ...the abusers are causing the problems not the victims...Brenda was an abuser...I dont condemn skys action in the slightest... I would like to see them confront more vicims of online abuse and support the victims
What about online abuse against unknown people Davel or is your sympathy only for the McCanns?
I suppose you were one of the architects of the dossier then Davel as you seem to agree with in fact almost appear proud of it.
so you wouldnt follow due processIt would be a process alright. Something like mincing comes to mind.
It would be a process alright. Something like mincing comes to mind.
then it would not be due process...its quite revealing how many posters claim to support due process but when it came to their own situation...wouldnt give it the time of day...hypocrisy againThat is the rapid "due Process" rather than the drawn out due process.
That is the rapid "due Process" rather than the drawn out due process.
Oh I think if I was doorstepped by a journalist he would come off worse.
This activity can present a significant safety risk, especially if the subject is contentious and/or the target interviewee confrontational. It may provoke an aggressive or even a violent response, not only from the target but also from their family, friends and colleagues. The target may try to avoid being interviewed by either taking refuge or escaping on foot or by vehicle, which may create a collateral damage risk.
Also, tensions can be heightened if there is a media scrum to be first to get an interview.
What Can Go Wrong?
Physical attack to crew aiming to injure persons or damage camera equipment.
Injury from weapons (firearms. knives), projectiles (bricks), clubs, high pressure hose pipes etc.
Injury from animals such as dogs, horses etc.
Injury from vehicles caused by erratic and/or fast driving.
Injuries from entanglement with other crews or others at the location.
Getting cornered or unable to escape from threatening situations.
Verbal threats or abuse.
In the BBC guidelines, it is emphasised that it can be a risky tactic and dangerous for the journalist , so a thorough risk assessment must be made.
I don't find it particularly surprising that Brunt and his crew chose to track down a single, elderly lady living alone.
This is from Offcom guidelines ;
"Doorstepping for factual programmes should not take place unless a request for an interview has been refused, or it has not been possible to request an interview"
Brunt had a means of contacting Brenda through twitter, had he tried to arrange an interview? It doesn't look like it. He and his employer tried to argue it was in 'the public interest' but who's interest did outing someone for expressing lawful opinions serve? Can anyone find any examples of Brunt doorstepping any private individual in his long career?
Some might argue that it would be in the public interest to confront some of the last people to see Madeleine over police statements made about them allegedly being involved in child abuse. Or maybe someone in the Leicestershire police could be confronted about not passing that statement on immediately to the officers in an ongoing missing child case that has cost the taxpayer 12 million.
Questions about disturbing statements not passed on really would tick the boxes of 'public interest'.
I think online abuse against known poeple is vile...i think it needs to be stopped ...the abusers are causing the problems not the victims...Brenda was an abuser...I dont condemn skys action in the slightest... I would like to see them confront more vicims of online abuse and support the victims
I think online abuse against known poeple is vile...i think it needs to be stopped ...the abusers are causing the problems not the victims...Brenda was an abuser...I dont condemn skys action in the slightest... I would like to see them confront more vicims of online abuse and support the victims
Yep!
Politely ask him to leave my property.
After that it's his call.
Resonable force to eject an undesirable is OK.
No you don't. You have abused Amaral and Brenda and called sceptics mentally ill for not agreeing with you! Selective abuse is what you want dealt with.Each to their own.
No you don't. You have abused Amaral and Brenda and called sceptics mentally ill for not agreeing with you! Selective abuse is what you want dealt with.
so the dossier compilers have every right to ignore the standard due process that faith has proposed ...if I could be so bold ...that is the idiots view...if you start assaulting journalists it si you who will end up in the dock...and i have been doorstepped
Davel doesn't seem to understand that being abusive online isn't actually a crime.Have you got a cite for that?
i cant imagine you dropping the nut
Davel have you done everything or is this a tale? Why on earth would any one want to doorstep you?
Take your pick from:
1) I am not surprised you never did have much of an imagination.
2) I am surprised you always displayed such a fertile imagination.
Have you got a cite for that?
I havent abused anyone ..report me to the police if you think i have..
Yes. Davel 's post above.
"I havent abused anyone ..report me to the police if you think i have.."
Only someone that thought online abuse was a criminal act would suggest reporting it to the police.
I don't think... it is all in the threads although I imagine most of them have been deleted. I don't care enough about you or your posts to be bothered about reporting. I will leave that up to the McCann supporters.
you cannot abuse an anonymous person...do you not undertsatnd...when the abuse is against a real person its completely different
online abuse can be a criminal act
ok let us look at what you typed and try not to fall over our laptops with laughter... you are saying an anonymous person isn't a real person? *%87
ooooooookaaaaayyyyyyyy
do you not understand that....
how can there be online abuse against unknown people...they do not exist... I myself have been subject to vile abuse online...not related to this case... my children asked me why poeple were being so mean to us..so i have a better understanding than most...I was not part of the dossier compilers but i fully support them
Now why would someone want to be horrible to you Davel?
So you don't mind people being abusive to people that don't exist Davel?
How on earth can that make sense.
Your original post.
I think online abuse against known poeple is vile...i think it needs to be stopped ...the abusers are causing the problems not the victims...Brenda was an abuser...I dont condemn skys action in the slightest... I would like to see them confront more vicims of online abuse and support the victims
On your support of Sky's actions. Shame on you.
shame on you that you support onine abuse that has resulted in several suicides...on line abuse needs to be stopped .. do you suport online abuse ...I dont.. because online abuse has resulted in the death by suicide of several young people I think it needs to be addressed...my name is freely available and I am not posting anonymously...you are.. why
Now why would someone want to be horrible to you Davel?
So you don't mind people being abusive to people that don't exist Davel?
How on earth can that make sense.
Your original post.
I think online abuse against known poeple is vile...i think it needs to be stopped ...the abusers are causing the problems not the victims...Brenda was an abuser...I dont condemn skys action in the slightest... I would like to see them confront more vicims of online abuse and support the victims
On your support of Sky's actions. Shame on you.
shame on you that you support onine abuse that has resulted in several suicides...on line abuse needs to be stopped .. do you suport online abuse ...I dont.. because online abuse has resulted in the death by suicide of several young people I think it needs to be addressed...my name is freely available and I am not posting anonymously...you are.. why
shame on you that you support onine abuse that has resulted in several suicides...on line abuse needs to be stopped .. do you suport online abuse ...I dont.. because online abuse has resulted in the death by suicide of several young people I think it needs to be addressed...my name is freely available and I am not posting anonymously...you are.. why
cite for supporting online abuse. ta.
Two things where have I said I support online abuse and just where is your name freely available, perhaps in your local electoral roll?
do you condemn brenda or not
goading....
condemn her for what exactly? I never knew her- I don't do social media.
do you condemn brenda or notDoes it matter?
again...do you support the abuse by brenda... im quite happy to give you my real identity by pm...are you
Does it matter?
I don't believe Brenda posted abuse about the McCanns she posted her opinions in a rather unpleasant way, and I don't believe you would give me your real identity so no thank you.
not to me it doesnt...brenda was the abuser..the mccanns were th victims IMOSo don't ask that question again. "Do you condemn Brenda?" is no longer a valid question.
she did post abuse imo have you read her twwete
So don't ask that question again. "Do you condemn Brenda?" is no longer a valid question.
i think the thing is no matter how someone feels about this case the dossier/s butted in when they had no need too and brenda finally snapped and ever since supporters have been defensive and hostile about her/their actions the mcanns should have condemmed the supporters actions but they condoned it but that doesnt suprise me considering kate wanted amaral to feel fear and pain
not to me it doesnt...brenda was the abuser..the mccanns were the victims
Can people who don't subscribe to social media be a victim of online abuse?absolutely...just because some one does not see abuse or libel directed at them it is still abuse or libel
Can people who don't subscribe to social media be a victim of online abuse?I think so. It is the potential effect it has on a person's reputation.
absolutely...just because some one does not see abuse or libel directed at them it is still abuse or libel
If you don't know about abuse you cannot be described as a victim.
If you don't know about abuse you cannot be described as a victim.
Can people who don't subscribe to social media be a victim of online abuse?
The reality about twitter is that if you are not a subscriber, the only way you would know if someone was posting abusive messages about you is if you were to go looking for them or someone who is a member went looking for them and thereafter told you about it.
If you don't know about abuse you cannot be described as a victim.That’s untrue IMO. You don’t always have to be aware of a harmful action in order to be considered a victim. For example you could be a victim of computer hacking without knowing about it.
Theoretically ANY mod could, why single out supporter mods?
Have sceptics ever compiled a dossier ?Quite possibly, how would I know?
Have sceptics ever compiled a dossier ?
I think some tried but gave up due to lack of relevant data.Yes I seem to recall threats of that nature to submit a dossier of alleged McCann supporter abuse, I wonder whatever happened to that?
That is absolute rubbish John.....abuse is abuse
If you don't receive abuse directly then you cannot be said to be a victim of it. If someone says something nasty about you behind your back at work you will be totally unaware of the comment so cannot be a victim. If they said the same comment within your hearing then you could be said to be a victim. Everything in this world is relative.Do you think the McCanns (or President Trump or Theresa May) are totally unaware of the abuse that gets heaped on them daily on social media?
I think you confuse 'target of abuse' with 'victim of abuse'
People in the public eye like President Trump or PM Theresa May are targets of abuse every day but they aren't victims.
If you don't receive abuse directly then you cannot be said to be a victim of it. If someone says something nasty about you behind your back at work you will be totally unaware of the comment so cannot be a victim. If they said the same comment within your hearing then you could be said to be a victim. Everything in this world is relative.
I think you confuse 'target of abuse' with 'victim of abuse'
People in the public eye like President Trump or PM Theresa May are targets of abuse every day but they aren't victims.
I think some tried but gave up due to lack of relevant data.
If you don't receive abuse directly then you cannot be said to be a victim of it. If someone says something nasty about you behind your back at work you will be totally unaware of the comment so cannot be a victim. If they said the same comment within your hearing then you could be said to be a victim. Everything in this world is relative.
I think you confuse 'target of abuse' with 'victim of abuse'
People in the public eye like President Trump or PM Theresa May are targets of abuse every day but they aren't victims.
Or maybe they just lacked the obsessive temperament needed for such an endeavour.
Or maybe they just lacked the obsessive temperament needed for such an endeavour.Or maybe they were just too exhausted after a hard day’s tweeting bile to muster the energy to trawl the internet looking for a few needles in a giant haystack.
I dont confuse anything.. leyland posted up to 50 posts a day...have you seen them...many abusive posts towards the mccanns ...an absolute disgrace..she and others needed to be stopped
Or maybe they just lacked the obsessive temperament needed for such an endeavour.
Well Brenda Leyland was stopped wasn't she Davel.
Do you think the McCanns (or President Trump or Theresa May) are totally unaware of the abuse that gets heaped on them daily on social media?
Everyone in the public arena receives abuse of one sort or another, it goes with the territory.I don’t dispute it, in fact I said as much only the other day. They are all victims of vile online abuse as are most people in the public eye.
I dont confuse anything.. leyland posted up to 50 posts a day...have you seen them...many abusive posts towards the mccanns ...an absolute disgrace..she and others needed to be stopped
Stopped by who exactly? Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to air those opinions. The last time I looked, the only people who have any right to do anything about it are the police.
stopped by the law... and if people decide taht the law is not sufficient they have the right to go to press or to a civil court
stopped by the law... and if people decide taht the law is not sufficient they have the right to go to press or to a civil court
And creating a dossier with names and details of people and passing this information to the media fits into the above where?
And creating a dossier with names and details of people and passing this information to the media fits into the above where?
I understand the police looked at the dossier but found that no laws had been broken. That should have been an end to it.
I understand the police looked at the dossier but found that no laws had been broken. That should have been an end to it.
no it shouldnt....wasnt OJ simpson found not guilty...should her family have left it there. ... total rubbish John
Then there was the Daily Mail & Stephen Lawrence case.......
Brietta just reminding you I am still awaiting my cite.
You asked … “Do you have a cite for "she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family" please Brietta as I have seen she had a facebook page and may have been a member of forums on many other topics for all we know”
Unfortunately I am spoilt for choice as far as your cite goes.
But think on this, and wonder how you would cope were you to discover that an individual who had an unhealthy obsession with your family had allegedly gone out of her way to wander the streets of your town where they could be walking in ignorance of her presence or even her existence.
Kate McCann and her children could well have been going about their daily lives in their home village unaware that an anonymous individual who professed hatred for the family could be in closer proximity than the fifteen miles between her village and theirs.
I find that a chilling thought.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time.
She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
The cite(s) you requested ...
'Snip'
However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to justice then the task inevitably falls to journalists like Brunt. Some have criticised his decision to target Leyland because she did not actually threaten to kill the McCanns, unlike other trolls. But she did send thousands of hate tweets. Some days she would send more than 50 messages attacking the McCanns.
Had she hurled this abuse at the couple in the street, she would have been hauled off in handcuffs. Instead she continued to publish with impunity, safe from scrutiny at home in Burton Overy, just 15 miles from where the McCanns live in Leicestershire. Yes, these were the acts of an obsessed loner but "being an oddball" is not a defence to this sort of criminal behaviour.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
"Snip"
When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.
https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
"Snip"
First, the entire Twitter history of Ms Leyland’s @SweepyFace Twitter account can currently be viewed anddownloaded via GrepTweet(or here as a .txt file). There are over 4,000 tweets in the account and all of them appear to be about the McCanns… or rather, about #McCann, the ongoing “he said, she said” debate between pro- and anti- tweeters.
http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2014/10/07/brenda-leyland-and-twitter-storms/
"Snip"
Yet, hiding behind the alias @sweepyface, she insinuated that the McCanns were implicated in their three-year-old daughter's disappearance during a family holiday in Portugal in 2007 - a theme that had obsessed her for four years. According to the website BuzzFeed, she was sometimes posting more than 50 tweets a day, even on Christmas Eve, from 7am until midnight.
She claimed the McCanns were trying to silence their critics. The accusations were not original but her turn of phrase was blithe and deadly. "You will be hated for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!"
and she developed such an obsession with the McCanns that almost all the 4625 tweets she sent from December 2010 were about the case, many taking issue with their supporters.
It was an industrious hidden life.
Emboldened by disguise, she shared the assumption of all internet trolls that she could say anything she pleased without being held accountable.
As Professor Mary Beard told the London Daily Telegraph when she was campaigning last year against misogynist trolling: "Anonymity has disguised the nature of authorship.
It has allowed these evanescent creatures on the web to blast off without thinking of the victims.
Somehow no-one in this conversation is real. They are just names."
Mrs Leyland tweeted triumphantly at the height of her persecution: "You can move to France, anywhere, but social media is everywhere! Our memories are long, Maddie deserves it."
Her message seemed mild compared with some of the foul-mouthed stuff that has continued to rain down on the McCanns - but there was menace in it, too. Questioned by Sky News reporter Martin Brunt, she said she was "entitled" to tweet as she did - though her justification, without the protective cloak of anonymity, sounded far from confident.
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
Can people who don't subscribe to social media be a victim of online abuse?
The reality about twitter is that if you are not a subscriber, the only way you would know if someone was posting abusive messages about you is if you were to go looking for them or someone who is a member went looking for them and thereafter told you about it.
It’s a bit like someone who repeats libel being guilty of libel.Doesn’t that rather depend on the context?
Can anyone provide a cite that Brenda was being 'abusive' ?
and what the legal definition of 'online abuse' is? I would say you can't because it isn't defined in law.
We have laws already covering harassment and sending 'grossly offensive' materials online. Police did not find Brenda was doing these things, so the claim that she was engaging in abuse which warrants targeting by the media is entirely subjective and it's a moot point even using Brenda being 'abusive' as she broke no law.
Some posters think it was justified doorstepping a private individual just because one group of people don't like some of the opinions expressed by another? Maybe China, Russia or Saudi Arabia is the kind of place these people would prefer to live, where discussion on certain subjects is restricted and punished?
Can anyone provide a cite that Brenda was being 'abusive' ?
and what the legal definition of 'online abuse' is? I would say you can't because it isn't defined in law.
We have laws already covering harassment and sending 'grossly offensive' materials online. Police did not find Brenda was doing these things, so the claim that she was engaging in abuse which warrants targeting by the media is entirely subjective and it's a moot point even using Brenda being 'abusive' as she broke no law.
Some posters think it was justified doorstepping a private individual just because one group of people don't like some of the opinions expressed by another? Maybe China, Russia or Saudi Arabia is the kind of place these people would prefer to live, where discussion on certain subjects is restricted and punished?
We have a free press in this country that it seems you and others, want to suppress.... When it suits you
Do you want freedom of speech?
You asked … “Do you have a cite for "she did use the internet almost solely to excoriate the McCann family" please Brietta as I have seen she had a facebook page and may have been a member of forums on many other topics for all we know”
Unfortunately I am spoilt for choice as far as your cite goes.
But think on this, and wonder how you would cope were you to discover that an individual who had an unhealthy obsession with your family had allegedly gone out of her way to wander the streets of your town where they could be walking in ignorance of her presence or even her existence.
Kate McCann and her children could well have been going about their daily lives in their home village unaware that an anonymous individual who professed hatred for the family could be in closer proximity than the fifteen miles between her village and theirs.
I find that a chilling thought.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time.
She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
The cite(s) you requested ...
'Snip'
However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to justice then the task inevitably falls to journalists like Brunt. Some have criticised his decision to target Leyland because she did not actually threaten to kill the McCanns, unlike other trolls. But she did send thousands of hate tweets. Some days she would send more than 50 messages attacking the McCanns.
Had she hurled this abuse at the couple in the street, she would have been hauled off in handcuffs. Instead she continued to publish with impunity, safe from scrutiny at home in Burton Overy, just 15 miles from where the McCanns live in Leicestershire. Yes, these were the acts of an obsessed loner but "being an oddball" is not a defence to this sort of criminal behaviour.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
"Snip"
When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.
https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
"Snip"
First, the entire Twitter history of Ms Leyland’s @SweepyFace Twitter account can currently be viewed anddownloaded via GrepTweet(or here as a .txt file). There are over 4,000 tweets in the account and all of them appear to be about the McCanns… or rather, about #McCann, the ongoing “he said, she said” debate between pro- and anti- tweeters.
http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2014/10/07/brenda-leyland-and-twitter-storms/
"Snip"
Yet, hiding behind the alias @sweepyface, she insinuated that the McCanns were implicated in their three-year-old daughter's disappearance during a family holiday in Portugal in 2007 - a theme that had obsessed her for four years. According to the website BuzzFeed, she was sometimes posting more than 50 tweets a day, even on Christmas Eve, from 7am until midnight.
She claimed the McCanns were trying to silence their critics. The accusations were not original but her turn of phrase was blithe and deadly. "You will be hated for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!"
and she developed such an obsession with the McCanns that almost all the 4625 tweets she sent from December 2010 were about the case, many taking issue with their supporters.
It was an industrious hidden life.
Emboldened by disguise, she shared the assumption of all internet trolls that she could say anything she pleased without being held accountable.
As Professor Mary Beard told the London Daily Telegraph when she was campaigning last year against misogynist trolling: "Anonymity has disguised the nature of authorship.
It has allowed these evanescent creatures on the web to blast off without thinking of the victims.
Somehow no-one in this conversation is real. They are just names."
Mrs Leyland tweeted triumphantly at the height of her persecution: "You can move to France, anywhere, but social media is everywhere! Our memories are long, Maddie deserves it."
Her message seemed mild compared with some of the foul-mouthed stuff that has continued to rain down on the McCanns - but there was menace in it, too. Questioned by Sky News reporter Martin Brunt, she said she was "entitled" to tweet as she did - though her justification, without the protective cloak of anonymity, sounded far from confident.
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
That is rather a silly question.... Total and complete... The right to abuse others.. The right to mock other religions.... Gays...
No I don't....Freedom of speech has to have limitations
That is rather a silly question.... Total and complete... The right to abuse others.. The right to mock other religions.... Gays...
No I don't....Freedom of speech has to have limitations
As should the press.
As they do.... Was there any complaint Re the press action against Brenda...
Yes.
Can anyone provide a cite that Brenda was being 'abusive' ?
and what the legal definition of 'online abuse' is? I would say you can't because it isn't defined in law.
We have laws already covering harassment and sending 'grossly offensive' materials online. Police did not find Brenda was doing these things, so the claim that she was engaging in abuse which warrants targeting by the media is entirely subjective and it's a moot point even using Brenda being 'abusive' as she broke no law.
Some posters think it was justified doorstepping a private individual just because one group of people don't like some of the opinions expressed by another? Maybe China, Russia or Saudi Arabia is the kind of place these people would prefer to live, where discussion on certain subjects is restricted and punished?
I spent many years teaching children from age five to eleven.
Children can often blurt out unkind remarks to each other when they are annoyed or feel they have a grievance .
Much time is spent by the teacher in helping the children to become more mature in their behaviour and to find a better way of handling their sense of grievance.
Hopefully by the time they are adults these children will have developed and matured enough to be able to express their grievances without resorting to unkind and abusive language.
Brenda, in my opinion, felt very aggrieved by the parents of a missing child and handled her grievance in a very immature way.
She certainly had the right to express her doubts about the parents of a missing child but she chose to express those doubts in abusive and menacing language in a public arena.
Like the children, her words may not have been criminal but in my opinion they were wrong.
So is “He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear” Abuse?
So is “He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear” Abuse?
How it be - it was uttered by the saintly Kate
Not ridiculous at all, Davel is pursuing a poster over a minor disagreement over definitions yet makes a false claim that Brenda Leyland made 36,500 posts against the McCanns when the inquest heard that She made 400 about the McCanns
To me that indicates rank hypocrisy.
Haven't you noticed that I am being pursued by a poster whose request for a cite was complied with but continues in his/her demand for a cite because the cites I provided didn't for some obscure reason suit?
This "cite" business is becoming rather ridiculous in my opinion when it is misused in the way it is currently being abused on the forum: it appears to me to be the concerted reflex action of choice to disrupt and goad.
In my opinion we have already had two examples of this already today.
In my opinion it is rather becoming a pattern.
I wouldn't describe Kate as a Saint.
One has to be dead to be given that title.
Kate felt that Amaral had abandoned the search for her missing child. You may not agree.
He was accusing them of being complicit in their child's disappearance.
She felt fear and misery because of him.
Rightly or wrongly she expressed the wish that he too might feel the misery and recalled that feeling in her book
Why did Brenda feel so aggrieved?
Why did she feel the need to wish them fear and why spend so much of her time in expressing such dark thoughts about the family of a missing child?
I wouldn't describe Kate as a Saint.
One has to be dead to be given that title.
Kate felt that Amaral had abandoned the search for her missing child. You may not agree.
He was accusing them of being complicit in their child's disappearance.
She felt fear and misery because of him.
Rightly or wrongly she expressed the wish that he too might feel the misery and recalled that feeling in her book
Why did Brenda feel so aggrieved?
Why did she feel the need to wish them fear and why spend so much of her time in expressing such dark thoughts about the family of a missing child?
Now which side was it wanted cites in the first place?
Could I suggest you stopped seeing posters as having sides... Or holding grudges... And simply judge each post on it's merits
Obviously because she thought the mcns involved in maddie disappearance.
BL did at one time support the mcns - even adding a substantial amount to the fund.
Obviously because she thought the mcns involved in maddie disappearance.
BL did at one time support the mcns - even adding a substantial amount to the fund.
And yet she was willing to forgive the alleged abductor.
Strange priorities - to my mind.
Can you give me the cite for "she was willing to forgive the abductor"?
I've read this before and believe she said it in a broadcast but would like to hear her exact words.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310279/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-says-forgive-Maddies-abductor.html
From the newspaper report.
I COULD probably forgive the abductor, not would.
While her child is still missing, I imagine this would be the message she would wish to impart.
I would like to see the recording of the programme.
It was a religious programme and she was being asked about her Faith.
Was she asked directly about forgiveness?
From the newspaper report.
I COULD probably forgive the abductor, not would.
While her child is still missing, I imagine this would be the message she would wish to impart.
I would like to see the recording of the programme.
It was a religious programme and she was being asked about her Faith.
Was she asked directly about forgiveness?
It's all about context... Taking a statement out of context can totally change it's meaning
That's why I would like to have a link to the broadcast.
It was a religious programme and I think she was being asked about her Faith and forgiveness.
You are on the verge of becoming as tedious as old "Dangerous"
I made no pretence to quote her actual words, but rather paraphrased the sentiment of what she said.
I have no idea of what you are wittering about.
Who is old "Dangerous."
So paraphrasing Kate's words is an acceptable cite.
This paraphrased quote has been used often.
The cite was the Daily Mail, not my words
Old " Dangerous"? You really must keep - Brietta refereed to Davel as dangerous last night. I'm just spreading her humour
I do my best to "keep up" but don't have the time or dedication that you seem to have.
So the Daily Mail 8)-)))
Just one of many. Pick another if you don't like that one
https://www.google.com/search?q=kate+mccann+forgives+abductor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Thank you .
Is there a link to the original broadcast.
IThank you for your polite and carefully worded and measured response.
Why don't you go look for it yourself, since you are the one making the claim.
This wondefull christian gesture of Kate to 'feel she could forgive the abductor' after describing in detail in her book her daughters possible physical state at the hands of a P.......phile.. Really is quite telling.
Comparing to THE F''KING TO ss ERS and Amaral to feel the fear it displays an eratic mind. Seriously scarie.
I wonder if MBM can forgive the person/s responsible for her 'disappearance'. Great he mum can though. helps with the guilt and all that.
Brenda Leyland was a woman who seemed to firmly stand behind exactly what she had to say online, using her internet persona '@sweepyface'. She wasn't putting out these 'hateful' tweets or messages because she wanted to annoy, but rather because she thought that a serious miscarriage of justice had taken place at the expense of a young child, and she wanted things to be put right. Whether she is correct in what she believed is another matter entirely.
Just because someone stands firmly behind what they bee does not make that belief correct.
That's what I've been telling supporters for several years. 8)-)))
Likewise to your good self.
Although you don't seem to have any beliefs in this case, just lots of doubts
Brenda didn't seem just to have doubts, more total beliefs.
The whole point of the debate is to challenge the content and not the member. This is all you have done since you 'arrived'.
Haven't you noticed that I am being pursued by a poster whose request for a cite was complied with but continues in his/her demand for a cite because the cites I provided didn't for some obscure reason suit?
This "cite" business is becoming rather ridiculous in my opinion when it is misused in the way it is currently being abused on the forum: it appears to me to be the concerted reflex action of choice to disrupt and goad.
In my opinion we have already had two examples of this already today.
In my opinion it is rather becoming a pattern.
I think that is the description of a sceptic
Probably.
But if all someone has are doubts, should they act on those doubts in the way that Brenda and others did and still do?
The 'cite' becomes an issue when it is made up or it is an opinion dressed as fact. The supporters really do not have a reasoned argument regarding any thread worthy of having a adult debate. They are preoccupied with attacking the member. Which is interesting as it shows their lack of integrity as to their claim they care about MBM. When ALL the heads turn to attacking witnesses who do not show the McCanns as perfect parents who had a wee whoopsie of a mistake.
Brenda has nothing to apologise for. She broke no law. I am of the opinion the pressure and global publicity was instrumental in her becoming 'cornered' as she may not have wanted her family subjected to that kind of exposure.
'Old Dangerous' post about not hating Brenda doesn't fit with the rest of his posts.
That's for the individual to decide. I limit my action to posting on a relatively benign and ineffectual forum
Hardly world shattering
We have a free press in this country that it seems you and others, want to suppress.... When it suits you
You are not usually so reticent about giving your opinion on the actions of others.
When have I ever said I want to suppress the press? I have talked about balance and fairness. Brenda was one ordinary person pitted against the whole of the UK's media with absolutely no warning. It was not balanced or fair in any conceivable way. I don't believe Sky followed their own guidelines or those of OFCOM but they got away with it anyway.
You are the one talking about stopping 'abuse' but you won't even define it. That's picking and choosing things that you personally dislike said online and thinking you have a right to suppress it even when people have done nothing unlawful.
Could you show me one post that indicates hate towards Brenda from me... You do post some rubbish
I spent many years teaching children from age five to eleven.
Children can often blurt out unkind remarks to each other when they are annoyed or feel they have a grievance .
Much time is spent by the teacher in helping the children to become more mature in their behaviour and to find a better way of handling their sense of grievance.
Hopefully by the time they are adults these children will have developed and matured enough to be able to express their grievances without resorting to unkind and abusive language.
Brenda, in my opinion, felt very aggrieved by the parents of a missing child and handled her grievance in a very immature way.
She certainly had the right to express her doubts about the parents of a missing child but she chose to express those doubts in abusive and menacing language in a public arena.
Like the children, her words may not have been criminal but in my opinion they were wrong.
I see it looks like supporters are trying to put words into sceptics mouths again, on this thread this time. IMO that is where some of Brenda Leyland's so called worst tweets came from where she partially quoted a McCann supporter I have read.
So my question to you supporters is, are you on a fishing expedition?
You said she was abusive- and support the dossier compliers and Sky for doorstepping. that is not thw words of someone who sympythises with her is ?So I have not used the word hate...and not directed any hatred towards Brenda... As you have implied... Like others, you take my posts out if context but none talk of hate
Just a few posts from you. The Brenda thread back at the time of her death is far more revealing. but many of your posts are deleted.
Re: Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?
« Reply #508 on: August 22, 2018, 10:55:37 PM »
• Quote
its quite obvious Leyland was the perpertartor and the mccanns were the victims....
no sympathy here
Re: Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?
« Reply #486 on: August 22, 2018, 09:51:09 PM »
• Quote
Quote from: Miss Taken Identity on August 22, 2018, 09:50:06 PM
cite for supporting online abuse. ta.
do you condemn brenda or not
You seek condemnation of a dead woman who was tweeting? not sympathetic here
Re: Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?
« Reply #487 on: August 22, 2018, 09:53:07 PM »
• Quote
Quote from: Sunny on August 22, 2018, 09:49:33 PM
again...do you support the abuse by brenda...'Edited'
You are accusing Brenda of abuse- YOUR interpretation of her tweets- not shwoing sympathy here
Reply #460 on: August 22, 2018, 08:51:50 PM »
I have sympathy with the victims of online abuse but none with the perpertrators...none whatsoever
sympathy? NONE WHAT SO EVER. oh dear..
I do not believe you feel sorry for Brenda at all!
So I have not used the word hate...and not directed any hatred towards Brenda... As you have implied... Like others, you take my posts out if context but none talk of hate
Just because something is not unlawful does not mean it isn't wrong... Sometimes it's the law that needs changing... Have you seen brendas tweets... She, was part of a group directing hate, towards the McCann's.. Hatred, was a word she used... That's abusive imo
'hating' someone is not against the law. You think it's 'abuse'. How far do you want it to go, no-one online is ever allowed to say they hate someone online?!
When a driver cuts another driver up and they shout an insult or swear they should be arrested? If you are against abuse why not? It would be a ridiculous notion because people are just expressing how they feel.
Yes I have read Brenda's tweets, I think they are pretty mild to be honest, she wasn't happy with what the McCanns got away with ( leaving the kids) and she was entitled to say so.
Being part of a, group promoting hatred online is abuse afaiac... And needs to be, stopped... Several young people have committed suicide as a result if it... So in my view the law needs, changing
So I have not used the word hate...and not directed any hatred towards Brenda... As you have implied... Like others, you take my posts out if context but none talk of hate
My post said I have no sympathy for those who post on-line abuse... I don't... I do have sympathy for those who suffer mental illness... In that respect I have sympathy for Brenda
Can you show where I have ever said she deservedwhat she got?
Can you show the not nice posts I have made about her?
Just because someone stands firmly behind what they bee does not make that belief correct.
I never said you used the word hate. I am challenging your claim that you have sympathy for Brenda when your posts display a very different view.
I told my neighbour I hate Golf... so shoot me!
Some people feel it is theor right to be loved and respected regardless of their behaviour. Let us make a comparison.
Is leaving your daughter alone everynight to be 'abducted' by a paedophile gang better or worse- than someone saying they hate you.
ummmm yeah tough one that!
Can I ask what you mean by your question to supporters?
I thought my post was quite clear Erngath.
Just because someone stands firmly behind what they bee does not make that belief correct
No it doesn't make yours correct either - Brenda believed in the mcns at on point .
your quote
How anyone can deny that her tweets about the family of a missing child were obsessive and in some cases quite menacing is a puzzle to me.
I still wonder how anyone can defend this behaviour under the cloak of entitlement to free speech.
Brenda certainly had a strong belief in her own entitlement to express her own dark thoughts
Who are you really to call her obsessive and menacing ....
I for one can relate to her she didn't believe the mcns
I have said similar things my self and would object to being called menacing or obsessive.
some supporters said it was good that brenda was dead on twitter and in some forums they went crazy with it no one better bother me with a cite because i wont give one everybody not obsessed with the mcanns welfare saw the torrid of abuse brenda got
Some of that abuse on here carly scroll down a bit.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.qidn61pAq#.hfVEZDyYx
Today we can disclose some of the appalling comments sent to her. The first states: “Hoping you get beaten so bad you beg for mercy, only to have gasoline thrown on you and set ablaze.”
The next adds: “You have reached the end of your torturing campaign against the McCann family, understand.”
The third message is a direct threat against her life with the sadistic author stating: “Death is waiting and watching for u @sweepyface..Do you feel it????”
The next attack was so disgusting it is unsuitable for publication.
The last message states: “Sweepyface, we’re coming for you. Do you feel us?? The decent kind folk who pray for this family and their sad loss.You go to hell *****.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/169572/Mccann-troll-Brenda-Leyland-driven-to-suicide-after-twitter-death-threats
I see that Brenda tweeted that her hate for Gerry and Kate was "justified"
This hatred she had for Kate and Gerry , a couple she had never met and had no personal experience with must have been very unhealthy for her.
Object all you like.
Within the much applauded and all encompassing freedom of speech which you totally adhere to I have the complete right to say that I find such behaviour obsessive and menacing
I have the complete right to say that I find such behaviour obsessive and menacing
Yes well so was brenda she had the right to say what she did and unlike the mcns she is not here to defend herself is she.
So compassionate person fire away with what you thought of her.
I have the complete right to say that I find such behaviour obsessive and menacing
Yes well so was brenda she had the right to say what she did and unlike the mcns she is not here to defend herself is she.
So compassionate person fire away with what you thought of her.
I think it's fair comment to describe the tweets as obsesive and menacing......
Did the dossier compllers provide the complete twitter exchanges or just the those that were critical of the McCanns?
No nit if she believed the mcns involved in maddie's disappearance.
She once supported them and gave to the fund reasonably generously wonder what changed her faith in them
Exactly Slartibartfast. Some of Brenda's tweets were in reply and used the same wording as twitter posts sent to her. I have read the full exchanges somewhere but I cant remember exactly where at the moment.. The supporters were fishing.
Without corroboration your post has no validity... I've read them some time ago and didn't see any fishing
How much did she give and how you know about this
Second time of asking.
Maybe you could find them again and let us all have a look?
Don't know how much she gave it just said reasonably generous.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.qidn61pAq#.hfVEZDyYx
Maybe the person who claimed supporters were fishing could find them to substantiate her claim
I've read that and seem to miss any reference to donation.
I'll read it again later.
If true, then it was indeed very kind of her.
Well i cant see her lying about it. yes it was very kind of her she seemed a very nice person.
Its just like most the mccns can bring the worst out in you imo
if you look for the below on the link it is the 4th tweet down underneath it
At times, Leyland painted herself almost as a campaigning journalist, as here on 7 December 2013 when she tried to find evidence that royalties from Kate McCann's book were deposited in the Find Madeleine fund.
Don't know how much she gave it just said reasonably generous.
Some of B Leyland tweets...
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/6/enhanced/webdr08/longform-original-1512-1412592002-15.png?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.qidn61pAq#.hfVEZDyYx
It is not beyond reason imo to suggest that many people made small donations to the Madeleine Fund initially but subsequently had a change of heart when so much more was known about the case.
Thank you
I see it now.
I didn't realise it was her own tweet.
Why do the McCanns bring out the worst in you or do you mean Brenda or others?
And what do you mean "by the worst"
It is not beyond reason imo to suggest that many people made small donations to the Madeleine Fund initially but subsequently had a change of heart when so much more was known about the case.
It is not beyond reason imo to suggest that many people made small donations to the Madeleine Fund initially but subsequently had a change of heart when so much more was known about the case.
That is correct i know my mother and sister donated several times.
As you say had a change of heart when more was known about the case.
Feeling annoyed [not sure if allowed to quote them] but they felt completely conned.
Also lost any sympathy for the mcns
I see my post has been removed but when I said according to my son Gerry had a lot of support and was, well liked at Leicester I received a lot of abuse from posters here
So does that mean you should give abuse back?
I didn't give any abuse back... I merely pointed out that such a claim was uncorroborated... Is that abuse... That rather supports the claim that brendas tweets were abusive
IYO
I merely said your post was uncorroborated... If that's abuse what does that make brendas comments of her hatred fir the mccannsA good test would be, would Brenda's posts on twitter be acceptable on this forum?
A good test would be, would Brenda's posts on twitter be acceptable on this forum?
A good test would be, would Brenda's posts on twitter be acceptable on this forum?
So she said. Any actual evidence of this?
Obviously because she thought the mcns involved in maddie disappearance.
BL did at one time support the mcns - even adding a substantial amount to the fund.
So she said. Any actual evidence of this?
A good test would be, would Brenda's posts on twitter be acceptable on this forum?
Robittybob1 Here is a link to a list of Brenda's tweets http://themaddiecasefiles.com/sweepyface-tweet-archive-t23555.html
I assume they are all there.
I am sorry everyone but I have been unable to find the information regarding supporters prior posting etc so I retract what I say for now. When I find it I will put it back up.
However I do have this gem I found (this was posted prior to Martin Brunt accosting Brenda in the street)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF63-JwXoAAVlmv.jpg)
Her posts weren't abusive or no more abusive than many other tweets I have read since imo. There is a particularly nasty one called Michael Walker who seems to take delight in calling Brenda sweepyknickers following her death.
One thing I want to say though about Brenda's posts is that I disagree completely with her posts about AT.
Robittybob1 Here is a link to a list of Brenda's tweets http://themaddiecasefiles.com/sweepyface-tweet-archive-t23555.htmlHave you read the tweets Brenda made on September 29th? This is her first one of the day (thanks for the link) written BEFORE the tweet you pictured. Do you think it (and others)might give that tweet some useful context? Here it is:
I assume they are all there.
I am sorry everyone but I have been unable to find the information regarding supporters prior posting etc so I retract what I say for now. When I find it I will put it back up.
However I do have this gem I found (this was posted prior to Martin Brunt accosting Brenda in the street)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF63-JwXoAAVlmv.jpg)
So does that mean you should give abuse back?
Another of Brenda’s tweets that morning written BEFORE the tweet pictured above
516511484919439360|Mon Sep 29 08:55:08 +0000 2014|#mccann Not trying to b flippant, however harm is harm in whatever degree , if it silences Amys mischief then that can only be good
The “it” being referred to being the outing of the tweeter she believed to be Amy Tierney.
I take your point Vertigo Swirl and it is duly noted. I have already mentioned my distaste at Brenda's posts about AT already.You could be giving 99.9% of psychics a bad name.
Did you see my second image with Vee8's post, that I found using a google image search. That indicates that he at least had prior knowledge of the dossier and what was about to happen, these happenings of course lead ultimately to Brenda's death. So if Vee8 from that forum knew about the dossier, how many others on there were complicit.
Either that or Vee8 is a psychic.
All IMO.
we seem to be going away from the thread title...the question is ...did the dossier compilers have the right to go to the ppress...the answer has to be yes...imo....who has the right to stop themHow did you go from this: "Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?" to that?
How did you go from this: "Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?" to that?
because due process means that if the police do not take action the compilers have no right to take the dossier to the press...which supposedely...denies brenda ...due process
That way leads to vigilantes.
brendas way leads to vigilantes.....taking a greivance to the press is perfectly acceptable ......
brendas way leads to vigilantes.....taking a greivance to the press is perfectly acceptable ......
So when she was trying to get the press involved it was fine?
So she said. Any actual evidence of this?
Brenda put her opinions across [strongly] but it is what she believed in.
The press were happy enough to jump on it because of public interest in mcn case.
Imagine someone [maybe already have] taking a dossier on the mcns.
The press would not dare touch it with a barge pole [we no why]
So this is all still very one sided, even though mcns have not been cleared.
When you say Brenda's way leads to vigilantes, you do realise. vigilantes would be mcn supporters.
Why would Brenda lie.
Why do you need evidence on this.
Its the evidence of maddie being abducted , you should be more concerned about.
Is there any actual evidence maddie was ....No
Brenda put her opinions across [strongly] but it is what she believed in.
The press were happy enough to jump on it because of public interest in mcn case.
Imagine someone [maybe already have] taking a dossier on the mcns.
The press would not dare touch it with a barge pole [we no why]
So this is all still very one sided, even though mcns have not been cleared.
When you say Brenda's way leads to vigilantes, you do realise. vigilantes would be mcn supporters.
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.
None of the listed are actually a crime are they.
Same as Brenda was not commiting a crime.
Maybe you dont understand the vigilate meaning. so i have looked it up E
Imo what the above did was to do just that.
Vigilante is a form of the word "vigilant," which means keeping a watchful or close eye on events and people. Sometimes a vigilante will make news for catching a criminal, and sometimes vigilante groups form to target crimes in a bad neighborhood.
vigilante - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vigilante
None of the listed are actually a crime are they.
Same as Brenda was not commiting a crime.
Maybe you dont understand the vigilate meaning. so i have looked it up E
Imo what the above did was to do just that.
Vigilante is a form of the word "vigilant," which means keeping a watchful or close eye on events and people. Sometimes a vigilante will make news for catching a criminal, and sometimes vigilante groups form to target crimes in a bad neighborhood.
vigilante - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vigilante
i find the wording the family of a missiing child emotional blackmail if maddie is alive she isnt a child anymore its just emotional properganda IMO
You obviously think the behaviour I listed is perfectly acceptable.
I don't.
How you can believe it is acceptable to leaflet the McCanns neighbours or put photographs of Madeleine's siblings on the internet is acceptable is beyond my understanding?
That behaviour may not be criminal but it is most certainly not within the bounds of common decency.
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.
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.
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
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'?
Remember the Lord MacAlpine debacle?snip
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'?
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!
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.
OH right @)(++(*
Well i would certainly have my due process if anyone doorstepped me. 8((()*/
OH right @)(++(*
Well i would certainly have my due process if anyone doorstepped me. 8((()*/
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.
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 activities you listed are trouble makers.
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?
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.
You obviously approve of the vigilante type action of those sceptics involved in that behaviour.
What would you do
At least you are observant.
Quite possibly because he was still alive to fight his case while she was dead.
At least you are observant.
what behaviour, what vigilanti type action.
You are either a vigilante or not - what you posted in your list was not vigilantes.
Oh aye, Hawkeye that's me.M.A.S.H
M.A.S.H
Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'
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'?
Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'
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.
Ok.
Most of it was exceptionally disgraceful, against most people's sense of decency , completely unwarranted and troublesome.
Better ?
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
What i do - what i am entitled to do.
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
You are not entitled to do much... That's why I asked
They don't have to be directed personally towards the McCann's... Brenda enjoyed her free speech..... And so did Brunt and the newspapers
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
They don't have to be directed personally towards the McCann's... Brenda enjoyed her free speech..... And so did Brunt and the newspapers
For me, it highlights that Sky and all involved in the decision making processes within it, are just part of the Establishment.
Certainly with regards to the McCann affair, Sky have demonstrated a bias in the reporting, offering the viewers a one-sided account.
A Broadcaster should be impartial and unbiased.Cover all opinions equally.
I hardly think that Sky have been anywhere near those values in the McCann case.
Instead, individuals who voice concerns about the honesty and innocence of the mcns
in the disappearance of maddie, are targeted as 'trolls'.
Sky took a pathetic dossier of alleged 'abusive' comments about the mcns as a reason to support the parents.
some how included in davels quote apologies
Suicide and what drives individuals to it is a far more complex issue than you are crediting it with. The inquest verdict pointed the finger of blame at no-one ... in my opinion it is inappropriate for anyone to second guess that.
Brenda's son who seems to have been her confidant ... even with knowledge of his mother's medical history and previous suicidal tendencies ... did not suspect anything was amiss with her and thought when he couldn't reach her she was merely lying low.
Snip
Leyand’s younger son, Ben, who was not present, said in a statement she was a loving mother, a proud and stubborn woman, and “could not bear to think she could be disliked by those in her community”. He said she suffered from extreme bouts of depression and anxiety and was on medication.
Before the Sky News approach, she had been upset by a “fractious” dispute with a neighbour over an issue concerning a wall.
He had “no doubt” from the panic in his mother’s voice when she telephoned to tell him of the Sky News incident that “this was the final straw that pushed her then to do what she did”.
He said his mother was “completely destroyed” by what had occurred. He was trying to organise legal advice for her, he said. In her last email to him, she said she felt “cheerier”.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/20/sky-news-mccann-brenda-leyland
So why Martin Brunt should have suspected her vulnerability is a mystery to me ... almost as much of a mystery as why her family's obvious desire for privacy is abused and why Brenda Leyland herself is not allowed to rest in peace in the anonymity she valued as some insist more than life itself.
Brenda was offered the opportunity to make her case on prime time television by Martin Brunt ... what I would call the right of reply ... she didn't avail herself of it.
No she killed herself instead, brunt told her she was being reported to CPS.
Her son said
He said she was 'proud but stubborn’, was worried about how she was viewed by others in her 'social circle’, and her exposure as a troll was the 'final straw
In her state she wasn't going to hang around.
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.
Did it sound as if Brenda was suicidal based on this tweet?
516626506563731457|Mon Sep 29 16:32:12 +0000 2014|@RothleyPillow #mccann I am not suffering, the stalking and threats have been most useful for me, cannot thank the perps enough
The day before the doorstepping.
No she didn’t, shows what effect it had.
Why would Brenda lie.Why would she lie about giving a substantial donation to the Madeleine Fund? I think the answer’s obvious. It gives her (in her view) a legitimate grievance, as a donor to the fund. If she hadn’t donated to the fund she has less of a right to compain about it IMO. It makes her look good too, doesn’t it?
Why do you need evidence on this.
Its the evidence of maddie being abducted , you should be more concerned about.
Is there any actual evidence maddie was ....No
"She replied: “I don’t know yet if you have ruined my day or my life."" The only reason we know this is that Martin Brunt reported it to us.
It shows she was suicidal at that time IMO. Probably went unnoticed at the time.
i find the wording the family of a missiing child emotional blackmail if maddie is alive she isnt a child anymore its just emotional properganda IMOWhen did Madeleine cease beimg a child then?
Vigilantes put out an apb on social media alerting other like minded souls of the exact whereabouts of their targets, like in a restaurant for example.
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.
Ihave no problem with what anyone does - to get to the truth of what happened to maddie.That’s why people like us supporters have a problem with you “justice seekers”, the fact that you see nothing wrong with the kind of behaviour listed by Erngarth, but fall into a righteous fury because someone compiled a dossier of abuse directed towards this family and passed it on to the police and media frankly boggles the mind.
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.
Very appropriate, the title of the theme song being 'Suicide is painless'I always found that an absurd lyric.
The dossier compilers had the right to do what they did too, as did Martin Brunt.
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
Why would she lie about giving a substantial donation to the Madeleine Fund? I think the answer’s obvious. It gives her (in her view) a legitimate grievance, as a donor to the fund. If she hadn’t donated to the fund she has less of a right to compain about it IMO. It makes her look good too, doesn’t it?
Why did brenda at that time need to look good - why would she have too...and who for.She made the comment as part of a twitter discussion, no doubt to try and give herself the moral high ground. I don’t know if she actually donated or not, that’s why I asked for evidence. Why should I trust the comments of an (at the time anonymous) tweeter on the internet? You’d really have to be a fool not to take most comments on there with a large pinch of salt IMO.
Her grievance was the mccs leaving there children alone etc etc
So already had a legitimate reason.
IMO you believe everything mccn says - so why not brenda leyland.
As she said she donated when she believed in them- you cant really prove otherwise VS
She made the comment as part of a twitter discussion, no doubt to try and give herself the moral high ground. I don’t know if she actually donated or not, that’s why I asked for evidence. Why should I trust the comments of an (at the time anonymous) tweeter on the internet? You’d really have to be a fool not to take most comments on there with a large pinch of salt IMO.
I always found that an absurd lyric.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned, that if the McCanns had not left three children alone to go out boozing... The Brenda would not have made the tweets and would still be alive.... So we know whose fault it really is
IMO it wasn’t the leaving of the children that has generated the most opposition, it has been the reputation management.So the reputation management is more to be criticised than leaving the children
IMO it wasn’t the leaving of the children that has generated the most opposition, it has been the reputation management.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned, that if the McCanns had not left three children alone to go out boozing... The Brenda would not have made the tweets and would still be alive.... So we know whose fault it really isIt is great to see you do on rare occasions have a sense of humour. You had me there. I thought for a moment you've been turned!
Did Brenda have the right to accuse the McCanns of being murderers (repeatedly) on social media?
Cite.Here’s one as a taster, let me know how many more you require.
Did Brenda have the right to accuse the McCanns of being murderers (repeatedly) on social media?
Here’s one as a taster, let me know how many more you require.
Tue Sep 23 15:52:38 " ooh I say " have you been in any Carry on Films, e.g. " Carry on #mccann s, murder at will
Here’s one as a taster, let me know how many more you require.Reads more like fiction than fact.
Tue Sep 23 15:52:38 " ooh I say " have you been in any Carry on Films, e.g. " Carry on #mccann s, murder at will
An interesting question in my opinion is why Sky chose to reveal this story. Was it to pressurise the police into acting against those in the dossier or did they know that the police had decided no crime had been committed?
Whatever the answer, they pursued a woman who hadn't broken the law.
When a man who fundraised for the Fund and who wrote a blog saying some pretty nasty things about others was convicted of viewing child porn Sky took no notice at all.
An interesting question in my opinion is why Sky chose to reveal this story. Was it to pressurise the police into acting against those in the dossier or did they know that the police had decided no crime had been committed?
Whatever the answer, they pursued a woman who hadn't broken the law.
When a man who fundraised for the Fund and who wrote a blog saying some pretty nasty things about others was convicted of viewing child porn Sky took no notice at all.
His conviction had nothing to do with the mccanns
His conviction had nothing to do with the mccanns
Nor had the woman who was convicted of appalling neglect, her conviction was unrelated to the McCanns But her campaign against the McCanns was reprehensible
His online behaviour in support of the McCanns was as reprehensible as the behaviour of those collected in the dossier imo. If their 'trolling' was newsworthy then so was his.
Then if you feel that way you need to compile a dossier and take it to the police
As we know, the police don't see bad behaviour online as criminal behaviour. I'm not interested in compiling dossiers on anyone and those who were/are were unable to understand the difference.
I respect the right of anyone to report a suspected crime... That's the difference between us
I think nobody would argue with you on the first bit.
I think nobody would argue with you on the first bit.
And if the police don't take action I respect peoples right to go to the press
Though I think most would leave it at that and let the police follow through.
Successfully too in this case. "This person has committed no crime, but we and others disapprove of them" is what Sky chose to broadcast. It wasn't news, it was opinion broadcast on a news channel.
Opinions are broadcast each and every day on news channels.
Unlike the majority of 'victims' of the media ... on this occasion the opportunity to have the right of reply aired on the rolling news was offered and was declined.
Brietta would you agree to be interviewed without warning on national news, regardless of the topic?
He waited for over 3 hours outside her house apparently. I imagine some of her neighbours would have spotted him then he collars her saying apparently.
No, WE CAUGHT YOU! Can we talk to you about your Twitter… handle, and your attacks on the McCanns?
IMO the Sky expose of Brenda was tied into the Summers and Swan book launch.
That's a very serious accusation !
I don't mean that Summers & Swann wanted to ruin anyone's life just that IMO it is one hell of a coincidence that Summers and Swann were interviewed on the same programme by Brunt, that Brenda Leyland was confronted by Brunt in the street where she lived.
They had copies of the dossier and so did Martin Brunt. Where did they get their copy from then?
Though I think most would leave it at that and let the police follow through.Your faith in the ability of the police to always do the right thing is quite charming.
Your faith in the ability of the police to always do the right thing is quite charming.
Does that extend to OG ?I don’t know, you’ll have to ask her.
An example of when going to the media with a dossier of abuse is the only way to get the police to act:
re: the whistleblower Jayne Senior who exposed the child sex grooming scandal in Rotherham.
“Frustrated by the fact the council rarely took any action, she bravely made contact with a journalist from The Times and handed over 200 confidential documents which contained evidence that Rotherham’s police and social services had been aware of the sexual abuse happening but had done nothing to prevent it.
She was awarded Women of the Year Outstanding Achievement Award in 2015 for her courage in blowing the whistle on the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal and helping the victims get the justice they deserved”.
I suppose she should have just piped down and wait for the police to get theri arses in gear, eh?
So you equate someone saying something nasty on the internet to child sex abuse?Is that what I said, or are you putting words into my mouth again?
So you equate someone saying something nasty on the internet to child sex abuse?
So you equate someone saying something nasty on the internet to child sex abuse?The view expressed on this forum by most Brenda supporters is that it is morally reprehensible to compile a dossier of perceived wrong doings and, if the police seem to be dragging their feet or fail to act on something perceived to be criminal, to then send the dossier to the media. Is this your view too? The perceived criminal activity is immaterial, it is the principle I am asking about. Of course once the dossier is with the media outlet it is then up to them what they do with it and completely out of the dossier compilers’ hands.
An example of when going to the media with a dossier of abuse is the only way to get the police to act:
re: the whistleblower Jayne Senior who exposed the child sex grooming scandal in Rotherham.
“Frustrated by the fact the council rarely took any action, she bravely made contact with a journalist from The Times and handed over 200 confidential documents which contained evidence that Rotherham’s police and social services had been aware of the sexual abuse happening but had done nothing to prevent it.
She was awarded Women of the Year Outstanding Achievement Award in 2015 for her courage in blowing the whistle on the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal and helping the victims get the justice they deserved”.
I suppose she should have just piped down and wait for the police to get theri arses in gear, eh?
This woman exposed crimes. The dossier compilers and Sky exposed things which were not crimes.If the woman (Jayne Senior to give her a name) exposed crimes then why did the police who knew all about them do nothing at all until the Times picked up the story? In any case you are missing the point completely, but never mind.
The view expressed on this forum by most Brenda supporters is that it is morally reprehensible to compile a dossier of perceived wrong doings and, if the police seem to be dragging their feet or fail to act on something perceived to be criminal, to then send the dossier to the media. Is this your view too? The perceived criminal activity is immaterial, it is the principle I am asking about. Of course once the dossier is with the media outlet it is then up to them what they do with it and completely out of the dossier compilers’ hands.
The dossier compilers remind me of Mary Whitehouse.Is that really the best you can do?
This woman exposed crimes. The dossier compilers and Sky exposed things which were not crimes.
The dossier compilers remind me of Mary Whitehouse.Mary Whitehouse was a person guided by her strong moral beliefs and religious principles. Do you believe she was a malign influence on British society? The dossier compilers seem to be considered malign by some on here, were they in your view?
Let's get this clear... Do the, sceptics think that members if the public have no right to go to the press if they feel something needs to be investigated and the police won't helpGood question. To which I would add - did Brenda have the right to publicly accuse the McCanns of being murderers on social media? Didn’t really get an answer to this question before...
Do you feel there is anything wrong in the hate expressed by some on social media towards Madeleine's family?
What does 'expressing hate' mean?
Mary Whitehouse was a person guided by her strong moral beliefs and religious principles. Do you believe she was a malign influence on British society? The dossier compilers seem to be considered malign by some on here, were they in your view?
I think many treated her as an anachronistic joke.You don’t say!
Mary Whitehouse was a person guided by her strong moral beliefs and religious principles. Do you believe she was a malign influence on British society? The dossier compilers seem to be considered malign by some on here, were they in your view?
Mary Whitehouse and the dossier compiler's both disapproved of certain things. Not only did they disapprove they wanted everyone else to comply with their opinions. They had every right to have opinions, but no right to insist that there opinions should dominate.Can you provideva link to the dossier compilers insistence that their opinions should dominate? Was Whitehouse wrong to insist that “kiddie porn” was wrong? Was Jayne Senior wrong to go to the Times when she thought it wrong that Asian gangs were grooming underage girls and the police turned a blind eye? Rhetorical, my questions are far too difficult to give an honest answer to, I know.
I think many treated her as an anachronistic joke.
She certainly didn't share the mood of the 1960's.Was she a bad person?
Can you provideva link to the dossier compilers insistence that their opinions should dominate? Was Whitehouse wrong to insist that “kiddie porn” was wrong? Was Jayne Senior wrong to go to the Times when she thought it wrong that Asian gangs were grooming underage girls and the police turned a blind eye? Rhetorical, my questions are far too difficult to give an honest answer to, I know.
Was she a bad person?
Merely a subjective decision based on an individual's outlook.
I would consider her misguided rather than bad.
I'm finding this deflection from pertinent questions asked to a Mary Whitehouse discussion, very cleverly done.
Was she a bad person?
Jayne Senior isn't the same because she exposed actual crimes.Jayne Senior IS IMO the same because until she went to the Times, the police were not interested in investigating these crimes. In other words, they weren't crimes as far as the police were concerned UNTIL the media shone a light on their complacency about child sex grooming. As far as she or the Times knew at the time of blowing the whistle, the police could still have come back with a decision not to prosecute. The only difference is that in the case of the malign tweets being made about the McCanns and accusing them, of among other things, being murderers, the police decided not to go ahead with any prosecutions. The dossier compilers have every right to be dismayed at what they perceived to be police complacency, that doesn't mean they insisted on anything.
Mary Whitehouse wanted censorship of the media and the BBC.
The dossier compilers wanted people to be prosecuted for what they thought were crimes;
Brunt said those who compiled the dossier have reacted with "absolute dismay" at the decision not to prosecute.
"They say it is tantamount to giving the trolls, as they call them, carte blanche to carry on abusing the McCanns," he said.
https://news.sky.com/story/mccann-trolls-police-wont-take-action-10361261
What on earth has that got to do with it? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will always oppose anyone who seeks to stop others saying, reading or watching something just because they disapprove of it.Does that include looking at child pornography, which thanks in large part to Mary Whitehouse is now an illegal activity? Did Mary Whitehouse pave the road to hell in your view?
What on earth has that got to do with it? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will always oppose anyone who seeks to stop others saying, reading or watching something just because they disapprove of it.The law does exactly that... But sets limits. So you oppose the law
What on earth has that got to do with it? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will always oppose anyone who seeks to stop others saying, reading or watching something just because they disapprove of it.
And I will always, support an individuals right to appeal to the press to expose something they see, as, an injustice#metoo
I'm finding this deflection from pertinent questions asked to a Mary Whitehouse discussion, very cleverly done.
Maybe such a high profile case will bring about a clarification of the law... Brenda felt what she, was doing was perfectly acceptable. It is if you accept victims of online abuse committing suicide... It isn't if you dont
Perhaps it will, and I have no objection to people lobbying for such changes. Naming, shaming and door-stepping people who have committed no offence I do object to because two wrongs don't make a right.
Perhaps it will, and I have no objection to people lobbying for such changes. Naming, shaming and door-stepping people who have committed no offence I do object to because two wrongs don't make a right.
Perhaps it will, and I have no objection to people lobbying for such changes. Naming, shaming and door-stepping people who have committed no offence I do object to because two wrongs don't make a right.This is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement that
Perhaps it will, and I have no objection to people lobbying for such changes. Naming, shaming and door-stepping people who have committed no offence I do object to because two wrongs don't make a right.
Bullying on social media is in the news, today Re young girls, self harming... Bullying is wrong...the on-line bullies need to be stoppedShe also mercilessly bullied a young woman she thought was Amy Tierney. There’s no question about it, Brenda WAS an online bully, though some people refuse to accept it.
Bullying on social media is in the news, today Re young girls, self harming... Bullying is wrong...the on-line bullies need to be stopped
Bullying is in the news for sure. A 9 year old boy in Colorado committed suicide after school mates bullied him in person after he came out as gay. Bullying happens all over the place; at school, at work, in the home, and online. It hurts if you let it. The hardest job I had as a parent was helping my children to learn how to deal with this nasty and cowardly behaviour. Whether it can be stopped in all it's forms I don't know; it's been around for a very long time.
Bullying is in the news for sure. A 9 year old boy in Colorado committed suicide after school mates bullied him in person after he came out as gay. Bullying happens all over the place; at school, at work, in the home, and online. It hurts if you let it. The hardest job I had as a parent was helping my children to learn how to deal with this nasty and cowardly behaviour. Whether it can be stopped in all it's forms I don't know; it's been around for a very long time.
Bullying is in the news for sure. A 9 year old boy in Colorado committed suicide after school mates bullied him in person after he came out as gay. Bullying happens all over the place; at school, at work, in the home, and online. It hurts if you let it. The hardest job I had as a parent was helping my children to learn how to deal with this nasty and cowardly behaviour. Whether it can be stopped in all it's forms I don't know; it's been around for a very long time.
It has but social media hasn't.... Social media, gives the bullies a platform to bully 24 hrs, a day.... Brenda could say what she wanted to her friends... But when you publish hatred nationaly there is a difference
Bullying on social media is in the news, today Re young girls, self harming... Bullying is wrong... Brenda tried to bully the McCann's....the on-line bullies need to be stopped
Bullying's a matter of opinion, not fact. I believe in free speech some of which may be seen as bullying by some but not by others.
If they are breaking the law report them to the appropriate authorities if there is sufficient evidence.
If they are not and there isn't there is always the "off" button.
Bullying's a matter of opinion, not fact. I believe in free speech some of which may be seen as bullying by some but not by others.
If they are breaking the law report them to the appropriate authorities if there is sufficient evidence.
If they are not and there isn't there is always the "off" button.
There would be no Madeleine forums if a significant proportion of people hadn’t decided to be outraged about the McCanns and the decisions they made in the first place.
And equally there wouldn't be if a handful of self appointed defenders hadn't emerged.
And equally there wouldn't be if a handful of self appointed defenders hadn't emerged.Oh I think there would...
"I find it reprehensible for anyone to be abusive online. It ranges from calling others stupid to really bad abuse" - G-Unit. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6268.msg236214#msg236214
Bullying's a matter of opinion, not fact. I believe in free speech some of which may be seen as bullying by some but not by others.
"I find it reprehensible for anyone to be abusive online. It ranges from calling others stupid to really bad abuse" - G-Unit. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6268.msg236214#msg236214
And there is, always going to the papers to highlight the situation and get the law, changed
There would be no Madeleine forums if a significant proportion of people hadn’t decided to be outraged about the McCanns and the decisions they made in the first place. You are a part of that, so please don’t pretend you ocupy any sort of higher ground.
Would you care to put a number against that?No.
Laws are changed by parliament.Ultimately, yes, but some laws come about owing initially to the activism of members of the public.
There would be no Madeleine forums if a significant proportion of people hadn’t decided to be outraged about the McCanns and the decisions they made in the first place. You are a part of that, so please don’t pretend you ocupy any sort of higher ground.
Is that the reason people founded and joined forums? Outrage? News to me. I think that's just your opinion.Think what you like. I first joined a forum about the case because I was gobsmacked by the callous hatred being spewed towards the family of a missing child, long before they were considered suspects by most of these people spewing their bile. They were on the whole full of righteous fury about the McCanns' child "neglect". I thought their vile comments were OTT, and there was hardly anyone else voicing an alternative opinion. Yes, I was outraged by their outrage, but theirs was first, believe me! I never would have got involved in Madeleine forums in the first place if I hadn't been so shocked by the vitriol and lack of IMO common decency and restraint on display.
Think what you like. I first joined a forum about the case because I was gobsmacked by the callous hatred being spewed towards the family of a missing child, long before they were considered suspects by most of these people spewing their bile. They were on the whole full of righteous fury about the McCanns' child "neglect". I thought their vile comments were OTT, and there was hardly anyone else voicing an alternative opinion. Yes, I was outraged by their outrage, but theirs was first, believe me! I never would have got involved in Madeleine forums in the first place if I hadn't been so shocked by the vitriol and lack of IMO common decency and restraint on display.
By G-Unit's own definition Brenda behaved in a reprehensible fashion, though she would never come straight out and say so. Brenda went beyond calling someone stupid. She repeatedly accused the McCanns of being murderers, and bullied a young woman quite mercilessly (the fact that she was mistaken in her target is neither here nor there, the intent to hurt and bully is the issue here). In fact I haven't heard a single sceptic describe Brenda's actions as in any way reprehensible, all we ever here is what a lovely lady she was. Well I'm sorry but I don't find her actions particularly lovely. I'm sure she was a delight in real life, but why did she have to be so vile online?
I think you have missed a few times I have posted about Brenda. I have never condoned what she tweeted, or agreed with what she said. It does you no favours to class all skeptics as having one voice. we don't. You insist in trying to make sceptic members of this forum as bad people,nasty trolls etc. but this has yet to be evidenced.
The fact I do not agree with Brenda Layland's tweets does not give me the right to silence her. Brenda committed no crime in the eyes of the law. The dossier complilers achieved NOTHING...SKY achieved nothing... Brenda Died and MBM is missing (perhaps dead). All thanks to the behaviour of others...says a lot to me.
Ultimately, yes, but some laws come about owing initially to the activism of members of the public.
The poll tax riots being a case in point. Laws get made or changed when there's sufficient interest by the general population. I don't see a grass roots interest in protecting the McCanns from online questions and criticisms.
The poll tax riots being a case in point. Laws get made or changed when there's sufficient interest by the general population. I don't see a grass roots interest in protecting the McCanns from online questions and criticisms.Online questions and criticism is fine...
It is wrong to blame others.
The families of suicide victims have so much guilt blaming themselves.
Ultimately someone decides to take their own life and they and they alone make that choice.
The family are the victims.
They are the ones left behind to carry that pain forever.
Think what you like. I first joined a forum about the case because I was gobsmacked by the callous hatred being spewed towards the family of a missing child, long before they were considered suspects by most of these people spewing their bile. They were on the whole full of righteous fury about the McCanns' child "neglect". I thought their vile comments were OTT, and there was hardly anyone else voicing an alternative opinion. Yes, I was outraged by their outrage, but theirs was first, believe me! I never would have got involved in Madeleine forums in the first place if I hadn't been so shocked by the vitriol and lack of IMO common decency and restraint on display.
I am certainly not suggesting that any sceptic here has ever posted the vitriol which was the cause of my and VS involvement in Madeleine discussions but rather we were explaining which came first.
The attacks on the McCann family or those who who sought to counteract those attacks.
Is this your opinion as a qualified clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist or a retired school teacher?
In bold is evidence you know nothing about Mental Health issues, just guessing is fun though.
I have read the posts. I understand what the message is. The outrage you both feel about 'McCann bashers, H*ters, evil trolls, etc posting bile. what that has to do with this forum I have absolutely no idea.
I have never been to a McCann forum. I have no reason to frequent such a described 'toxic enviroment'. If it is so bad I would wonder why go there then come here to bemoan about 'skeptics' if not to try and lump us all as one massive gang of bullies.
This forum is about finding out what happened to MBM by discussion. Not the same as trying to 'solve the case' Any talk about the situation leading up to and the aftermath of MBM's claimed disappearance by her parents, is seen by you and others as mccann bashing etc. This is the case as you always attack the poster
(many of me ) and not the post.
I take confort from that as it proves that the supporters have no real arguement to offer, just to be 'offended' on behalf of people they don't even know.
So what came first?
My opinion : On a yahoo chatsite, with many threads on different subjects, some posters were questioning the behaviour of the McCanns on the week MBM disappeared. there were no accusations or nastyness, however, after a while the chat turned bad by 'new people' coming in hard selling the 'abduction' and began to name call anyone who challenged the theory... I left long before the Amaral hatred came about.
The McCanns created their own monster.
Forum parents discussed nightmares for many children who thought they would be abducted from their bed via a window as was 'that little girl'.
.
Anything that some people don't approve of SHOULD BE STOPPED! Any means are acceptable so long as the end is achieved.
Rather an exaggerated statement in my opinion.
Just hate and bullying on the internet should be stopped.
It sounds simple, but it isn't. The first step is to agree on a definition of 'hate' and 'bullying'.
Anything that some people don't approve of SHOULD BE STOPPED! Any means are acceptable so long as the end is achieved.
What constitutes hate speech and bullying seems to have been accepted in school, workplaces and in the publc arena.
Shouldn't be too difficult to carry this over into the internet.
Do you consider any of the internet speculation about the McCann family to be outwith the bounds of decency?
How far is free speech allowed?
That would depend alot on where one lived.
It sounds simple, but it isn't. The first step is to agree on a definition of 'hate' and 'bullying'.
1) I wasn't thinking of North Korea.
Obviously the discussion is related to what happens in this country.
2)I thought that was understood.
Well in some quarters if someone is offended by what you say or do it is deemed as bullying.The offence may be real or not it is how they 'feel'. Now as we undestand it - if we believe the McCanns, they do not 'do' social media. therefor can't possibly be offended. So no harm done.
'Curtain tweekers' were disliked in post WW2 Russia and Germany. AND now we know why!
love this:Amaral,and the McCanns and Rupert Murdoch ,sky news bbc all media ... making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.
1) Neither was I.
2) It was/is.
The poll tax riots being a case in point. Laws get made or changed when there's sufficient interest by the general population. I don't see a grass roots interest in protecting the McCanns from online questions and criticisms.There is a grass roots interest in doing more to prevent internet bullying and abuse though and hold social media platforms to account, don’t you think?
Have you seen posts about the case which dispassionately examine and discuss the evidence? No 'callous hatred' being 'spewed', no 'bile', no 'righteous fury', no 'vile comments', no 'vitriol'? I have. Perhaps you were reading the wrong sites?Yes I have seen posts like that. What is your point?
OK, is it bullying to call someone fat and ugly, and to out them on social media? Is it acceptable to imply publicly that someone is guilty of murder?
It sounds simple, but it isn't. The first step is to agree on a definition of 'hate' and 'bullying'.
I have read the posts. I understand what the message is. The outrage you both feel about 'McCann bashers, H*ters, evil trolls, etc posting bile. what that has to do with this forum I have absolutely no idea.If this forum is about finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann they why have we spent 57 pages discussing the reprehensible activities of an OAP in Leicestershire?
I have never been to a McCann forum. I have no reason to frequent such a described 'toxic enviroment'. If it is so bad I would wonder why go there then come here to bemoan about 'skeptics' if not to try and lump us all as one massive gang of bullies.
This forum is about finding out what happened to MBM by discussion. Not the same as trying to 'solve the case' Any talk about the situation leading up to and the aftermath of MBM's claimed disappearance by her parents, is seen by you and others as mccann bashing etc. This is the case as you always attack the poster
(many of me ) and not the post.
I take confort from that as it proves that the supporters have no real arguement to offer, just to be 'offended' on behalf of people they don't even know.
So what came first?
My opinion : On a yahoo chatsite, with many threads on different subjects, some posters were questioning the behaviour of the McCanns on the week MBM disappeared. there were no accusations or nastyness, however, after a while the chat turned bad by 'new people' coming in hard selling the 'abduction' and began to name call anyone who challenged the theory... I left long before the Amaral hatred came about.
The McCanns created their own monster.
Forum parents discussed nightmares for many children who thought they would be abducted from their bed via a window as was 'that little girl'.
.
What constitutes hate speech and bullying seems to have been accepted in school, workplaces and in the publc arena.
Shouldn't be too difficult to carry this over into the internet.
Do you consider any of the internet speculation about the McCann family to be outwith the bounds of decency?
How far is free speech allowed?
Hate speech (as opposed to just 'hate') does have a legal definition and those practicing it can be prosecuted. No-one has been prosecuted for directing such speech at the McCanns.The law
There is no legal definition of bullying, it isn't a criminal offense.
'The bounds of decency' means nothing to me because I don''t know what you mean by it. We may disagree as to what is or isn't 'decent'.
Hate speech (as opposed to just 'hate') does have a legal definition and those practicing it can be prosecuted. No-one has been prosecuted for directing such speech at the McCanns.
There is no legal definition of bullying, it isn't a criminal offense.
'The bounds of decency' means nothing to me because I don''t know what you mean by it. We may disagree as to what is or isn't 'decent'.
Online questions and criticism is fine...
I have read the last few pages and seen very little in the way of sympathy (this does not mean none) for Brenda. Yes she made some horrible posts about the McCanns but most of them were not, they were simply questioning what the couple did and from what I can see she responded to goading by supporters and gave back what they gave her.Do you not find her bullying behaviour of a young woman reprehensible? Did she have the right to repeatedly accuse the McCanns in your view?
Do you not find her bullying behaviour of a young woman reprehensible? Did she have the right to repeatedly accuse the McCanns in your view?
No and no but did she deserve what happened to her thanks to the dossier compilers and the media. I don't believe she deserved any of it. Perhaps a knock on the door by the police if she had broken the law (which she hadn't I believe) but not the media onslaught she got.So if you saw someone behaving repeatedly reprehensibly, bullying and accusing others repeatedly of being murderers you would do nothing? Just let them get on with it? Can any decent person justify that?
Can any decent person justify that?
Either the dossier compilers were doing a good thing, as claimed, in which case it shouldn’t be an issue to be associated with it, or they were doing a bad thing.
I totally support them and would like to see more posters of offensive posts outed.
The risk of suicide relates to the victims of online bullying and abuse... Not the perpetrators
I don't believe the dossier compilers were wrong either.
I would love to see a definition of a 'decent' person. I see it as related to 'respectable'. In my opinion many people have been seen as decent and respectable..............until they were found out.
Well they obviously were not decent and respectable.
Just hypocrites.
So you feel that the dossier compilers would be in danger if their identities were revealed?
All posts containing personal comments and/or goading will be removed as per previous edicts.
The dossier compilers were nothing more than a bunch of busybodies imo who got burned by their stupid actions. The correct port of call for any online abuse is the social media platform involved and then the police. The press and media have no right to get involved where the police deem abuse to not be criminal. If the laws are too loose as someone already suggested then petition the government to tighten them up.
All posts containing personal comments and/or goading will be removed as per previous edicts.
The dossier compilers were nothing more than a bunch of busybodies imo who got burned by their stupid actions. The correct port of call for any online abuse is the social media platform involved and then the police. The press and media have no right to get involved where the police deem abuse to not be criminal. If the laws are too loose as someone already suggested then petition the government to tighten them up.
I agree. The internet has given everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. We all read opinions we disagree with or which we find offensive. That doesn't give us the right to take action against those who have offended us. Posting anonymously and offending others isn't illegal.
the dossier compilers didn't get burned...no one knows who they are...they had every right to go to the press...that is not opinion..its fact
It does give us the right to take action against poeple who have offended us.......totally....as long as we act within the law
In the end it comes down to different opinions, doesn't it? Some of us think the dossier compilers were a 'bunch of busybodies' and others think they were justifiably concerned citizens doing all they could to clean up the internet Personally I admire those who have the courage to identify themselves and defend their opinions publicly.Then why do you post anonymously.... there is a very good reason why posters do not post with their real name....Brenda certainly didnt and look what happened when her name was known......Brendas problem was she did not want to ...or could not defend her opinions publicly
Then why do you post anonymously.... there is a very good reason why posters do not post with their real name....Brenda certainly didnt and look what happened when her name was known......Brendas problem was she did not want to ...or could not defend her opinions publicly
The dossier compilers showed no desire to defend their opinions and actions publicly either.
Neither had anyone on this forum.. Apart from John... And I stiil post even though my identity iis known and I have received the expected abuse
the doddier compliers didnt get burned...no one knows who they are...they had every right to go to the press...that is not opinion..its fact
Oh but they did. They will have the death of a woman on their consciences for ever.
The dossier compilers showed no desire to defend their opinions and actions publicly either.
They disappeared as quickly as Brunty did for fear of exposure so lesson learned imo. Such hypocrites, no more dossiers since.
In your opinion... I doubt it will be on their conscience as I doubt they attach any blame to themselves... Quite right they are too.. Imo
I attach much blame to them just as I do Sky News, Jonathan Levy and Martin Brunt. In my opinion the coroner was wrong not to attach blame to what occurred. The statement by Brenda's son said it all imo.
They disappeared as quickly as Brunty did for fear of exposure so lesson learned imo. Such hypocrites, no more dossiers since.
Neither had anyone on this forum.. Apart from John... And I stiil post even though my identity iis known and I have received the expected abuse
I'm not talking about anyone on this forum. I'm talking about people who seemed to want others to be exposed to public scrutiny but weren't prepared to expose themselves.
Poison Pen Letters.
I attach much blame to them just as I do Sky News, Jonathan Levy and Martin Brunt. In my opinion the coroner was wrong not to attach blame to what occurred. The statement by Brenda's son said it all imo.
A good analogy.
The letter from Brenda's son which was accepted into evidence, reveals that he had no concerns about his mother's state of mind or any fear that she would attempt suicide.
I'm not talking about anyone on this forum. I'm talking about people who seemed to want others to be exposed to public scrutiny but weren't prepared to expose themselves.
In many ways perhaps when one takes the cowardice and malice involved. But usually the poison pen writer is a very sad individual ... in my opinion when abuse is systematic and organised and the abusers can be counted in their hundreds worldwide ... it alters the whole dynamics of the assaults.
I never thought you would have been that critical of the dossier compilers.
I'm not talking about anyone on this forum. I'm talking about people who seemed to want others to be exposed to public scrutiny but weren't prepared to expose themselves.So you think police should not act on anonymous tip offs... Everything here is opinion... Sceptics support brenda.... Supporters, support the dossier...
However...
Her son Ben Leyland, who lives in America, said her ‘outing’ as @sweepyface left his mother “a broken wreck”.
He added: "She was completely destroyed by what had occurred. It was the final straw that pushed my mum to do what she did."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-sky-news-journalist-5371486
That to me implies blame?
However...
Her son Ben Leyland, who lives in America, said her ‘outing’ as @sweepyface left his mother “a broken wreck”.
He added: "She was completely destroyed by what had occurred. It was the final straw that pushed my mum to do what she did."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-sky-news-journalist-5371486
That to me implies blame?
So you think police should not act on anonymous tip offs... Everything here is opinion... Sceptics support brenda.... Supporters, support the dossier...
So you think police should not act on anonymous tip offs... Everything here is opinion... Sceptics support brenda.... Supporters, support the dossier...
mcann supporters dont have any empathy for anyone but the mcanns they could care less about brenda you know it i know it they know it if it had not gone wrong they wouldnt of given brenda anymore thought as long as the mcanns were protected all IMO the mcanns dont even care about anybody online or so supporters say
It is fatuous to asume it can be so simply delineated.That makes me smile...
Either the dossier compilers were doing a good thing, as claimed, in which case it shouldn’t be an issue to be associated with it, or they were doing a bad thing.If I admitted to being one of the dossier compilers what sort of reaction could I expect from Brend’s supporters on here? How about if I gave you my full name and contact details, could you guarantee I would be safe from harrassment and abuse?
I would love to see a definition of a 'decent' person. I see it as related to 'respectable'. In my opinion many people have been seen as decent and respectable..............until they were found out.Exactly like Brenda.
I agree. The internet has given everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. We all read opinions we disagree with or which we find offensive. That doesn't give us the right to take action against those who have offended us. Posting anonymously and offending others isn't illegal.You cannot be serious. I don’t have the right to take action against those who have offended me?! Of course I have that right!
I attach much blame to them just as I do Sky News, Jonathan Levy and Martin Brunt. In my opinion the coroner was wrong not to attach blame to what occurred. The statement by Brenda's son said it all imo.What nonsense. You’ll be calling for it to be made illegal for people to contact the media with their concerns about possible criminal behaviour next.
I'm not talking about anyone on this forum. I'm talking about people who seemed to want others to be exposed to public scrutiny but weren't prepared to expose themselves.What’s wrong with that?
A good analogy.A rubbish analogy.
What sort of action would you have in mind ?Depends doesn’t it?
If I admitted to being one of the dossier compilers what sort of reaction could I expect from Brend’s supporters on here? How about if I gave you my full name and contact details, could you guarantee I would be safe from harrassment and abuse?
Depends doesn’t it?
If you admitted to be a compiler then you would get nothing from me apart from a couple of questions.If I was a (the) dossier compiler I would answer your questions. As I’m not I can’t. I could pretend to be one though if you like, and see where we go with it...?
1) Did you think of any possible consequences of providing the full details of sceptics to various sources in the media
2) Would you do it again.
There may be more questions but I can't think of any at present. Of course you could admit it (if you were a dossier compiler of course) without giving your name and contact details. I can't see why anyone would need those, unless they were compiling a dossier of course.
Does It ? Upon what does it depend?What was said, where it was said, how it was said, why it was said, who said it, etc. Do you think I would have no right to take action against those that offend me, seriously?
What was said, where it was said, how it was said, why it was said, who said it, etc. Do you think I would have no right to take action against those that offend me, seriously?
Does It ? Upon what does it depend?
That wasn't my query, which was about your action.I don’t do illegal so would I have the right to take action legally or not?
Not sure that you should or would have a right, as your action might be illegal.
I don’t do illegal so would I have the right to take action, legally or not?
No body has given you this 'right', though you have a degree of freedom of action, as long as you stay within the law.
No body has given you this 'right', though you have a degree of freedom of action, as long as you stay within the law.In other words it is nonsense to say I have no right to take action against someone who offends me. I can sue them for starters, if their offensive statement is based on lies, I can remonstrate with them in person or by message, I can reciprocate in kind, if the offensive statement concerns my sexuality or ethnic origin or religion I can go to the police, likewise if the offensive statement is threatening or intimidating, I can even go to the media, if the offensive statement was made by someone with a public profile that would be in the public interest, or of interest to the public. Plenty of ways I could take action, all within the law.
Twitter is a lawless place where insults seem to be the norm. This forum is pretty good in my opinion as there are rules preventing such behaviour.
You miss, a very important point... Twitter isn't lawless
Compared to this forum it is imo. Surely the dossier compilers tried complaining on there first?
Is it true that every UK citizen has the right not to have their name publicised by the media until they have been charged with a crime, as per the OP? Wasn’t there a nurse in the news recently arrested for murdering eight babies, her name released but no charges brought so far. Who’s to blame if she were to take her own life?
So you agree that Brenda shouldn't have had her name published having committed no crime,much the same as Alec Salmond who is being dragged through the mud having to defend his name against as yet unsubstantiated claims. Carl Sargeant a welsh MP committed suicide after being named after allegations him surfaced. note not having been convicted, the press have an awful lot to answer for.I don’t believe I ever said what you said I said did I?
So you agree that Brenda shouldn't have had her name published having committed no crime,much the same as Alec Salmond who is being dragged through the mud having to defend his name against as yet unsubstantiated claims. Carl Sargeant a welsh MP committed suicide after being named after allegations him surfaced. note not having been convicted, the press have an awful lot to answer for.
Gutter journalism relying on gossip and innuendo rather than facts. They have driven people to alternative sources in their search for the truth. I imagine they're surviving on those piles of ads festooning their sites on the internet now. You can't read their 'stories' for them now.
No complaints when the press, were printing gossip and innuendo about the McCanns?
Was G-Unit there? I know I wasn't.
No complaints when the press, were printing gossip and innuendo about the McCanns
I wasn't interested at the time and I haven't read newspapers for years anyway. They have continued printing gossip and innuendo ever since, just not about the McCanns; they're too scared of Carter-Ruck. They pick on those who can't fight back now, like 'women in purple'.
I wasn't interested at the time and I haven't read newspapers for years anyway. They have continued printing gossip and innuendo ever since, just not about the McCanns; they're too scared of Carter-Ruck. They pick on those who can't fight back now, like 'women in purple'.I read them online.. Of course they are frightened of CR... And so they should be... They can print anything supported by evidence.. And that's how it should be
And of course Brenda Leyland.
I wasn't interested at the time and I haven't read newspapers for years anyway. They have continued printing gossip and innuendo ever since, just not about the McCanns; they're too scared of Carter-Ruck. They pick on those who can't fight back now, like 'women in purple'.Cliff Richard, Alex Salmond, Harvey Weinstein, are these less scary than the McCanns?
IMO nothing was printed about Brenda that wasn't true... That was her problem
Apart from calling her a troll perhaps?
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
From what I have read Brenda wasn't doing twitter to laugh at the McCanns but because she genuinely believed that the parents were guilty in some way. She was more of a justice seeker than a troll IMO but perhaps got carried away from time to time as many on there appear to do. There are some nasty unpleasant posters on twitter that I have read, on both sides of the argument but I don't see any of the nastier supporters being "outed" in the dossier.
Apart from calling her a troll perhaps?
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
From what I have read Brenda wasn't doing twitter to laugh at the McCanns but because she genuinely believed that the parents were guilty in some way. She was more of a justice seeker than a troll IMO but perhaps got carried away from time to time as many on there appear to do. There are some nasty unpleasant posters on twitter that I have read, on both sides of the argument but I don't see any of the nastier supporters being "outed" in the dossier.
Why do you think so called supporters should be 'outed' in a dossier detailing abuse and hatred perpetrated by so called sceptics?
I don't think that is a sound argument ... when you think about it ... do you?
Apart from calling her a troll perhaps?Have you seen the dossier?
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
From what I have read Brenda wasn't doing twitter to laugh at the McCanns but because she genuinely believed that the parents were guilty in some way. She was more of a justice seeker than a troll IMO but perhaps got carried away from time to time as many on there appear to do. There are some nasty unpleasant posters on twitter that I have read, on both sides of the argument but I don't see any of the nastier supporters being "outed" in the dossier.
I wasn't proposing a dossier by sceptics. If you read my post again I was asking why weren't the nastier supporters tweets included in the original dossier.The dossier was compiled by someone concerned about the McCanns’ safety. Had there been any supporter s’ tweets that gave concern about the McCanns safety they may well have been included. Unless you’ve seen the dossier how do you know what was in it and what wasn’t?
Davel I have read Brenda's tweets about AT and I have already said (TWICE) that I don't agree with her at all in what she did to AT.
Perhaps her tweets were unpleasant but I am sure if we search through some of the supporter tweets we could find some equality nasty unpleasant tweets too. I have read some deeply unpleasant ones regarding Goncalo Amaral too. Why do some supporters call him Gonzo or Amaral? Are either of those names acceptable to anyone here?
I wasn't proposing a dossier by sceptics. If you read my post again I was asking why weren't the nastier supporters tweets included in the original dossier.
Davel I have read Brenda's tweets about AT and I have already said (TWICE) that I don't agree with her at all in what she did to AT.
Perhaps her tweets were unpleasant but I am sure if we search through some of the supporter tweets we could find some equality nasty unpleasant tweets too. I have read some deeply unpleasant ones regarding Goncalo Amaral too. Why do some supporters call him Gonzo or Amaral? Are either of those names acceptable to anyone here?
The point is that the dossier was compiled of hate comment directed to and about the McCanns. Such vitriol has been spewed out for over eleven years now ... if you feel you wish to justify that unimaginable level of abuse directed at the family of a missing child that is entirely between you and your conscience.I think in such a circumstance the alleged guilty conscience of the suicide victim and their shame and fear of being discovered would be wholly blamed, not the media, and not any whistleblower or armchair dossier compiler / detectives.
But if we were discussing the suicide of anyone in that family and not that of one of their tormentors ... who do you think would be responsible?
That is actually a rhetorical question ... I do know the mantra.
The point is that the dossier was compiled of hate comment directed to and about the McCanns.
Snip
If you went to the police after an altercation with a neighbour, do you think they would be satisfied with a record of just what the neighbour said or would they want to know what you said too. IMO most of these tweets should be taken in context of the rough and tumble of debate on twitter and not as a set of statements made in cold blood.
Debate on Twitter says it all. The only thing Twitter is of any use for is discovering the ability to say something in 140 Characters in relatively good and understandable English. Most of them fail miserably. Except for the Insults.
We should all consider on here that if someone collected a series of posts out of context from a selected group of posters we could show how bullying and abusive that group was
We should all consider on here that if someone collected a series of posts out of context from a selected group of posters we could show how bullying and abusive that group wasPlease do so and prove your point.
If you went to the police after an altercation with a neighbour, do you think they would be satisfied with a record of just what the neighbour said or would they want to know what you said too. IMO most of these tweets should be taken in context of the rough and tumble of debate on twitter and not as a set of statements made in cold blood.if brenda had confined her abusive twets to those who tweeted to her you might have a point...she didnt..so you dont..imo
If you went to the police after an altercation with a neighbour, do you think they would be satisfied with a record of just what the neighbour said or would they want to know what you said too. IMO most of these tweets should be taken in context of the rough and tumble of debate on twitter and not as a set of statements made in cold blood.
if brenda had confined her abusive twets to those who tweeted to her you might have a point...she didnt..so you dont..imoWeren’t her .........t and most abusive tweets about Amy T made after she believed that tweeter had left twitter in fear?
Context is important as it is on here. There's a difference between attacking for no reason and doing it in response to being attacked oneself.
Context is important as it is on here. There's a difference between attacking for no reason and doing it in response to being attacked oneself.
Precisely... The McCann's were not attacking brenda
I think any conversations she was involved in were with others interested in the McCann case, not with any family members. Unless they were there incognito of course. Who knows?
I think any conversations she was involved in were with others interested in the McCann case, not with any family members. Unless they were there incognito of course. Who knows?
Are you saying that it is acceptable to tell lies about someone, insult someone, accuse someone of crimes as long as the person does not actually read these statements themselves.
Doesn't justify her abusive tweets towards the mccanns
People only have to justify their words to platform owners, the police or libel lawyers. They're not obliged to answer to members of the public who take offence at what they say.
I think people should be allowed to express their opinions so long as they do so without breaking the law.
I think people should be allowed to express their opinions so long as they do so without breaking the law.
Do you think the rules of this forum are unfair... We, are not able to fully express our views... Your idea, would, result in chaos
I think any conversations she was involved in were with others interested in the McCann case, not with any family members. Unless they were there incognito of course. Who knows?
And people should take responsibility for their, actions... People als have the right to report suspected crimes to the police and also to go to the press to highlight abuse..
Brendas problem was that she, was, ashamed of the things she said and couldn't justify them
Her problem was that she was exposed and made an example of in my opinion.
I think that's true.... But it needs, to be done.. Imo
Her problem was that she was exposed and made an example of in my opinion.
Context is important as it is on here. There's a difference between attacking for no reason and doing it in response to being attacked oneself.On twitter if you call me a nasty word to my twitter face I can block you or otherwise ignore you or reply to your tweet abusing me by abusing you back ... and twitter being twitter anyone else who got out of the wrong side of the bed that morning can join in to the melee should they be into that sort of thing.
Her problem was that she was exposed and made an example of in my opinion.
Should all those who abuse others on Twitter be investigated by the police and if found to have committed no offense be exposed by the media?
On twitter if you call me a nasty word to my twitter face I can block you or otherwise ignore you or reply to your tweet abusing me by abusing you back ... and twitter being twitter anyone else who got out of the wrong side of the bed that morning can join in to the melee should they be into that sort of thing.
What though, if I am an onlooker who happens to know you and everything about you and your family ... where you work, your home address, your children's school etc etc etc ... who decides to stalk you ... who decides to troll you ... who organises a small group to join in the fun.
How would you feel if tweets started appearing about your visit to the supermarket and what you were wearing?
How would you feel if a leaflet campaign featuring you targeted your neighbours?
How would you feel if details of the times of your children's route to school was tweeted to all and sundry.
How would you feel if while you were dining with your children a picture of you all was posted on line giving precise details of your whereabouts.
How would you deal with the general everyday tweets expressing hatred for you and your family over an eleven year period.
According to your posts all of the above and more is legal ... oh well.
However ... the point is that Brenda Leyland was in my opinion doing precisely what you have said in your post and was "attacking for no reason and doing it in response to being attacked oneself".
The objects of her vitriol weren't tweeting hatred to her ... it was all unwarranted by any stretch of the imagination and all very one-sided.
Very well said Brietta 8((()*/
Those who say it is a matter for the Police to sort out, why don't the anti McCann tweeters leave it to the Police? There are two Police forces saying the McCann's are not suspects yet there are tweeters still tweeting the McCann's are guilty that they are murderers s..m etc. what right have they to still carry on this abuse?
IMO those saying the dossier compilers were wrong to do what they did are standing up for all those on twitter who hurl abuse at the McCann's day and night. What makes a person do that? Why go on twitter with the intent to just tweet abuse and call the parents of a missing child names?
Why does anyone abuse others? I've no idea. All I know is that this case brought out the worst in a lot of people both for and against the McCanns, but only one person was exposed. A good journalist in my opinion would have been less biased in his choice of victim. Why not one of each, for balance?
So you agree that Brenda shouldn't have had her name published having committed no crime,much the same as Alec Salmond who is being dragged through the mud having to defend his name against as yet unsubstantiated claims. Carl Sargeant a welsh MP committed suicide after being named after allegations him surfaced. note not having been convicted, the press have an awful lot to answer for.
I've been far more harshly treated by the media than brenda ever was... But I never contemplated suicide... It's ridiculous to suggest sky caused brendas death
The issue was the abuse of the McCann's.... So balance would be a McCann supporter...
Why does anyone abuse others? I've no idea. All I know is that this case brought out the worst in a lot of people both for and against the McCanns, but only one person was exposed. A good journalist in my opinion would have been less biased in his choice of victim. Why not one of each, for balance?
I don't think he was interested in internet wars against anti and pro McCann's. It was the abuse thrown at the McCann family.
I read on the Jill Havern forum that Brunt intended to work his way down the list of names in the dossier.
A McCann supporter who abused others, of course. Unless none of them ever did that?
Abused who... There are, people, abusing each other everday on social media... Mostly anonymous... That's not the issue
That's give and take
I agree.
The insults thrown about on twitter between two sets of anonymous twitterers is quite different from the abuse thrown at a named family.
I thought it was quite normal to abuse named people on there?
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
Twitter users can block abusers at any time.
Really? I didn't know that. But there wouldn't have been much point. I bailed out from Twitter a long ago. I only needed to crack the 140 Characters in relatively good English. I accomplished that without too much trouble. After that Twitter became irrelevant. it was only ever an English thing for me. I mean, do come on. I can deliver a frightfully good Insult when called upon.
The dossier compilers had the right to do what they did too, as did Martin Brunt.
Going back somewhat on my weekly catchup.
I think you've hit the nail on the head kizzy. Brunt spoke to Brenda and learned that she was vulnerable yet Sky still went ahead and aired that footage. Anyone with a titter of wit would know that you just don't get involved in those situations. It is beyond me what the hell they thought they were doing?
Actually no. What they did was to abuse their position as national broadcasters. By the way, did Sky ever receive any sanctions over their callous actions or as I suspect, it was swept under the carpet?
Actually no. What they did was to abuse their position as national broadcasters. By the way, did Sky ever receive any sanctions over their callous actions or as I suspect, it was swept under the carpet?
It is the users choice, you can block another user instantly, nobody is forced to read abusive posts. Same with Facebook etc.
martin brunt didnt go back to work for weeks did he?? the supporters on this forum who support what sky did and what he did are too personally involved this case imo to think it was ok for sky and martin brunt to basically lead brenda to killing herself
It seems the only people criticising sky are this that already dislike the McCann's... Therefore a biased viewpoint
martin brunt didnt go back to work for weeks did he?? the supporters on this forum who support what sky did and what he did are too personally involved this case imo to think it was ok for sky and martin brunt to basically lead brenda to killing herself
Sky did wrong and Brunt paid a price for it. That's why it has never been repeated.
Unlike the majority of 'victims' of the media ... on this occasion the opportunity to have the right of reply aired on the rolling news was offered and was declined.
You don't actually think Sky News would have broadcast BL's opinion on the McCann case for the entire nation to see?Sky would not be able to broad cast brendas libellous abuse
That's the ironic thing about it, had she gone on camera to reveal her views, I don't think any footage would have been broadcast at all.
Sky would not be able to broad cast brendas libellous abuse
Exactly and so the entire exercise was one of futility IMHO.
Exactly and so the entire exercise was one of futility IMHO. Let's hope they and the BBC have now learned their lesson albeit a tad late for Brenda and Sir Cliff.
Actually no. What they did was to abuse their position as national broadcasters. By the way, did Sky ever receive any sanctions over their callous actions or as I suspect, it was swept under the carpet?
It is interesting that on a site allegedly so hot on justice, human rights etc the actions of Sky which in this instance likely involved a tort, possibly a crime and infringement of privacy are seemingly condoned.......
Don't give me the "Brenda was worse routine". What she did was unpleasant and obsessive but not illegal.
It is interesting that on a site allegedly so hot on justice, human rights etc the actions of Sky which in this instance likely involved a tort, possibly a crime and infringement of privacy are seemingly condoned.......
Don't give me the "Brenda was worse routine". What she did was unpleasant and obsessive but not illegal.
I think people should be allowed to express their opinions so long as they do so without breaking the law.Apparently repeatedly referring to people as murderers on social media is not against the law. IMO however it should be against twitters t and c’s and transgressors should be booted off permanently, IP banned.
Why does anyone abuse others? I've no idea. All I know is that this case brought out the worst in a lot of people both for and against the McCanns, but only one person was exposed. A good journalist in my opinion would have been less biased in his choice of victim. Why not one of each, for balance?Others “sceptics” have been exposed in the past and seem quite proud of their notoriety, and certainly not topped themselves.
My friend was doorstepped by a newspaper for no other reason then she donated to the Amaral fund. What is it about this case that makes the media loss all sense of right and wrong ? My friend was going about her legal business, donating to a cause she believed in. Why would anyone believe that they deserved an explanation for that ?
Why does anyone abuse others? I've no idea. All I know is that this case brought out the worst in a lot of people both for and against the McCanns, but only one person was exposed. A good journalist in my opinion would have been less biased in his choice of victim. Why not one of each, for balance?It was Sky, not the BBC!
Actually no. What they did was to abuse their position as national broadcasters. By the way, did Sky ever receive any sanctions over their callous actions or as I suspect, it was swept under the carpet?They received no sanctions because they did nothing wrong IMO.
It is interesting that on a site allegedly so hot on justice, human rights etc the actions of Sky which in this instance likely involved a tort, possibly a crime and infringement of privacy are seemingly condoned.......If Sky behaved criminally why weren’t they prosecuted?
Don't give me the "Brenda was worse routine". What she did was unpleasant and obsessive but not illegal.
My friend was doorstepped by a newspaper for no other reason then she donated to the Amaral fund. What is it about this case that makes the media loss all sense of right and wrong ? My friend was going about her legal business, donating to a cause she believed in. Why would anyone believe that they deserved an explanation for that ?Did it make national news?
Did it make national news?
You don't actually think Sky News would have broadcast BL's opinion on the McCann case for the entire nation to see?
That's the ironic thing about it, had she gone on camera to reveal her views, I don't think any footage would have been broadcast at all.
It was in a national newspaper.She or he must have given them a quote then.
I agree John. For that creep Brunt to tell her a lie that she was being investigated by the police must have cause her alarm.Dissent or vile abuse? There is a difference. Have you seen the dossier? Did it contain all the RL names of everyone on the biggest FB page devoted to “sceptic” views?. Last time I looked there were about 25,000 members of that page with plenty of dissent going on there, do you know for a fact that they were all included in the dossier?
The facts are: the dossier collaberators were, on behalf of the McCanns, with or without their knowledge, building a case to rid the uk of any dissent regarding this case. They sent the dossier to SY as they were investigating? no they were reviewing dearies, SY chucked it as it was irrelevent to what they were doing and said it wa a local matter. LP said no crimes were commited by Brenda. If Brunt had done what a real good journalist should do, and investigate properly with a non partisan agenda, He would have found this out! But it was all easy taking his stance that the McCanns were a sure thing for publicity, and loved by millions...
Ooops wrong!
See here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Of_the_public_and_political_reaction
If Sky behaved criminally why weren’t they prosecuted?
I said "possibly" with regard to criminal it depends on the tort. Can you not read ?Do you always have to be so rude? Did Sky receive any sanctions at all from any body at all, was a complaint made to Ofcom, did Brenda’s family sue? Answers to these questions may be revealing.
I note you attempt to give the tort and infringement of privacy a body swerve....no comment there then?
1)Do you always have to be so rude? 2)Did Sky receive any sanctions at all from any body at all, was a complaint made to Ofcom, did Brenda’s family sue? Answers to these questions may be revealing.
I said "possibly" with regard to criminal it depends on the tort.
I note you attempt to give the tort and infringement of privacy a body swerve....no comment there then?
1)On this site I find it helps.Great, in that case we can say Brenda and others may have committed an offence despite no sanctions being applied. 8((()*/
2) A logical extension to what you are saying is "If no one is sanctioned an offence has not been committed"
That, manifestly, is fatuous. No further comment is necessary on my part.
Indeed Alice. and have you noticed some supporters are obsessed with sceptics,some actually believe they have the monopoly on right and wrong. I find it very entertaining. I was very impressed by the dignity of Brendas Family. They did not go all out to sue every crass dossier writer, or the media, because they knew MONEY could not replace their mother. They could have set up a company,and do promotional tours... but they kept a dignified silence.
Great, in that case we can say Brenda and others may have committed an offence despite no sanctions being applied. 8((()*/
LOL. Promtional tours about what?
Indeed Alice. and have you noticed some supporters are obsessed with sceptics,some actually believe they have the monopoly on right and wrong. I find it very entertaining. I was very impressed by the dignity of Brendas Family. They did not go all out to sue every crass dossier writer, or the media, because they knew MONEY could not replace their mother. They could have set up a company,and do promotional tours... but they kept a dignified silence.
Indeed Alice. and have you noticed some supporters are obsessed with sceptics,some actually believe they have the monopoly on right and wrong. I find it very entertaining. I was very impressed by the dignity of Brendas Family. They did not go all out to sue every crass dossier writer, or the media, because they knew MONEY could not replace their mother. They could have set up a company,and do promotional tours... but they kept a dignified silence.
She or he must have given them a quote then.
I've been door stepped.... And my reaction was defiance...because unlike brenda I had done nothing wrong
And ?Why are you complaining about her being doorstepped then?
How very ‘street’ of you @)(++(*How very mocking of you. @)(++(*
Why are you complaining about her being doorstepped then?
So in her surprise she says something which the journalist prints and you think that justifies his doorstepping ? What, in your opinion, had she done wrong that she should be afforded such treatment?
So in her surprise she says something which the journalist prints and you think that justifies his doorstepping ? What, in your opinion, had she done wrong that she should be afforded such treatment?
Its all a ploy to draw attention to poor victim McCanns. I mean if Brenda had killed fluffly lil kittens then yeah I would be really peaved off,big time. She didn't commit any crime.
So in her surprise she says something which the journalist prints and you think that justifies his doorstepping ? What, in your opinion, had she done wrong that she should be afforded such treatment?What are you on about? Who said anything about her “doing wrong”? You don’t have to have “done wrong” to be doorstepped, nor do you have to open your mouth when doorstepped. What did she say and did it ruin her life?
Thr only reason brenda has so much support is because some posters here dislike the mccanns
Thr only reason brenda has so much support is because some posters here dislike the mccanns
We would need to know all the details... Not just you biased account.. Did it even happen... Who knows
Really? Is it that sad? Poor Brenda.
I think you confuse support with sympathy. Members can have sympathy for what happened to her regardless of the McCann case. I have no time for online abuse or media bullies and Sky News certainly has plenty of that particular creature.simple question...do you condemn the abuse by brenda
Really? Is it that sad? Poor Brenda.
simple question...do you condemn the abuse by brenda
And why were you doorstepped ? You seem reticent about giving details. Did you engage with the reporter ?
I think you confuse support with sympathy. Members can have sympathy for what happened to her regardless of the McCann case. I have no time for online abuse or media bullies and Sky News certainly has plenty of that particular creature.
I think you confuse support with sympathy. Members can have sympathy for what happened to her regardless of the McCann case. I have no time for online abuse or media bullies and Sky News certainly has plenty of that particular creature.
John, not one sceptic member on this forum has 'supported' what Brenda did or said. To be accused of it shows the desperation to vilify members who do not believe the McCanns by supporters and this is a trait the dossier compilers had... Unpleasant, and vile tactic. It really shouldn't be tolerated.
a dentist who worked for me had a problem...the sun took up the story...I was asked to comment and expalined taht due to patient confidentiality I couldnt comment...the sun said....Boss ...*** ******.....refused to comment under the headline ...Dentist broke my jaw......which wasnt true
Of course but the punishment was disproportionate.
Now why were you doorstepped ? What had you done wrong ?
No such headline seems to exist.
Great, in that case we can say Brenda and others may have committed an offence despite no sanctions being applied. 8((()*/
I had quite a lot of very nasty online abuse after appearing on TV with my wife and children...very nasty ........you tube werent interested in taking the clip down and there was nothing I could do...eventually it disappeared.
thats probably why i feel so strongly about online abuse.....when my children said...why are people being so mean to us
A headline that doesn’t seem to exist and a YouTube video that ‘ disappeared ‘. ’
A headline that doesn’t seem to exist and a YouTube video that ‘ disappeared ‘. ’
If it did exist it will be in 'The Sun' archives.. google can't wipe newspapers headlines lololololol
You really do have no sense of what is acceptable behaviour, do you ?I don’t think it’s acceptable to make insulting and inaccurate observations like the one above.
Thr only reason brenda has so much support is because some posters here dislike the mccanns
The general demeanour from the supporters appears to blames BL for her own demise due to her legal tweets.Have you read the last few pages? I have never blamed Brenda for her own demise, I don’t however believe any supporter was to blame, but I do find threads like this provide a much enjoyed opportunity for sceptics to rant.
The general demeanour from the supporters appears to blames BL for her own demise due to her legal tweets.
Brenda's death was far more to do with other factors in her life...imo...none of our business.
You are very keen to get the thread closed.
You are very keen to get the thread closed.No, let’s keep slagging each other off in Brenda’s name, she’d love that I’m sure.
simple question...do you condemn the abuse by brenda
I already said I have no time for any online abuse.
Brendas abuse should not be tolerated...and it wasnt...the dossier compilers are blameless..imo
Basically a bunch of busy bodies cherry picked a load of tweets to portray some people critical of the McCanns in a bad light. It is assumed they took their complaints to twitter who said no, they took their list to the police who said no, then they took their list to the media who said yes please, as has been said, “media interference in this way not only makes the work of the police more difficult, it can potentially damage and destroy the investigation altogether.”.
Basically a bunch of busy bodies cherry picked a load of tweets to portray some people critical of the McCanns in a bad light. It is assumed they took their complaints to twitter who said no, they took their list to the police who said no, then they took their list to the media who said yes please, as has been said, “media interference in this way not only makes the work of the police more difficult, it can potentially damage and destroy the investigation altogether.”.Didn’t you just tell us the investigation by the police was over before the dossier compilers went to the media?
They went too far imo and Sky News certainly did. It is the police's job to deal with abuse, maybe Brunt and his crew should have doorstepped the Chief Constable if they weren't happy with their response instead of a vulnerable pensioner?
perhaps if the police had done their job properly and gone and had a quiet word with brenda...she would still be alive
So did you know that the police received the dossier prior to Martin Brunt etc then Davel? You appear to be saying that IMO.
Of course Brenda hadn't broken any laws so I am not sure what the police could have said except a message that they knew who she was.
The police have a duty to prevent crime.....the police should have taken the dossier seriously ...they didnt...
They receive the dossier...they speak to brenda an expalin here tweets are abusive .....they speak to the dossier compilers and say they have spoken to brenda.....that is good policing ..imo...and is what SHOULD have happened
the police gave the compilers no option but to go to the press
But how do you KNOW the dossier went to the police first before going to the media. I haven't seen that stated in any media story as far as I can recall.
Perhaps you can give me a cite on that one, please.
I wont give you a cite because I cant be bothered...Im discussing the issues and you are disrupting...do your own research
How can asking for a cite be disrupting Davel? Cites are required by forum rules. Read my signature.Faithlilly has already provided a timeline of events surrounding the dossier, but it is possible she made them up. I assumed she was in the know however..
It is OK I have found my own cite. Which poses another question regarding davel's posts
A spokesman for Scotland Yard said today: 'We can confirm we have received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange [the police review into Madeleine's disappearance].
'They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.'
Detective Inspector Michael Kilkenny of the Metropolitan Police told the campaign group: 'In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the McCann family, the material will now be assessed and decisions made as to what further action, if any, should be undertaken.'
So it appeared that the police were still deciding what action to take (if any) when Brenda was doorstepped by Martin Brunt. So Davel did you get this bit wrong then?
The police have a duty to prevent crime.....the police should have taken the dossier seriously ...they didnt...
They receive the dossier...they speak to brenda an expalin here tweets are abusive .....they speak to the dossier compilers and say they have spoken to brenda.....that is good policing ..imo...and is what SHOULD have happened
the police gave the compilers no option but to go to the press
Brenda WAS an online bully, kindly make the case that she was not and we can discuss further. Bullying is reprehensible and should be stopped. Kindly make the case that it should be allowed to continue and we can discuss.
Brenda WAS an online bully, kindly make the case that she was not and we can discuss further. Bullying is reprehensible and should be stopped. Kindly make the case that it should be allowed to continue and we can discuss.
If you went to the police after an altercation with a neighbour, do you think they would be satisfied with a record of just what the neighbour said or would they want to know what you said too. IMO most of these tweets should be taken in context of the rough and tumble of debate on twitter and not as a set of statements made in cold blood.
Just because the police took no action does not mean a crime wasn't committed...
That is an excellent point. Much of the abuse on twitter results from other abusive comments in a continuous series of tit for tat tweets. Taking isolated posts out of context is a misrepresentation of what was really going on. The #McCann tag is used to get tweets seen, in most cases the tweet itself is not aimed at Madeleine's parents. One has to use twitter to properly understand how it works.If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? IMO yes, IMO abuse is abuse whether the intended recipient sees it or not. It’s about intent. Brenda intended to abuse A.. I T......, supported her outing and hoped she’d be in trouble with her employers, even though the person on the receiving end was not AT, she thought it was. I have no doubt Brena hoped her abuse of the McCanns would get through to them somehow. It did, and only then IMO did she realise how shameful her actions would seem to the wider public. If it was all a game and she didn’t really mean it she could have explained this to Brunt when he interviewed her privately but then she would have lost face with her twitter buddies, had he reported this. I agree she got caught up and swept along in something very unsavoury indeed, but as a grown woman of certain years, it’s a shame she hadn’t developed the wisdom to realise it before it got out of hand. IMO.
Out of interest, did the dossier contain the tweet responses to @sweepyface and others?
How could @sweepyface abuse someone if they weren't even on twitter? Surely abuse has to be received to constitute abuse? It could be argued that the abusive comments were retaliatory and aimed at those twitter users who she saw as the opposition. It is a game after all which thousands play every day.
Brenda WAS an online bully, kindly make the case that she was not and we can discuss further. Bullying is reprehensible and should be stopped. Kindly make the case that it should be allowed to continue and we can discuss.
“Bully - a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people”
Now point out the weaker people. The supporters she interacted with on twitter? The McCanns who weren’t on twitter?
That is an excellent point. Much of the abuse on twitter results from other abusive comments in a continuous series of tit for tat tweets. Taking isolated posts out of context is a misrepresentation of what was really going on. The #McCann tag is used to get tweets seen, in most cases the tweet itself is not aimed at Madeleine's parents. One has to use twitter to properly understand how it works.
Out of interest, did the dossier contain the tweet responses to @sweepyface and others?
How could @sweepyface abuse someone if they weren't even on twitter? Surely abuse has to be received to constitute abuse? It could be argued that the abusive comments were retaliatory and aimed at those twitter users who she saw as the opposition. It is a game after all which thousands play every day.
Sky News reporter was just doing his job
In view of the public interest in the so-called “trolling” of the McCanns by Twitter users, the news organisation appears to have behaved perfectly properly
By Telegraph View6:25AM BST 07 Oct 2014
The apparent suicide of Brenda Leyland following her unmasking as an alleged abuser on Twitter of the McCann family is a tragedy all round. For her family, the circumstances of her death will compound the loss they must feel. For Mr and Mrs McCann, who have suffered so much since the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it is another ghastly consequence of her disappearance.
Now, though, an attempt is being made to force the dismissal of the Sky News reporter Martin Brunt, who confronted Mrs Leyland about a series of comments made on her anonymous Twitter account. A campaign has begun on the social media site Facebook demanding his sacking. This is unfair. Mr Brunt was just doing his job and, by all accounts, scrupulously followed guidelines for handling such stories. The Sky report did not identify the village where Mrs Leyland lived and she was referred to only by her Twitter name. Moreover, registration plates on nearby cars were pixelated.
Sky News’s guidelines state: “Any grounds for an investigation that involves significant intrusion into any individual’s privacy must be very strong.” In view of the public interest in the so-called “trolling” of the McCanns by Twitter users, the news organisation appears to have behaved perfectly properly. While the exchanges may turn out to have been a tipping point for Mrs Leyland, no direct link has yet been made between the incident and her sad death.
Mrs Leyland was said to be one of dozens of people – and by no means the worst – to have attacked Kate and Gerry McCann over the internet and often under the cover of anonymity. The police spend huge amounts of time investigating this abuse. In the end, the perpetrators must take responsibility for their own actions.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11143889/Sky-News-reporter-was-just-doing-his-job.html
At the time that Sky News visited Mrs Leyland her activities were being examined by the police. At the time the BBC filmed the Cliff Richard story he was being investigated by the police. Neither of them had committed an offense. In both cases the message was the same. The public's attention was being drawn to a police investigation into people who, it transpired, had committed no offense. If the public had the right to know about one of them it had the right to know about the other, and vice versa in my opinion.
“Bully - a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people”Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A.. T....... Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?
Now point out the weaker people. The supporters she interacted with on twitter? The McCanns who weren’t on twitter?
Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A.. T........ Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?
Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A..T........ Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?
Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A.. T....... Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?
So supporters bullied Brenda, glad that is settled.
Highlighting only a part of someone's sentence to complete alter its meaning and then adding a glib comment is rather an immature way of posting. IMO.
Don’t be ridiculous. That was part of VS’s post it wasn’t dependent on any other part. It was stand alone. Do you deny that BLs details were obtained by the compilers?
Don’t be ridiculous. That was part of VS’s post it wasn’t dependent on any other part. It was stand alone. Do you deny that BLs details were obtained by the compilers?
Highlighting only a part of someone's sentence to completely alter its meaning and then adding a glib comment is rather an immature way of posting. IMO.
Don’t be ridiculous. That was part of VS’s post it wasn’t dependent on any other part. It was stand alone. Do you deny that BLs details were obtained by the compilers?
From the legal side ...
Snip
The media lawyer said he had seen “a significant upswing” in online bullying cases.
But criminal prosecution, said Stephens, should be reserved for the most extreme cases.
“It is only a very small minority who are fixated, who take it to the extreme — people who are borderline certifiable,” he argued.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has instructed lawyers that messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”.
“Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages could also amount to a crime if a “public interest” case can be made.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
In my opinion all of what has been said above is applicable to the organised gang trolling of the McCanns with Brenda Leyland perhaps falling into the nuisance category ... or maybe not when one considers her physical proximity to them and the allegation made that she often visited their home village as a result of her interest in them.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time. She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child.
In my opinion the repetition and the choice of victims seen as vulnerable (and few can be more vulnerable than families of the missing) is typical bullying behaviour particularly when it is gang related.
I don't think it is an issue that can be properly addressed by those individuals with normal thought processes such as unaffiliated researchers trying for understanding (maybe Dr Synott or another of his ilk could be informed by threads such as this one?)
Snip
What drove the outpouring of bile about the McCanns by Leyland, a church-going mother-of-two in a sleepy English village, remains a mystery.
However, new research confirms what many victims already know, that online trolls can be a sinister bunch.
A study by Canadian researchers cited in Psychology Today linked trolling to sadism.
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!” it said.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
From the legal side ...
Snip
The media lawyer said he had seen “a significant upswing” in online bullying cases.
But criminal prosecution, said Stephens, should be reserved for the most extreme cases.
“It is only a very small minority who are fixated, who take it to the extreme — people who are borderline certifiable,” he argued.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has instructed lawyers that messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”.
“Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages could also amount to a crime if a “public interest” case can be made.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
In my opinion all of what has been said above is applicable to the organised gang trolling of the McCanns with Brenda Leyland perhaps falling into the nuisance category ... or maybe not when one considers her physical proximity to them and the allegation made that she often visited their home village as a result of her interest in them.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time. She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child.
In my opinion the repetition and the choice of victims seen as vulnerable (and few can be more vulnerable than families of the missing) is typical bullying behaviour particularly when it is gang related.
I don't think it is an issue that can be properly addressed by those individuals with normal thought processes such as unaffiliated researchers trying for understanding (maybe Dr Synott or another of his ilk could be informed by threads such as this one?)
Snip
What drove the outpouring of bile about the McCanns by Leyland, a church-going mother-of-two in a sleepy English village, remains a mystery.
However, new research confirms what many victims already know, that online trolls can be a sinister bunch.
A study by Canadian researchers cited in Psychology Today linked trolling to sadism.
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!” it said.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
Do you have a link to this research please?
snip/
"Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child."
From the legal side ...
Snip
The media lawyer said he had seen “a significant upswing” in online bullying cases.
But criminal prosecution, said Stephens, should be reserved for the most extreme cases.
“It is only a very small minority who are fixated, who take it to the extreme — people who are borderline certifiable,” he argued.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has instructed lawyers that messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”.
“Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages could also amount to a crime if a “public interest” case can be made.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
In my opinion all of what has been said above is applicable to the organised gang trolling of the McCanns with Brenda Leyland perhaps falling into the nuisance category ... or maybe not when one considers her physical proximity to them and the allegation made that she often visited their home village as a result of her interest in them.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time. She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child.
In my opinion the repetition and the choice of victims seen as vulnerable (and few can be more vulnerable than families of the missing) is typical bullying behaviour particularly when it is gang related.
I don't think it is an issue that can be properly addressed by those individuals with normal thought processes such as unaffiliated researchers trying for understanding (maybe Dr Synott or another of his ilk could be informed by threads such as this one?)
Snip
What drove the outpouring of bile about the McCanns by Leyland, a church-going mother-of-two in a sleepy English village, remains a mystery.
However, new research confirms what many victims already know, that online trolls can be a sinister bunch.
A study by Canadian researchers cited in Psychology Today linked trolling to sadism.
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!” it said.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
Do you have a link to this research please?
snip/
"Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child."
Have to say that I've never come across any such group. No one has ever approached me 8(8-))
You need to provide a cite for your first sentence.
From the legal side ...
Snip
The media lawyer said he had seen “a significant upswing” in online bullying cases.
But criminal prosecution, said Stephens, should be reserved for the most extreme cases.
“It is only a very small minority who are fixated, who take it to the extreme — people who are borderline certifiable,” he argued.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has instructed lawyers that messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”.
“Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages could also amount to a crime if a “public interest” case can be made.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
In my opinion all of what has been said above is applicable to the organised gang trolling of the McCanns with Brenda Leyland perhaps falling into the nuisance category ... or maybe not when one considers her physical proximity to them and the allegation made that she often visited their home village as a result of her interest in them.
Snip
"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time. She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/
Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child.
In my opinion the repetition and the choice of victims seen as vulnerable (and few can be more vulnerable than families of the missing) is typical bullying behaviour particularly when it is gang related.
I don't think it is an issue that can be properly addressed by those individuals with normal thought processes such as unaffiliated researchers trying for understanding (maybe Dr Synott or another of his ilk could be informed by threads such as this one?)
Snip
What drove the outpouring of bile about the McCanns by Leyland, a church-going mother-of-two in a sleepy English village, remains a mystery.
However, new research confirms what many victims already know, that online trolls can be a sinister bunch.
A study by Canadian researchers cited in Psychology Today linked trolling to sadism.
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!” it said.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/technology/111710-the-scourge-of-internet-trolls.html
Do you have a link to this research please?
snip/
"Brenda Leyland was a cog in the wheel of a far larger organised controlled and controlling group which researchers have associated with the trolling of the parents of a missing child."
Sky News reporter was just doing his job
In view of the public interest in the so-called “trolling” of the McCanns by Twitter users, the news organisation appears to have behaved perfectly properly
By Telegraph View6:25AM BST 07 Oct 2014
The apparent suicide of Brenda Leyland following her unmasking as an alleged abuser on Twitter of the McCann family is a tragedy all round. For her family, the circumstances of her death will compound the loss they must feel. For Mr and Mrs McCann, who have suffered so much since the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it is another ghastly consequence of her disappearance.
Now, though, an attempt is being made to force the dismissal of the Sky News reporter Martin Brunt, who confronted Mrs Leyland about a series of comments made on her anonymous Twitter account. A campaign has begun on the social media site Facebook demanding his sacking. This is unfair. Mr Brunt was just doing his job and, by all accounts, scrupulously followed guidelines for handling such stories. The Sky report did not identify the village where Mrs Leyland lived and she was referred to only by her Twitter name. Moreover, registration plates on nearby cars were pixelated.
Sky News’s guidelines state: “Any grounds for an investigation that involves significant intrusion into any individual’s privacy must be very strong.” In view of the public interest in the so-called “trolling” of the McCanns by Twitter users, the news organisation appears to have behaved perfectly properly. While the exchanges may turn out to have been a tipping point for Mrs Leyland, no direct link has yet been made between the incident and her sad death.
Mrs Leyland was said to be one of dozens of people – and by no means the worst – to have attacked Kate and Gerry McCann over the internet and often under the cover of anonymity. The police spend huge amounts of time investigating this abuse. In the end, the perpetrators must take responsibility for their own actions.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11143889/Sky-News-reporter-was-just-doing-his-job.html
Martin Brunt described how he discovered BL's details. When he confronted her he didn't use her name.
I think posters need to remember that it was imo brendas prolific online abuse that put her in the media, spotlight... I have sympathy for her as a person but none for her exposure... She brought that on herself
Well there are two such groups in my opinion.
The group that do a great deal of "researching", writing letters, sending FOIs and have had meetings and have visited Gerry's workplace and put leaflets through the McCann's neighbour's doors etc.
Then there is the Facebook group who let it be known if any of the family are spotted and share this information.
They spend much time in posting libel, and generally mocking Madeleine's family.
I don't think you would be happy in either group.
And that is intended as a compliment.
You missed the group that compiled dossiers.
You missed the group that compiled dossiers.
I am not sure you could call members of forums with similar views a "group" they are simply people who are interested in the case and want to discuss it. Perhaps we are all part of a Miscarriage of Justice Forum Group. There's a thought!
IMO there is only one organised group and that IS the one that systematically compiled the dossier and spent hours and hours searching for the identity of sceptics such as Brenda Leyland. They are (or at least were) very organised IMO.
Clearly well organised and highly motivated, that one. IMO
Thank you for your opinion piece Brietta. So perhaps you would say the BBC were "just doing their job" regarding Cliff Richard.
A sledgehammer to crack a nut is not doing your job IMO.
Why couldn't Brunt have given Brenda Leyland anonymity. She wasn't breaking the law and hadn't been arrested.
Perhaps a shadowed image of her talking, even saying she lived in Leicestershire. Then I am sure she would have gone away as the supporters wanted but she wouldn't have had her entire life devastated by our media naming her, speaking to her neighbours, watching her house and all the while screaming TROLL at her.
But perhaps you think what Brunt started finished with Brenda Leyland is all OK even though you decry what the media appear to have done to the McCanns in 2007.
A smidgen of hypocrisy from some supporters IMO.
...and judging by some of the tweets I have seen, gleeful when they thought they had succeeded in hurting someone.
You missed the group that compiled dossiers.
So having said abuse is wrong you now, want to justify the abuse by brenda... That is somewhat inconsistent
I am not sure you could call members of forums with similar views a "group" they are simply people who are interested in the case and want to discuss it. Perhaps we are all part of a Miscarriage of Justice Forum Group. There's a thought!
IMO there is only one organised group and that IS the one that systematically compiled the dossier and spent hours and hours searching for the identity of sceptics such as Brenda Leyland. They are (or at least were) very organised IMO.
I think posters need to remember that it was brendas IMO prolific online abuse that put her in the media, spotlight... I have sympathy for her as a person but none for her exposure... She brought that on herself
So the group who have researched meticulously all details of Madeleine's family, visited the street her family live in, visited Gerry's workplace, study every available photo of her and her family, held meetings to discuss their next steps in their campaign,, organise endless letters and FOI acts and other actions too numerous to mention are not an organised group.?
(&^&
You seem awfully well informed.
I got the impression that it was down to one pathetic old man and a couple of hanger-ons. Not much of a group
Now that every group has been besmirched, perhaps time to call it a day on this thread.
Perhaps you missed ... "Mr Brunt was just doing his job and, by all accounts, scrupulously followed guidelines for handling such stories. The Sky report did not identify the village where Mrs Leyland lived and she was referred to only by her Twitter name. Moreover, registration plates on nearby cars were pixelated."
Please don't misinterpret my comments. I was explaining how twitter users get caught up in a gang mentality and lose all sense of proportion or right and wrong which they would experience in the real world. Some people manage the experience better than others.
So the group who have researched meticulously all details of Madeleine's family, visited the street her family live in, visited Gerry's workplace, study every available photo of her and her family, held meetings to discuss their next steps in their campaign,, organise endless letters and FOI acts and other actions too numerous to mention are not an organised group.?
(&^&
I'm quite sure BL would not have given permission for footage of her to be aired on national tv so imo Sky was wrong to show her face, a luxury they seem to afford to most others who don't wish to be identified these days. Maybe they have learned their lesson.
It was a sceptic who began the thread and most often it is a sceptic who brings back to the discussion the name of a woman whose name should be allowed to rest in peace.
Please close the thread.
I really believe all that could be said, had been said.
The media doesn't need brendas permission. The press are under pressure to get stories.... I don't see any complaints here Re the McCanns unfair treatment by the press.... The filming of Kate being verbally abused as she ran the gauntlet for her interview with the PJ... Al this abuse against the McCanns has been triggered by unfair media coverage... Amaral given a platform to spread his version of the facts that have no basis in truth. The reason Brenda and others abused the McCanns was because they believed the lies spread by the media
Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A.. T....... Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?That's a lot of claims that I cannot remember being evidenced this thread.
I have a couple of questions for you and Brietta. Brietta quoted twice "Mr Brunt was just doing his job and, by all accounts, scrupulously followed guidelines for handling such stories"
If this was true then I wonder why there was such a furore about the story from the media. There were questions raised about Sky's running of the story.
Sky's response to questions
Sky is confident that proper procedures had been followed. The broadcaster is reviewing in the situtation in the wake of Leyland’s death. Sky News’ guidelines state: “Any grounds for an investigation that involves significant intrusion into any individual’s privacy must be very strong. Before we start out we must be certain that any such intrusion is outweighed by the seriousness of the story and the amount of public good that will be delivered by its publication and/or broadcast.”
The detailed guidelines also say: “People who are the subject of reports should not be treated unfairly. Where wrongdoing is alleged, they should be offered an opportunity to respond.
“Where there may be doubt or uncertainty over a legal issue – in the first instance check with the Head of Home News or Head of International News, as appropriate. Remember: if in doubt, do not proceed, broadcast or publish. Always refer upwards.”[/i]
IMO the parts in italics undermine Sky's decision to broadcast Brenda's face, her house and where she lived.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/06/facebook-sky-news-troll-martin-brunt-brenda-leyland-mccanns
Brietta perhaps you could also explain other "such stories" that have merited such a media onslaught.
Davel the media questions when Kate was interviewed by the PJ were whilst she was a suspect. What do you expect from a free press?
Davel do you also know for sure also that "The reason Brenda and others abused the McCanns was because they believed the lies spread by the media". Do you not think they are capable of reading and understanding the police files as you claim you have. All it may be is they have reached a different conclusion to your good self.
If you think otherwise perhaps a cite would do.
Well for a start, the McCann supporters she interacted with on twitter were vastly outnumbered by the pack who abuse them on a regular basis. Finding out the personal details of, including employment details and physical appearance of your opponent puts hem in a weaker position straight away, so undoubtedly Brenda used both these aspects to bully the twitter user she believed was A.. T....... Abusing people online who you know cannot respond directly is cowardly and bullying too IMO. If for example Kate McCannwere on twitter she would be one person being constantly attacked by hundreds. Are you now attempting to clain Brenda’s behaviour was NOT bullying?
I have a couple of questions for you and Brietta. Brietta quoted twice "Mr Brunt was just doing his job and, by all accounts, scrupulously followed guidelines for handling such stories"
If this was true then I wonder why there was such a furore about the story from the media. There were questions raised about Sky's running of the story.
Sky's response to questions
Sky is confident that proper procedures had been followed. The broadcaster is reviewing in the situtation in the wake of Leyland’s death. Sky News’ guidelines state: “Any grounds for an investigation that involves significant intrusion into any individual’s privacy must be very strong. Before we start out we must be certain that any such intrusion is outweighed by the seriousness of the story and the amount of public good that will be delivered by its publication and/or broadcast.”
The detailed guidelines also say: “People who are the subject of reports should not be treated unfairly. Where wrongdoing is alleged, they should be offered an opportunity to respond.
“Where there may be doubt or uncertainty over a legal issue – in the first instance check with the Head of Home News or Head of International News, as appropriate. Remember: if in doubt, do not proceed, broadcast or publish. Always refer upwards.”[/i]
IMO the parts in italics undermine Sky's decision to broadcast Brenda's face, her house and where she lived.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/06/facebook-sky-news-troll-martin-brunt-brenda-leyland-mccanns
Brietta perhaps you could also explain other "such stories" that have merited such a media onslaught.
Davel the media questions when Kate was interviewed by the PJ were whilst she was a suspect. What do you expect from a free press?
Davel do you also know for sure also that "The reason Brenda and others abused the McCanns was because they believed the lies spread by the media". Do you not think they are capable of reading and understanding the police files as you claim you have. All it may be is they have reached a different conclusion to your good self.
If you think otherwise perhaps a cite would do.
You need to provide a cite for your first sentence.Do I really? Just ask anyone who tweets on #mcann, which side is more prevalent - supporters or sceptics. Better still, take a look for yourself.
So supporters bullied Brenda, glad that is settled.Cite for supporters finding out Brenda’s personal details, place of work and appearance before these were plastered all over the media for everyone to see.
Do I really? Just ask anyone who tweets on #mcann, which side is more prevalent - supporters or sceptics. Better still, take a look for yourself.
If Brenda Leyland never received a caution then the supposed bullying is just that, your opinion.So you can only be referred to as a bully if you get a police caution, is that your view?
I have had a few looks on there and found that most of the supporters I have seen tend to leave their bile off #mccann and just post to nasty comments to each other about sceptics and of course attack sceptics directly.That was not the question posed, or the reason the cite was demanded. 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.
This is IMO from what I have seen.
Does it continue, or isit all in the past ?It does believe it or not - all the top tweets on that tag are by sceptics, and concern ancient history that have been said a billion times before. The dedication involved in repeating one’s mantras on a daily, if not hourly basis is really quite staggering.
If Brenda Leyland never received a caution then the supposed bullying is just that, your opinion.
It does believe it or not - all the top tweets on that tag are by sceptics, and concern ancient history that have been said a billion times before. The dedication involved in repeating one’s mantras on a daily, if not hourly basis is really quite staggering.
I had a tenner bet with myself that you’d come back with that reply. Predictabubble!
Indeed, I've noticed that regularly on here
So you can only be referred to as a bully if you get a police caution, is that your view?
My view in irrelevant along with everyone else's,but my moral compass doesn't allow itself to be offended on behalf of others.
Oh the absolute joyous irony of that comment of page 77 of the “I’m so deeply offended by the behaviour of Martin Brunt and the dossier compilers” thread.
My view in irrelevant along with everyone else's,but my moral compass doesn't allow itself to be offended on behalf of others.
That was not the question posed, or the reason the cite was demanded. 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.
I'm not offended on behalf of others I'm offended by the likes of brenda making abusive comments and thinking it's OK...
I'm actually quite glad she was named and shamed... I think that's what her type deserve
They boasted there were over two thousand of them.
Brenda was identified by a group of supporters (and I mean a group), her home address etc was logged and her identity was even discussed on twitter. This was all prior to Martin Brunt's expose.
Her details (name and county) were then passed to the media including Martin Brunt who it would appear chose her as a soft target. Possibly because she was a vulnerable middle class elderly lady who lived alone in the same county as the McCanns did. For him it would make more of a shock media target and impact for his programme, this without thinking of the actual effect his and others actions would actually have on Brenda.
Had he chosen a working class male he would probably have had a mouthful of abuse and a punch in the face. So he chose Brenda Leyland and now she is dead.
Martin Brunt did not "find" Brenda he was handed her identity on a plate.
Please stop saying otherwise as it is simply not true.
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.The cite is the #McCann tag. It’s there for all to see. What sort of tweets predominate on that tag? What are the most popular tweets with the most likes and retweets?
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 are making unsubstantiated statements and stating opinion without caveat in this post ... you are going to have to sort those deficiencies out ASAP or I will have to delete and John can make the decision whether or not to reinstate your post.
Brenda was identified by a group of supporters (and I mean a group), her home address etc was logged and her identity was even discussed on twitter. This was all prior to Martin Brunt's expose.Plenty of cites needed there.
Her details (name and county) were then passed to the media including Martin Brunt who it would appear chose her as a soft target. Possibly because she was a vulnerable middle class elderly lady who lived alone in the same county as the McCanns did. For him it would make more of a shock media target and impact for his programme, this without thinking of the actual effect his and others actions would actually have on Brenda.
Had he chosen a working class male he would probably have had a mouthful of abuse and a punch in the face. So he chose Brenda Leyland and now she is dead.
Martin Brunt did not "find" Brenda he was handed her identity on a plate.
Please stop saying otherwise as it is simply not true.
Some of the above I can substatiate Brietta. The rest is probably opinion.Can you please substantiate this claim with cites, thanks.
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.
Plenty of cites needed there.
I recall an uncouth male oik being doorstepped and made front page news about his hatred of the McCanns but I don’t recall any punches being thrown.
It does believe it or not - all the top tweets on that tag are by sceptics, and concern ancient history that have been said a billion times before. The dedication involved in repeating one’s mantras on a daily, if not hourly basis is really quite staggering.
Priceless.Are you hope to get a baker’s dozen for this one?
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.
Are you hope to get a baker’s dozen for this one?
Scary. The bile on your link towards BL.
I said probably not definitely Vertigo Swirl.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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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."
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.”
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?
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.
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?
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?
Why, do you think you do?Deflection. Can you give a straight answer or not?
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.
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?
No, you're not alone; but it's quite well-known on twitter that email addresses & personal info are harvested by certain individuals for some undefined purpose. On this forum, however, I would expect an admission by a Mod to have "researched" fellow posters to attract serious punishment from the hierarchy.
IMO.
I find this admission most worrying and now have serious concerns about this "research".
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![/co
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.
No, you're not alone; but it's quite well-known on twitter that email addresses & personal info are harvested by certain individuals for some undefined purpose. On this forum, however, I would expect an admission by a Mod to have "researched" fellow posters to attract serious punishment from the hierarchy.
IMO.
Any member can see old posts;
"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."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg484899#msg484899
Exactly. Looking at progressively older and older posts from someone you are debating with to find contradictions and admissions is fairly common by some posters and sometimes you have to play them at their own game.You have yet to respond to my question. I think it’s bad form of a moderator to put down another’s post with a single word, implying that they are some sort of hypocrite or fool without then following it up when challenged to provide evidence of this alleged foolishness or hypocrisy.
Exactly. Looking at progressively older and older posts from someone you are debating with to find contradictions and admissions is fairly common by some posters and sometimes you have to play them at their own game.That is not the same as what I was talking about and I think you know it. I am talking about individuals who tweet more or less the same messages on a regular, sometimes more than daily, basis year in year out, hateful propaganda whose sole intent seems to be to encourage other tweeters to believe the McCanns are money grabbing, callous, body disposing liars with murderous and paedophile tendencies. Just one example would be the nauseating repitition of certain sections of the Gaspar statement. They appear day in, day out, sometimes tweeted by individuals who have appropriated the Gaspar name for that purpose. Now, does that sort of thing go on here, because if it has I must have missed it.
That is not the same as what I was talking about and I think you know it. I am talking about individuals who tweet more or less the same messages on a regular, sometimes more than daily, basis year in year out, hateful propaganda whose sole intent seems to be to encourage other tweeters to believe the McCanns are money grabbing, callous, body disposing liars with murderous and paedophile tendencies. Just one example would be the nauseating repitition of certain sections of the Gaspar statement. They appear day in, day out, sometimes tweeted by individuals who have appropriated the Gaspar name for that purpose. Now, does that sort of thing go on here, because if it has I must have missed it.
Are those the ones against Martin Grime you refer to?What, users appropriating thr name of Gaspar and the like tweeting against Martin Grime? That’s a new one on me. Perhaps you could post some examples?
I really think it was just ill advised bluster; there is no way a moderator could access any personal information.
When a comment is reported we can see the member's email address, and that is it. I opened another account exclusively for use on the forum and I think most members do that.
I think what was meant in the original post was that previous threads and posts have been trawled through and I doubt if even that.
John has given reassurance in the past that confidentiality cannot be breached ~ as a mod I can see a little more behind the scenes than other members ~ and as a senior mod I can see slightly more than Slarti can, and I can reassure everyone that security of data is as tight as can be.
More a misunderstanding by the reader. You have to wonder why some people’s first thought was of underhand purposes.
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.Breitta I have already given two cites showing the supporters found Brenda and that Brunt did not as he was given her name and that she lived in Leicester (shire).
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.
More a misunderstanding by the reader. You have to wonder why some people’s first thought was of underhand purposes.When you talk of researching members of a forum upon which you moderate it sounds a bit creepy that’s all.
More a misunderstanding by the reader. You have to wonder why some people’s first thought was of underhand purposes.
Yet when I did it to highlight an inconsistency by gunit you told me I was breaking forum rules
No kids clubs at centre parcs... I've been ti both... I've taken young children to centre parcs and to places like ocean club... Have you... There is no comparison to how tired children get...I've, seen young children that are impossible to wake up they are that tired... That is, a fact not opinion
So I'm speaking from my experience with children...
When you talk of researching members of a forum upon which you moderate it sounds a bit creepy that’s all.
Don't you find it creepy when whole sites are devoted to researching and recording what others post on the internet? All those hours devoted to reading blogs, Facebook. forums and Twitter in order to find and copy posts which they don't like. I find that creepy and obsessive. There must have been a purpose, don't you think?
Yet when I did it to highlight an inconsistency by gunit you told me I was breaking forum rules
Don't you find it creepy when whole sites are devoted to researching and recording what others post on the internet? All those hours devoted to reading blogs, Facebook. forums and Twitter in order to find and copy posts which they don't like. I find that creepy and obsessive. There must have been a purpose, don't you think?
I find a particular site creepy they call themselves 'researchers'.
Indeed.Not creepy enough to not visit it seems though.
"Researching" which has involved visiting the street where Madeleine lived, the little farm where are mother took her, visiting Gerry's workplace.
"Researching" including details of family members, even contacting the employer of Madeleine's aunt.
Now that is creepy and obsessive.
Indeed.
"Researching" which has involved visiting the street where Madeleine lived, the little farm where are mother took her, visiting Gerry's workplace.
"Researching" including details of family members, even contacting the employer of Madeleine's aunt.
Now that is creepy and obsessive.
Not creepy enough to not visit it seems though.
Are you never curious as to what goes on in sites? I go back as I can't believe what they are saying some of this is ridiculous other quite weird. A lot of what they say has been proven to be nonsense, but there you go some just like to go over and over things even when they are proven wrong.
Indeed.
"Researching" which has involved visiting the street where Madeleine lived, the little farm where are mother took her, visiting Gerry's workplace.
"Researching" including details of family members, even contacting the employer of Madeleine's aunt.
Now that is creepy and obsessive.
Don't you find it creepy when whole sites are devoted to researching and recording what others post on the internet? All those hours devoted to reading blogs, Facebook. forums and Twitter in order to find and copy posts which they don't like. I find that creepy and obsessive. There must have been a purpose, don't you think?I am not allowed to respond to this post, sadly.
I haven't seen the evidence of that, but I expect you have. They did have a stated purpose, I believe, which was to understand the case. What was the purpose of the site which seemed to be gathering information just for the sake of it, I wonder.Personally, I find the #McCann hatred and loony conspiracy theories borne out of this hatred at least as interesting as the case if not more so. What makes otherwise normal, decent people so filled with obsessive hatred for two people they have never even met beforeand who have done nothing to harm them personally? Surely that is worthy of further study?
Personally, I find the #McCann hatred and loony conspiracy theories borne out of this hatred at least as interesting as the case if not more so. What makes otherwise normal, decent people so filled with obsessive hatred for two people they have never even met beforeand who have done nothing to harm them personally? Surely that is worthy of further study?
Personally, I find the #McCann hatred and loony conspiracy theories borne out of this hatred at least as interesting as the case if not more so. What makes otherwise normal, decent people so filled with obsessive hatred for two people they have never even met beforeand who have done nothing to harm them personally? Surely that is worthy of further study?
I have no idea what motivates either side to be honest. There's one lot posting their opinions and another lot reading, copying and criticising what they say. They're all as daft as each other imo.You think only one side copies and criticises?
You think only one side copies and criticises?
I have seen one site where that seems to be their only activity.
The one where the researchers are calling "for a proper investigation into Madeleine McCanns death"
What arrogance!!
Or the one where they call sceptics [ censored word ] trolls, are proud to be !media monitors" and spend hours searching for sceptics posts so that they can share the identities of sceptics including photographs and giggle with glee about it. What arrogance!
What does that activity do to help find Madeleine, perhaps someone could answer me.
My concern is for Madeleine and the arrogance of these researchers who have pronounced her to be dead.
You do seem much more concerned about the sceptic/supporter tit for tat behaviour.
What happened to Brenda was not "tit for tat" behaviour, it would appear that it was a systematic attempt by a group of supporters to monitor every forum on the internet and pass sceptics full information to the media with the gleeful hope of them being outed and called troll everywhere. We know what happened next.
Perhaps you can tell me how this activity actually helps Madeleine.
You miss my point.
Nothing posted by either sceptics or supporters will in my opinion help the search for Madeleine.
However having the arrogance to pronounce Madeleine dead and interfering in an ongoing investigation is in my opinion quite unjustifiable.
How is anything in cyberland interfering with an official investigation ?
But it's not in cyberland.
How is anything in cyberland interfering with an official investigation ?
I have seen one site where that seems to be their only activity.You seem to be very selective about the sites you visit, have you never visited a sceptic site that criticises or copies?
Has it had any effect ?
You seem to be very selective about the sites you visit, have you never visited a sceptic site that criticises or copies?
Not to the exclusion of all else, no.
I very rarely visit other sites unless they come up when I'm searching for information. In those cases CMoMM is usually the top answer due to the wealth of information that has been gathered there. Then there's Joanna Morais and Pamalam.
Supporter sites rarely appear because they contain more opinion than facts in my opinion.
I agree CMOMM contains a lot of information.. Much of it absolute rubbishYes it’s akin to saying the Bible holds a wealth of information about how the earth came into being.
Yes it’s akin to saying the Bible holds a wealth of information about how the earth came into being.More than most realise IMO.
I have seen suggestions that the dossier compilers had a connection to Summers and Swan and they did seem to be well informed;
Last August, a group of 10 “concerned citizens” wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, alerting him to “an appalling campaign of abuse directed at the parents and wider family of Madeleine McCann”.
None of the authors of the letter was related to or even knew Kate and Gerry McCann. It was, rather, they said, the behaviour of an army of online “[ censored word ]” in recent months that decided them to turn to law enforcement. The abuses against the McCanns had “raged for over seven years now, but have lately become worse”.......
Yet the police yesterday ruled out taking any action. In a reply to the “concerned citizens”, Roger Bannister, the Assistant Chief Constable of the Leicestershire force – asked by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to look into the issues they had raised – wrote that, on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the evidence submitted of the abuse the McCanns had faced that had been “did not reach the evidential threshold for a successful prosecution”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11576515/No-one-has-the-right-to-take-away-a-parents-hope.html
Online abuse is a serious topic that needs to be addressed.... Not the tit for tat arguments between posters, but the targetting if individuals not involved with the sites. For this, reason I applaud the action of the compilers and of Brunt and Sky and don't believe they have any responsibility fir the death of Brenda
Online abuse is a serious topic that needs to be addressed.... Not the tit for tat arguments between posters, but the targetting if individuals not involved with the sites. For this, reason I applaud the action of the compilers and of Brunt and Sky and don't believe they have any responsibility fir the death of Brenda
How many sites target individuals who aren't involved in the sites?All of them.
How many sites target individuals who aren't involved in the sites?
All of them.
The difference is abusing real individuals rather than anonymous posters.... Abusing real people is far more serious
I have seen sites with threads aimed at named individuals such as Amaral and Grime. I don't think they are members.
Depends if they are criticising their professional performance... Which is legitimate and not the same as the abuse directed at the mccanns
Actually you have got that the wrong way round IMO.
Fellow professionals criticising someone if fine, layman isn’t and can be libellous. It is legitimate to criticise someone’s everyday behaviour based on fact.
Actually you have got that the wrong way round IMO.
Fellow professionals criticising someone if fine, layman isn’t and can be libellous. It is legitimate to criticise someone’s everyday behaviour based on fact.
No it's, quite legitimate for a layman to criticise a professional based on fact... SYare constantly criticised here... Not always on fact
Brunt as, a journalist is criticised
There's a difference between criticism and abuse.
Actually you have got that the wrong way round IMO.
Fellow professionals criticising someone if fine, layman isn’t and can be libellous. It is legitimate to criticise someone’s everyday behaviour based on fact.
Actually you have got that the wrong way round IMO.
Fellow professionals criticising someone if fine, layman isn’t and can be libellous. It is legitimate to criticise someone’s everyday behaviour based on fact.
I agree... Brenda was, abusive
I have seen sites with threads aimed at named individuals such as Amaral and Grime. I don't think they are members.
And others have abused Amaral and Grime in my opinion.
And others have abused Amaral and Grime in my opinion.As a professional you should expect criticism and learn from it... That's what I do
One way or the other it has to stop.What exactly has to stop Rob?
Have either Amaral or Grime been stalked at work, leaflets dropped through their neighbours letter boxes.,their children photographed, places where their children went to play visited.??
Have either Amaral or Grime been stalked at work, leaflets dropped through their neighbours letter boxes.,their children photographed, places where their children went to play visited.??
I have no intention of playing the 'this abuse was worse than that abuse' game. No laws have been broken and all abuse is wrong whichever form it takes and whoever it's directed at. Anyone who disapproves of abuse should condemn all abuse in my opinion.
This is the level of abuse and more that the McCann family have had.
Tip of the iceberg.
Much worse than any criticism of Amaral and Grime.
In my opinion.
If you wish to equate the abuse shown to the McCann family with the criticism and low level name calling given to Amaral and anonymous posters, then that is your privilege.
Any sensible person would agree that that level of abuse is totally unacceptable Erngath. The question on the title of this thread though is Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process. I doubt that she was involved in any of those disgusting things so was her treatment by the dossier collators and the media fair to her?
IMO no and two wrongs do not make a right in my book. She may have made some nasty tweets but she was not guilty of a crime under our law so did not deserve her treatment.
IMO she was used a scapegoat and held accountable by the media etc for all the tweets, posts and stalking you mention and what she clearly was not guilty of.
All the above is my opinion
I have today seen a post saying Amaral deserved to die slowly and painfully from cancer. I call that abuse and I condemn it. Do you?
I have today seen a post saying Amaral deserved to die slowly and painfully from cancer. I call that abuse and I condemn it. Do you?
I have today seen a post saying Amaral deserved to die slowly and painfully from cancer. I call that abuse and I condemn it. Do you?
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.
Absolutely shocking Sunny. With all their tick tocking it was obvious the supporters had handed her details to Brunt. They really weren’t the brightest bulbs in the box, were they ? Putting the details out there for all to see.
And yet none of the supporters on here appear to think that the dossier collators nor Brunt didn't anything wrong. in fact we have one member who thinks it was a great idea and obviously would wish to be involved in a further dossier.
The dossier cartel may not have broken the law but IMO they are as bad as the worst trolls as they knew the devastation they would cause a lady in her 60s living alone and cared not one jot.
They surely could have simply listed those who were clearly trxxlls and did the things that Erngath has claimed (assuming someone did this as I asked for a cite and had no reply from her). Or insisted that Brenda's identity was hidden (I am sure that would be devastating enough for her).
I do not believe that the person who was interviewed with the swans was unaware of what was to happen to Brenda. IIMO Brunt would have kept her informed at all times of what was to happen.
I've said I condemn that... Not difficult... Your turn... Do you condemn some of Brendas more extreme posts
Many accusations being made in that post.
Although you have been careful to add IMO several times and use " I believe" to disguise the fact that you are making assumptions and accusations.
Have you noticed you are the only sceptic who is asking for cites for the list of ignominious activities of some sceptics?
I condemn all the abuse, as I've said several times. I also condemn people who take the law into their own hands. That also can't be justified in my opinion, no matter how outraged they are.
The ‘ignominious activities’ of sceptics has been adequately documented here already. What hasn’t is the ‘ignominious activities’ of the supporters who insulted and ultimately outed Brenda on Twitter in the most shameless ( though not very clever ) way.
brendas death was caused by people taking the law into their own hands imo i believe of people had not jumped the gun and taken the law into their own ands brenda would still be alive now
I doubt any activities of any supporters could either match the volume or the sheer nastiness of many sceptics of which sadly Brenda chose to align herself with.This is a post which is positively Alfie-esque.
I've said before that the rolling news type of broadcast of which Brenda was the subject is a type of broadcasting of which I don't approve.
Snip
Many people, when discussing trolling on the internet, see it as a manifestation of misogyny. Others, who don’t like this idea, insist that women can be trolls – vicious trolls – as well. Leyland, her choice of hate figures and her awful demise appear to prove their point far more graphically than anyone would wish.
Yet if you start thinking of trolls as people who resent strong people because they make them feel inadequate, then you see that trolling would indeed be an activity particularly attractive to misogynists, who prefer to think of women as weak precisely so they can think of themselves as strong by comparison.
The McCanns were strong enough to make sure that their own voices – not the stereotyped voice of the universal grieving parent – were heard. Trolls gain strength from making their voices heard too, but they’re not strong enough to speak in their own name. Expose a troll’s name, and you expose their fears and vulnerability. Such people, it appears, may sometimes be far more fearful and vulnerable than the people who anger them so greatly.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/what-made-kate-gerry-mccann-object-of-so-much-anger
The McCann family are trolled and abused using every internet social media platform in existence ~ including youtube ~ and no longer in existence.
Comment opportunities on press articles are never missed.
This has been going on for more than eleven years now and is in my opinion ... inhumane.
Brenda Leyland chose to join in and to add her voice to this callousness in which the McCanns had been given no choices about being the victims.
This is a post which is positively Alfie-esque.
Nothing solid to support it. Just lots of rhetoric.
The volume? What volume?
The sheer nastiness of many sceptics? What nastiness? How many sceptics?
Which sadly Brenda chose to align herself with? Did she actually align herself with anyone?
.
Snip
Many people, when discussing trolling on the internet, see it as a manifestation of misogyny. Others, who don’t like this idea, insist that women can be trolls – vicious trolls – as well. Leyland, her choice of hate figures and her awful demise appear to prove their point far more graphically than anyone would wish.
Yet if you start thinking of trolls as people who resent strong people because they make them feel inadequate, then you see that trolling would indeed be an activity particularly attractive to misogynists, who prefer to think of women as weak precisely so they can think of themselves as strong by comparison.
The McCanns were strong enough to make sure that their own voices – not the stereotyped voice of the universal grieving parent – were heard. Trolls gain strength from making their voices heard too, but they’re not strong enough to speak in their own name. Expose a troll’s name, and you expose their fears and vulnerability. Such people, it appears, may sometimes be far more fearful and vulnerable than the people who anger them so greatly.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/what-made-kate-gerry-mccann-object-of-so-much-anger
The McCann family are trolled and abused using every internet social media platform in existence ~ including youtube ~ and no longer in existence.
Comment opportunities on press articles are never missed.
This has been going on for more than eleven years now and is in my opinion ... inhumane.
Brenda Leyland chose to join in and to add her voice to this callousness in which the McCanns had been given no choices about being the victims.
The media choose to print these articles and make comment available.
Maybe we should have a blackout on McCann-related articles appearing in the press.
I doubt any activities of any supporters could either match the volume or the sheer nastiness of many sceptics of which sadly Brenda chose to align herself with.
I've said before that the rolling news type of broadcast of which Brenda was the subject is a type of broadcasting of which I don't approve.
Now quite often comments are not allowed under a McCann related press item either good or bad. Therefore yet another freedom universally denied because of misuse by a few.
So supporters calling Brenda a dog and bandying about private information on her on Twitter is not the same as Brenda ‘outing’ someone she thought was Amy Tierney ? How so ?
Can you explain what you mean by my post being "positively Alife-esque"?
Do you deny that there has been a volume of very unpleasant posts made about Madeleine's family.
Do you deny that many of these posts are nasty, libellous, deeply unpleasant and threatening?
Do you deny that these posts are made by sceptics
I can't quantify in actual numbers how many posts, how many sceptics or even the nastiness but just continue trying to deny that this has occurred.
Threatening ? I assume the ‘threatening’ tweets or posts were contained within the dossier? Threats to life are a criminal offence. Why was nobody then charged over the dossier contents ? Could it be that the police viewed the compilers of the dossier as sad old biddies with way too much time on their hands ?
Threatening ? I assume the ‘threatening’ tweets or posts were contained within the dossier? Threats to life are a criminal offence. Why was nobody then charged over the dossier contents ? Could it be that the police viewed the compilers of the dossier as sad old biddies with way too much time on their hands ?
I certainly would condemn anyone being called a dog and bandying private information on Twitter.
However Brenda joined twitter, she of her own volition took part in the nastiness being handed about.
She was deeply unpleasant to the girl she had mistakenly identified.
She was an adult woman who chose to spend a sizeable part of her daily routine joining in with the abuse, unpleasantness and general nastiness that seemed to exist on the McCann thread.
You could always contact the police and ask if that was their final conclusion.
You could always contact the police and ask if that was their final conclusion.
You can't have it all ways. Either there is free speech for all or for none, not just a select few.
If it stays within the law there should be no grounds for complaint
It seems it was.
I can just imagine those old biddies sitting in their armchairs, apoplectic with rage, finally realising that their dodgy dossier , which had been afforded such gravitas by Sky, had been summarily dismissed by the only people that matter.
It’s the only light spot in this whole, disgusting affair.
So Brenda was a victim of twitter abuse as well as taking part in it, are we agreed ? So what do you suggest is the difference between Brenda being a victim of twitter abuse and the McCanns being victims?
BTW how do you know that the girl identified as AT wasn’t ?
It seems it was.
I can just imagine those old biddies sitting in their armchairs, apoplectic with rage, finally realising that their dodgy dossier , which had been afforded such gravitas by Sky, had been summarily dismissed by the only people that matter.
It’s the only light spot in this whole, disgusting affair.
No she was not a victim of "twitterr abuse"
She was a participant in "twitter abuse"
She gave abuse received abuse.
Not a victim.
When one crowd of football fans shout abuse at another set of football fans, they are all participating in the abuse.
The McCanns as not on twitter abusing anyone.
Yet somehow I doubt thats what's hapenned
Whatever keeps you entertained.
So Brenda was a victim of twitter abuse as well as taking part in it, are we agreed ? So what do you suggest is the difference between Brenda being a victim of twitter abuse and the McCanns being victims?
BTW how do you know that the girl identified as AT wasn’t ?
Would it have made a difference if she was?
No she was not a victim of "twitterr abuse"
She was a participant in "twitter abuse"
She gave abuse received abuse.
Not a victim.
When one crowd of football fans shout abuse at another set of football fans, they are all participating in the abuse.
The McCanns as not on twitter abusing anyone.
Oh it does.
Good.
Personally I would rather go out with my hubby, meet some old friends, have a lovely meal and share a couple of bottles of a very nice red wine.
Good.
Personally I would rather go out with my hubby, meet some old friends, have a lovely meal and share a couple of bottles of a very nice red wine.
My you have a social life, how very middle class of you !
Virtual dinner parties with other STM members, where they link by skype and drink them selves silly, no doubt. 8(0(*
It always makes my chuckle, the constant alluding to a certain lifestyle. Are you supposed to be impressed ? It really is rather cringeworthy.
I know what you mean. A bottle of white wine (not red though) a great meal with friends or family. Even better if someone else pays. Last time it was me. @)(++(*
Still, better than sitting in a corner with your only friend a bottle of gin
The Mccann's weren't on twitter but there were nasty abusive trolls on there who were supporters so IMO Brenda was abused and from what I have read their stalking of her was outside twitter rules and IMO the rules of decency.
Yes Brenda was nasty but she did not deserve what she got whatever others say.
What makes you think that the dossier hasn't hit a brick wall and been ignored by the police as not construing evidence of a crime. They say there was no crime so are they lying?
In my opinion Brenda was the architect of her own misfortune and using her death in a blame game is inappropriate.
She had no intention of easing up on the McCanns.
Snip
On 17 September this year she tweeted what might have amounted to a personal manifesto: to make the McCanns "live in shame".(http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/8/enhanced/webdr04/longform-original-20804-1412597422-10.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
A week later, on 25 September, she sought to justify her hatred of the McCanns:(http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/8/enhanced/webdr10/longform-original-30302-1412597670-15.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.yvz8WRW8e#.ekNbxQxbj
In real life Brenda Leyland was probably neither a saint nor a sinner but on the internet her obsession with the McCann family became legend.
The really sad thing about it all is that no lessons have been learned from the whole episode as I believe the abuse of that family continues apace.
Something she and the McCanns have/had in common.
In my opinion Brenda was the architect of her own misfortune and using her death in a blame game is inappropriate.
She had no intention of easing up on the McCanns.
Snip
On 17 September this year she tweeted what might have amounted to a personal manifesto: to make the McCanns "live in shame".(http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/8/enhanced/webdr04/longform-original-20804-1412597422-10.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
A week later, on 25 September, she sought to justify her hatred of the McCanns:(http://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/6/8/enhanced/webdr10/longform-original-30302-1412597670-15.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.yvz8WRW8e#.ekNbxQxbj
In real life Brenda Leyland was probably neither a saint nor a sinner but on the internet her obsession with the McCann family became legend.
The really sad thing about it all is that no lessons have been learned from the whole episode as I believe the abuse of that family continues apace.
I read your post that if you and supporters had your way you would be happy for everyone within the dossier to be outed regardless of whether any further people took their lives? I find that very heartless.
So she is the architect of her misfortune. She wasn't given the chance to go quietly away (which I am sure she would have done). None of you have the slightest sympathy for her predicament which only came about because the dossier was passed to the media. Had it simply been passed to the police only then Brenda would surely be alive still IMO
If I am wrong regarding the first sentence then I apologise but this is how your post comes across to me. I know others on here do have that sentiment as they have made it abundantly clear several times.
I dint think anyone on here, wants people to commit suicide but I don't think being outed is what caused brendas suicide... The fact she killed herself on her estranged sons birthday points to other causes... As her other son confirmed.. There, were other factors at play with the outing only playing a small part
He had “no doubt” from the panic in his mother’s voice when she telephoned to tell him of the Sky News incident that “this was the final straw that pushed her then to do what she did”.
Was from Ben.
Yes he mentions a final straw... Which we, all understand... So what was the great weight she was carrying that resulted in a straw being the tipping point
Have you ever thought of writing a dictionary?
could you explain...this seems to be a goading post...rather than responding to the point in my post...perhaps you simply cannot think of a decent reply
I read your post that if you and your supporters had your way you would be happy for everyone within the dossier to be outed regardless of whether any further people took their lives? I find that very heartless.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.
So she is the architect of her misfortune. She wasn't given the chance to go quietly away (which I am sure she would have done). None of you have the slightest sympathy for her predicament which only came about because the dossier was passed to the media. Had it simply been passed to the police only then Brenda would surely be alive still IMO
If I am wrong regarding the first sentence then I apologise but this is how your post comes across to me. I know others on here do have that sentiment as they have made it abundantly clear several times.
He says she killed herself because of the outing, you seem to want his words to mean something else.
He says she killed herself because of the outing, you seem to want his words to mean something else.
It seems it was.Why do you think Sky News afforded it such gravitas in the first place? Who are the only people that matter?
I can just imagine those old biddies sitting in their armchairs, apoplectic with rage, finally realising that their dodgy dossier , which had been afforded such gravitas by Sky, had been summarily dismissed by the only people that matter.
It’s the only light spot in this whole, disgusting affair.
Why do you think Sky News afforded it such gravitas in the first place? Who are the only people that matter?
BTW, still hating on the olds I see... 8(0(*.
I read it to mean the police.Really? How odd. Still, I will remember to use that in future discussions with F’lilly. “The only people who matter are the police”.
Really? How odd. Still, I will remember to use that in future discussions with F’lilly. “The only people who matter are the police”.
That's how I read it . In the context of the dossier, only the police mattered.Still odd IMO, particularly on a forum which is concerned with miscarriages of justice. When it comes to expressions of moral outrage, those who do so on behalf of Brenda win 1st prize IMO.
no he doesnt...he confirms she had some much greater problems,,,and that the outing was a minor point that tipped the balance
Without she would probably still be alive.Iyo... We don't know that
This is a post which is positively Alfie-esque.Go to twitter.com. put #mccann into the search field. Read. All will become clear.
Nothing solid to support it. Just lots of rhetoric.
The volume? What volume?
The sheer nastiness of many sceptics? What nastiness? How many sceptics?
Which sadly Brenda chose to align herself with? Did she actually align herself with anyone?
.
I dint think anyone on here, wants people to commit suicide but I don't think being outed is what caused brendas suicide... The fact she killed herself on her estranged sons birthday points to other causes... As her other son confirmed.. There, were other factors at play with the outing only playing a small part
Sounds as if you supporters are not winning your propaganda war if this is a daily occurrenceLOL, the propaganda war was won on twitter years ago, by “your side”, a dedicated little army of obsessives with their hate and their fake news ans photoshopped pics.
So it was all one big unfortunate coincidence then and Ben Leyland was misinformed when he stated his mother had been 'destroyed' by Sky's conduct?
The battle cry of the hardcore “sceptic”tweeter
“The #mccann s might of getting away with what they have done, but by god we wont let them forget, their kids grankids and future generations of theirs will know what they have done through social media WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP and nor will our kids”.
NEVER SURRENDER!!!
@)(++(*
"“The #mccann s might of getting away with what they have done, but by god we wont let them forget, their kids grankids and future generations of theirs will know what they have done through social media WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP and nor will our kids”." Wouldn't be out of place in the Old Testament.
(&^&
"“The #mccann s might of getting away with what they have done, but by god we wont let them forget, their kids grankids and future generations of theirs will know what they have done through social media WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP and nor will our kids”." Wouldn't be out of place in the Old Testament.
That's how I read it . In the context of the dossier, only the police mattered.
That’s exactly how I meant it but I’m sure Vertigo Swirl knew that.Is vigil[ censored word]m against the law? I know it is frowned upon but is it legal if handled within bounds?
In the context of the dossier the only decision that mattered was that of the police. Anything else is vigil[ censored word]m.
It’s a warped view that considers taking your concerns about online abuse to the media as vigil[ censored word]m, IMO. Presumably, therefore every time a member of the public goes to the press whether it be to shine a light on malpractice in a hospital, child grooming gangs, sexual harassment, abuse by members of the priesthood, racism within the police force, MPs expenses, etc then that too is vigil[ censored word]m.
It’s a warped view that considers taking your concerns about online abuse to the media as vigil[ censored word]m, IMO. Presumably, therefore every time a member of the public goes to the press whether it be to shine a light on malpractice in a hospital, child grooming gangs, sexual harassment, abuse by members of the priesthood, racism within the police force, MPs expenses, etc then that too is vigil[ censored word]m.Certainly any form of protest against those issues could be considered vigil[ censored word]m, more so in certain societies.
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.That might be your opinion as to the order things get handled in, but who is the real judge of that? I read that the police determined there were no illegal tweets in the ones they looked at. OK I find that surprising, but I too appreciate the problem they'd have if they started stepping down on abusive tweets. The police are used to being taunted by the low lifes. Maybe they were a bit too hardened to be the judge of what is acceptable to the public.
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 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.
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
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.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?
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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....
Ironic isn't it that the clamour for free speech and freedom of the press has only to be in certain circumstances.
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.
The problem with the dossier compilers and Sky is that they thought the public shared their opinions about online trolling of the McCanns."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."
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
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.
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??
The public are outraged at online abuse but not if that online abuse is directed at the MCcanns??
I don't think the general public is outraged at all - most probably don't give a monkey's as they have more important things to concern them.That survey was in 2007. Most now probably have to be reminded what the McCann case was about.
I don't think the general public is outraged at all - most probably don't give a monkey's as they have more important things to concern them.
The public are outraged at online abuse but not if that online abuse is directed at the MCcanns??
the world has moved on 99.9% of people around the world dont think of the mcanns now the tweens and teens suckered in by the begging bowl/s at the time have moved on and probably have their own families now
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
Actually, in September 2007 twenty isn't a really bad percentage considering the amount of misinformation doing the rounds ... such as lying headlines about Madeleine's DNA being found here there and everywhere etc ... not to mention the fact that the Portuguese police had made them arguidos (suspects) in Madeleine's disappearance.
The use of the internet for abuse was in its infancy back in 2007 ... it has come on by leaps and bounds since then with more and more ordinary people experiencing at first hand the insidiously harmful effect when innocents from all walks of life are exposed to it.
If a poll was taken now asking if it is appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose ... I think respondents wouldn't take too long to think before ticking the "NO WAY" box.
Actually, in September 2007 twenty isn't a really bad percentage considering the amount of misinformation doing the rounds ... such as lying headlines about Madeleine's DNA being found here there and everywhere etc ... not to mention the fact that the Portuguese police had made them arguidos (suspects) in Madeleine's disappearance.
The use of the internet for abuse was in its infancy back in 2007 ... it has come on by leaps and bounds since then with more and more ordinary people experiencing at first hand the insidiously harmful effect when innocents from all walks of life are exposed to it.
If a poll was taken now asking if it is appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose ... I think respondents wouldn't take too long to think before ticking the "NO WAY" box.
A properly organised poll would never ask the question bolded. It's too biased."Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
"Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
That is a pretty complex question. I agree to biased.
Polls have to ask neutral questions otherwise they aren't objective.So how would the question be asked? ""Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
So how would the question be asked? ""Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
That's terribly biased.
How about " Is it appropriate to subject people to on-going verbal abuse?"
That's stripped it of all its emotive context .
So how would the question be asked? ""Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
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?
I think you would change verbal to online.
You would also have a number of other questions changing abuse to criticism and then to comment, to get a better idea of views held.
I don't know how people find out the identity of others on the internet, but if it happened to me I would want to know how it's done because my right to privacy (Article 8 of the EUCFR) would have been breached. I would want to know how my personal data was able to be gathered, because I have the right to have it protected by those who offer people the choice to post anonymously on the internet.
"Is it appropriate behaviour to expose the family of a missing child to unrelenting verbal assault for over eleven years without let or hindrance and most of which is organised by groups set up specifically for the purpose?"
That is a pretty complex question. I agree too biased.
Actually you have got that the wrong way round IMO.
Fellow professionals criticising someone if fine, layman isn’t and can be libellous. It is legitimate to criticise someone’s everyday behaviour based on fact.
So.... If I said Wayne Rooney had an awful game in his last outing.... I'm criticising a professional... Would he have a case for libel... No he wouldn't... You need to look at libel law, again
What is biased? The sum of the parts or the whole bearing in mind that the McCanns are not the only family suffering the trauma of a family member going missing? **
I would state with certainty though that they are unique in the volume of instruments set up on the internet to pry into every facet of their lives and to have had ordure heaped on them for over eleven years.
Brenda Leyland was an active although anonymous participant in that.
It has been quoted on numerous occasions that Brenda Leyland's son said:
Snip
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------
What seldom accompanies that sentence are the many preceding it.
Snip
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Brenda_Leyland.htm
** Social Media, Trolls and Your Missing
Unfortunately, families of missing may endure rumors, malicious havoc and even cyber harassment.
This is very common when blogs and forums exist in which members of the general public will gather and discuss cases.
Most “bloggers” are not privy to information regarding “actual case specifics” and will draw upon their own conclusions and many times are wrong.
This creates rumors and gossip which adds to undue stress for the family trying to find their missing loved one.
With that said, Social Media is a great source to utilize to help find your missing…however, it can also cause pain to families of missing should they not be aware of situations that can arise and what to do to help prevent them.
This page was designed to help families understand what they can do to avoid such situations.
http://lostnmissing.org/socialmedia/
It depends if you understand football.
I have just read through this thread and have seen posters trying to say that other people were "doorstepped" and haven't committed suicide.
Of course this is very true but Brenda Leyland was not just "doorstepped" she had her entire character systematically destroyed by dozens of journalists and many of our UK media outlets for days on end. The video of her being "doorstepped" was shown ever 30 minutes or so on Sky News.
Now why a middle class lady in her 60s who made tweets about the McCann couple should be newsworthy is one question, whether she was newsworthy to the extent that she was exposed within the media is yet another.
Can anyone justify why Brenda had a character assassination by Sky News, The Sun, The Guardian, etc simply because she made some unpleasant (and yes some abusive) tweets about the McCanns that hardly anyone saw.
I certainly didn't see them as I wasn't reading anything about the case at all at that time.
I read my news on the google news page and couldn't remember prior to then ever seeing a McCann related story although I probably had seen the odd one without really noticing it.
However after Brenda was doorstepped there were dozens of articles all calling her trxll etc.
Total overkill (literally) IMO
Did Brenda Leyland not originally comment under her real name? If so, why did she change it to Sweepy Face?
I don't know Eleanor but what I do know is some supporters found her by comparing her facebook account with her twitter account. Perhaps she made posts on a mccann sceptic facebook page or even liked someone elses comments one one.
This set the supporters searching for a twitter account to compare to her facebook page IMO. Of course she had her son's dog on her twitter account and also I gather her facebook page so it would be easy to confirm when you had both pages in front of you.
The question is why would the supporters want her information? Oh sorry I know why they did as they have shown why.
Just your opinion.... A bully getting exposed IMO.... The McCann case is newsworthy... Brenda chose to get involved... Her choice... The press was entitled to do what it did... Their choice
The McCann case isn't headline news these days. It isn't heading up a google search on the news page but I agree it is newsworthy. However is a woman who made 4500 tweets (or so) some about the McCann case newsworthy enough to have a rolling video of her being accosted by Martin Brunt outside her home on Sky News for hours, having screaming headlines from pretty much every other media outlet for days.
Was nothing else happening in the news for those days? It would appear so. All because one lady made 4500 tweets, which probably hardly anyone read, and some about the McCanns.
The McCann case isn't headline news these days. It isn't heading up a google search on the news page but I agree it is newsworthy. However is a woman who made 4500 tweets (or so) some about the McCann case newsworthy enough to have a rolling video of her being accosted by Martin Brunt outside her home on Sky News for hours, having screaming headlines from pretty much every other media outlet for days.
Was nothing else happening in the news for those days? It would appear so. All because one lady made 4500 tweets, which probably hardly anyone read, and some about the McCanns.
I remember thinking the same at the time, unfortunately for Brenda it was a slow news day all day with very little else going on elsewhere so Brunt's doorstepping feature received overly exposure. Had there been something of newsworthy significance going on the story might never even been aired.
Some people think Brenda deserved to be outed... I would like to see further abusers outed
I remember thinking the same at the time, unfortunately for Brenda it was a slow news day all day with very little else going on elsewhere so Brunt's doorstepping feature received overly exposure. Had there been something of newsworthy significance going on the story might never even been aired.
I suspect the truth behind what occurred was more to do with saving face over their fiasco report from Praia da Luz about the DNA results than it was to do with unearthing an internet troll.
i have davel on ignore but though others posts i canseee some of his posts he worrys me with his wanting others to be outed he is like a mcann crazy fan he cares about no one but the mcanns brenda didnt deserve anything like she got imo
I don't see the point of putting anyone on "Ignore."
I don't see the point of putting anyone on "Ignore."
I assume that quotes by ignored persons embedded within other posts can still be seen?
Some people think Brenda deserved to be outed... I would like to see further abusers outed
People are entitled to their anonymity in this country if they so wish so any news organisation breaching it must be damn sure they are on solid ground. What BL took part in might have been morally questionable but it was not illegal. Are we now to consider Sky News and the BBC to be the upholders of our moral conscience now?Did the papers act illegally... No...Brenda made abusive tweets... They have every right to report it... In what way do people have a right to anonymity.... Did the papers tell any lies about brenda.. No..
Did the papers act illegally... No...Brenda made abusive tweets... They have every right to report it... In what way do people have a right to anonymity.... Did the papers tell any lies about brenda.. No..
Sky felt it was newsworthy... I find online abuse such as this a disgrace.... I think abusers need to be outed.... Well done SKY... IMO.... They weren't to know how unstable brenda was
The problem with the dossier compilers and Sky is that they thought the public shared their opinions about online trolling of the McCanns.What a strange conclusion to draw, particularly using an opinion poll from a time when even supporters like myself thought there must be something in the allegations bring made against them.
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
All the more reason they should have let her be. You only need to look at Sir Cliff Richard now after the BBC did their worst to ruin him. He was fine before they got involved and now he is a shadow of himself. No pun intended.
All the more reason they should have let her be. You only need to look at Sir Cliff Richard now after the BBC did their worst to ruin him. He was fine before they got involved and now he is a shadow of himself. No pun intended.
People are entitled to their anonymity in this country if they so wish so any news organisation breaching it must be damn sure they are on solid ground. What BL took part in might have been morally questionable but it was not illegal. Are we now to consider Sky News and the BBC to be the upholders of our moral conscience now?
If your child was being subjected to abuse on social media, not criminal but morally reprehensible, would you expect your child's school to be the upholder of our moral conscience or do nothing?
What about bullying... Name calling.... Is that OK... Towards children at school... Should schols treat it as freedom of speech.... That is the message being sent out to bullies here
A good comment I agree with which appears under the Times article I mention d above:
“Ridiculous - RIP free speech in this country.
The people making the vile comments against Jews as reported above should be publicly exposed and denounced in the media. However, illegality of speech must only be established where threats of violence are concerned otherwise you are destroying free speech - however obnoxious - which is the fundamental pillar of our democracy”.
Quite right - name and shame in the media, and don’t bother the police at all, unless it’s a very serious threat of violence.
There’s another dossier in the news today, what do our dossier dissers think of this? As they mostly seem to be Corbynistas, they’re probably just as outraged, but before anyone shouts “what”s the relevance”, it’s a dossier of hateful online tweets, posts and comments collected by concerned individual(s), handed to the Met who are investigating it, meanwhile the contents have been leaked to the media...
From the Times:
“Scotland Yard will investigate a leaked dossier of [ censored word]emitism allegations against Labour members after a former senior policeman said many constituted hate crimes.
The document with details of 45 Labour members accused of [ censored word]emitism was leaked to LBC.
It includes allegations that a Labour councillor inflicted “ten years of hell” on a child by calling him a “Jew boy”, while another member posted Facebook comments including: “We shall rid the Jews who are a cancer on us all” and “as for the Jews, red see [sic] ideal destination no need for gas chambers anyway as gas is so expensive and we need it in England”
So, will there be lots of weeping and wailing on here when these Labour members are named and shamed?
Did you notice the caveat? It has to be illegal, not just obnoxious.
The McCann case isn't headline news these days. It isn't heading up a google search on the news page but I agree it is newsworthy. However is a woman who made 4500 tweets (or so) some about the McCann case newsworthy enough to have a rolling video of her being accosted by Martin Brunt outside her home on Sky News for hours, having screaming headlines from pretty much every other media outlet for days.
Was nothing else happening in the news for those days? It would appear so. All because one lady made 4500 tweets, which probably hardly anyone read, and some about the McCanns.
The problem was brenda, was IMO, thoroughly ashamed at what she, had posted... And so she, should have been
Have you ever given thought as to why if as you opine, the McCann case is no longer headline news twitter users continue to tweet obsessively about them just as Brenda Leyland did?
Can you provide a cite that Brenda was ashamed of what she had posted. I am sure she was incredibly upset and embarrassed by the mass media scrum but ashamed? I can't find a quote where she said that.
There’s another dossier in the news today, what do our dossier dissers think of this? As they mostly seem to be Corbynistas, they’re probably just as outraged, but before anyone shouts “what”s the relevance”, it’s a dossier of hateful online tweets, posts and comments collected by concerned individual(s), handed to the Met who are investigating it, meanwhile the contents have been leaked to the media...
From the Times:
“Scotland Yard will investigate a leaked dossier of [ censored word]emitism allegations against Labour members after a former senior policeman said many constituted hate crimes.
The document with details of 45 Labour members accused of [ censored word]emitism was leaked to LBC.
It includes allegations that a Labour councillor inflicted “ten years of hell” on a child by calling him a “Jew boy”, while another member posted Facebook comments including: “We shall rid the Jews who are a cancer on us all” and “as for the Jews, red see [sic] ideal destination no need for gas chambers anyway as gas is so expensive and we need it in England”
So, will there be lots of weeping and wailing on here when these Labour members are named and shamed?
This will be dealt with by the police and if any law has been broken, which I suspect there has, the politicians will be named. That is how the law works. It might not be immediate enough for some but that’s just too bad.And if the media names those responsible for some of the vile behaviour before the police do that will be a problem because...?
Have you provided the cite I asked of you this morning
Can you provide a cite that Brenda was ashamed of what she had posted. I am sure she was incredibly upset and embarrassed by the mass media scrum but ashamed? I can't find a quote where she said that.Why would she be embarrassed if she felt her behaviour was something to be proud of?
Will the Labour members be doorstepped on Sky news with rolling videos showing the doorstepping every hour. Will each one be subject to dozens of news reports naming them and giving their address whilst calling them a trxll?If they are named and shamed by the media, and doorstepped then I won’t have any problem with it whatsoever.
So far we have a document passed to the police and the police are checking out if a hate crime was made by anyone. That is the way it should be. No names necessary IMO.
And if the media names those responsible for some of the vile behaviour before the police do that will be a problem because...?
Have you ever given thought as to why if as you opine, the McCann case is no longer headline news twitter users continue to tweet obsessively about them just as Brenda Leyland did?
Probably because the McCanns are still actively suing Goncalo Amaral even though it would appear they have lost. IA lot of sceptics are Amaral supporters so this could well be the reason, that and the fact that there are supporters actively tweeting on the subject and some of them are very abusive IMO.
Probably because the McCanns are still actively suing Goncalo Amaral even though it would appear they have lost. IA lot of sceptics are Amaral supporters so this could well be the reason, that and the fact that there are supporters actively tweeting on the subject and some of them are very abusive IMO.
Could you remind me of what it was as I probably went out before you posted it. Then I will see what I can do for you.
I can well imagine some of the Amaral supporters being very abusive.imo
No need. He won 8(*(
Because that’s why we have due process. So people are considered innocent until they are proved to be guilty. Isn’t that what supporters want ?
Because that’s why we have due process. So people are considered innocent until they are proved to be guilty. Isn’t that what supporters want ?If you have a named individual spouting hateful drivel on his or her social media pages and that is picked up by the media, then there is no question of the drivel writer possibly being innocent is there?
Why would she be embarrassed if she felt her behaviour was something to be proud of?
McCann's actively suing amaral... No they are not... Citr
OK they are not actively suing as they lost. But you yourself provide the cite that they are attempting to take it to the ECHR so they are still visiting court regarding Amaral IMO
You wouldn't want to have your identity all over the media your address and photograph everywhere. To be called a trxll and have your personality dissected by people such as Carole Malone. Say you were tweeting about justice for the Hillsborough victims prior to their vindication and the media did what they did to Brenda.Why would I be embarrassed about the media picking up on me tweeting about justice for the Hillsborough victims? That’s not a hateful, spiteful, bullying thing to do is it? Carole Malone would ‘t be justified in describing me as a troll with personality issues for doing so would she?
Wouldn't you be embarrassed even though you may have believed what you were doing was right?
I don't agree with Brenda's tweets but I think what happened to her was very wrong.
So freedom of the dossier complilers... And the press.... However obnoxious... Perhaps it's you who is missing the point
The McCanns have never had the slightest hint of being considered innocent until proven guilty by many, including Brenda.
If your child was being subjected to abuse on social media, not criminal but morally reprehensible, would you expect your child's school to be the upholder of our moral conscience or do nothing?
They are in the eyes of the law and that’s what matters.
It is up to the site owners to manage abuse but obviously the dollar is more important to sites like Twitter and Facebook which says it all. These giants should be fined by the regulators and maybe then they might take notice.
What about bullying... Name calling.... Is that OK... Towards children at school... Should schols treat it as freedom of speech.... That is the message being sent out to bullies here
So the various sites dedicated to spreading the word of their guilt don't matter.
The tweets spreading the lies don't matter.
I can't agree.
It is up to the site owners to manage abuse but obviously the dollar is more important to sites like Twitter and Facebook which says it all. These giants should be fined by the regulators and maybe then they might take notice.
A good comment I agree with which appears under the Times article I mention d above:
“Ridiculous - RIP free speech in this country.
The people making the vile comments against Jews as reported above should be publicly exposed and denounced in the media. However, illegality of speech must only be established where threats of violence are concerned otherwise you are destroying free speech - however obnoxious - which is the fundamental pillar of our democracy”.
Quite right - name and shame in the media, and don’t bother the police at all, unless it’s a very serious threat of violence.
To the McCanns innocence in the eyes of the law ? No.
No the schools take action, they cannot wait for the site owners to do so.
Therefore schools have to uphold the moral conscience.
The schools cannot wait to see if this abuse becomes criminal abuse.
Wrong as usual. The message being sent out from here is that abuse, all abuse, is wrong and must be stopped by social media sites.
Wrong as usual. The message being sent out from here is that abuse, all abuse, is wrong and must be stopped by social media sites.
What have schools to do with Brenda's rights ?
What have schools to do with Brenda's rights ?
Do you ever wonder if the McCanns were charged with a crime, could they possibly receive a fair trial.
Probably because the McCanns are still actively suing Goncalo Amaral even though it would appear they have lost. IA lot of sceptics are Amaral supporters so this could well be the reason, that and the fact that there are supporters actively tweeting on the subject and some of them are very abusive IMO.
But you think they never will be so what’s the point of whatifery.
I don't think schools have anything to do with Brenda's rights or the McCann's rights.
So why mention them?
If you have a named individual spouting hateful drivel on his or her social media pages and that is picked up by the media, then there is no question of the drivel writer possibly being innocent is there?
OK they are not actively suing as they lost. But you yourself provide the cite that they are attempting to take it to the ECHR so they are still visiting court regarding Amaral IMO
I thought you did.
So that's why I asked you.
As already pointed out, the parents don't use social media publicly so they never received any abuse on twitter. Try this one out for size Vertigo, go out into the middle of a very large empty field and shout abuse to everyone to your heart's content. Was anyone offended?
Now apply this to Brenda's tweets.
My opinion is irrelevant.
the sites wont stop it...the police wont stop it...so how do you stop it...
name and shame....simple
All opinion on here is ultimately irrelevant.
Why would you want to?
To make you feel better?
Is that why Brenda did it?
The tweets to the McCanns were read by others who were offended by them
I know it is a deeply unpopular thought with some to feel offence on behalf of others, but I think it is a very natural and human feeling .
The government could stop it if they really wanted to by penalising sites which failed to control abuse. Users can be blocked permanently if need be.
As already pointed out, the parents don't use social media publicly so they never received any abuse on twitter. Try this one out for size Vertigo, go out into the middle of a very large empty field and shout abuse to everyone to your heart's content. Was anyone offended?Twitter is not a large empty field. Now try your analogy but change field to library or restaurant or pub, wearing a balaclava.
Now apply this to Brenda's tweets.
As already pointed out, the parents don't use social media publicly so they never received any abuse on twitter. Try this one out for size Vertigo, go out into the middle of a very large empty field and shout abuse to everyone to your heart's content. Was anyone offended?
Now apply this to Brenda's tweets.
Point being they don't have to read them if they weren't sent to them. You would only have seen BL's posts if you went looking or someone else sent them to you.
With multiple accounts and proxy servers, how would you do this?
Are you saying it doesn't matter if only a few people read abuse directed at a named person?
The field was full of people... Make your mind up...
Brendas twwrs, were offensive.. You agreed... The only way to stop them was by going to the oress
It is the individual's choice, nobody is forced to go on twitter and read abusive posts.
Absolutely not. Going to the press ended in her death.
and its an individuals choice to take concerns to the pressand its an individuals choice to take her own life.
Court order. Everybody who goes on line can be traced by one means or another.
It is the individual's choice, nobody is forced to go on twitter and read abusive posts.
and its an individuals choice to take her own life.
Absolutely not. Going to the press ended in her death.
Or even to be offended on behalf of others.
Or even to be offended on behalf of others.
Absolutely not. Going to the press ended in her death.Some people commit suicide when their partners end their relationship. Does that mean no one should ever end a relationship for fear it might end in a death, and that breaking up with someone is reprehensible and immoral behaviour?
Davel do you think the dossier collectors went to the media with the dossier because the police had already said a law had not been broken?
You seem to think the media is the only way to go not to the police.
If the police had had a quiet word with Brenda she probably would have gone away so to speak and could well be still alive. Or didn't that suit the dossier makers purpose?
The field was full of people... Make your mind up...
Brendas tweets, were offensive.. You agreed... The only way to stop them was by going to the press
They stopped one person. They can pat themselves on the back for that I suppose. I'm surprised they didn't abandon their anonymity to receive the thanks of a grateful public in their own names. Remaining hidden makes it seem like they were ashamed in my opinion.
The McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law.
Brenda Leyland was innocent in the eyes of the law.
Their hounding was wrong.
Brendas hounding was absolutely wrong...the mccanns didnt hound brenda...she hounded the mccanns...im glad you agree
Yes Brenda’s hounding was wrong.
Brenda was morally wrong to tweet some of the things she did.
The McCanns were morally wrong to leave three under 4s in an unlocked apartment.
Neither Brenda’s or the McCanns actions were criminal.
Both contributed to their own predicament.
Neither deserved to be hounded.
Brenda did not contact the McCanns. You cannot hound someone you have no contact with.
Martin Brunt and supporters directly hounded Brenda both on Twitter and through the media.
There is a difference.
The question still remains of why Brenda and others felt the need to hound the McCanns.
The why remains a puzzle.
The McCanns were hounded by the press. Brenda and others tweeted rather nasty opinions. They did not hound them as the McCanns were unaware of their comments.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.
Brenda hounded the McCann's.. Stop making excuses for her abusive behaviour
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.
The question still remains of why Brenda and others felt the need to hound the McCanns.
The why remains a puzzle.
But they didn’t reach them so they can’t have felt hounded.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. .
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.
But they didn’t see them so could not have felt hounded.You said that already and ignored my reply.
Likewise with Goncalo Amaral.
There has been criticism of Amaral and insults given but are there any Facebook sites or indeed any site solely dedicated to being critical of Amaral?
Every time anything related to the McCanns is published in a newspaper, the comments surge in with the usual contempt.
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?
You said that already and ignored my reply.
I didn’t ignore your reply, it simply didn’t alter my previous reply.So you think Brenda’s intentions are irrelevant to the issue?
So you think Brenda’s intentions are irrelevant to the issue?
Unless her intentions were illegal, yes.Then apply this same rationale to the dossier compilers and bring this discussion to a close.
No the schools take action, they cannot wait for the site owners to do so.Sorry, but from personal experience that is utter nonsense. *&^^&
Therefore schools have to uphold the moral conscience.
The schools cannot wait to see if this abuse becomes criminal abuse.
I don’t ignore it, it’s simply irrelevant.
A cruel or abusive post against someone I do not know may make me stop and tut a little but I would never feel that it was my mission to seek revenge for the post. That really is obsessive.
Then apply this same rationale to the dossier compilers and bring this discussion to a close.
Claire Hardacre of the Guardian disagrees with the dossierres and Martin BruntThe final straw - doesn't weight heavy but it tips the balance.
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.
I doubt very much if the rationale behind the compilation of the dossier was revenge. In my opinion the dossier compilers simply wanted the torrents of abuse and persecution as exemplified by the many thousands of abusive posts directed at one named family to stop.
I don’t ignore it, it’s simply irrelevant.
A cruel or abusive post against someone I do not know may make me stop and tut a little but I would never feel that it was my mission to seek revenge for the post. That really is obsessive.
Sorry, but from personal experience that is utter nonsense. *&^^&
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.
Sorry, but from personal experience that is utter nonsense. *&^^&
Are there any here who are prone to suicidal tendencies?
exactly the mcanns dont even probably care
Spot on for once. Brenda needed help, not public exposure on national TV. It was the police's job to have had a word with her in the circumstances and not that of some would-be do-gooder dossier compilers or Sky News. It was a disgrace that someone with recognised mental health issues was treated in such a despicable manner. Some supporters appear to be ignorant of the fact that people with mental health problems do not think or act rationally. Brenda did not have a choice in what she did due to her illness, she deserved help and compassion and all she got then and even now is abuse by some who should really hang their heads in shame. Those who drove her to her death must be exposed imo.
The dossier compilers have a case to answer imo and should be held to account.
I think that is a heartless question to ask Rob.
I also am intrigued that yourself and none of the supporters who have replied to my previous post have mentioned the final part of my quote by Claire Hardacre
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.
Claire Hardacre agreed with me that "a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice". Do you and others think it was the right way?
Brietta, whether or not Brenda had suicidal tendencies was almost certainly unknown to Brunt, the rest of the media that piled in to call her a trxll and also those who created the dossier.
The result of the dossier and Martin Brunt (and the daily Mail story), led to a witch hunt on a massive scale that I cant remember seeing before and all because one woman made some tweets. I do not deny they were abusive and deeply unpleasant but I believe that murders appear to get less media coverage than Brenda did.
I suppose all supporters are following Gerry McCanns' stance
“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”
Personally I wish that Martin Brunt had found someone to make and "example of" one of who had posted the alleged threats to the family rather than a woman in her 60s who lived alone who did not.
Martin Brunt of course claims to be devastated by Brenda's death but it seems the supporters by and large on here were not (one in particular).
Account for what... What laws, have they broken
I agree. My brother is a teacher and he regularly complains that the school will not take a strong line on mobile phones in school. Seems that headteachers and principals are more afraid of the parents these days to do very much.
No one knew brenda had, mental health issues, apart from her family.... They are, the ones, who should have helped her....brenda was free to abuse... Sky was, free to name and shame her....
Brunt knew so get your facts right. Yet despite knowing, he and Sky News still went ahead and aired her doorstepping, what a despicable bunch of morons they are. Abuse on twitter is taken as the norm these days but nobody need read any of it if they don't want to. The #McCann tag is used on twitter to get noticed in that group, it has no other significance.
Brunt knew so get your facts right. Yet despite knowing, he and Sky News still went ahead and aired her doorstepping, what a despicable bunch of morons they are.Look that is why I asked that "heartless question" for then we would know and could temper our responses accordingly. I must have missed just how Martin Brunt would have known about Brenda's suicidal tendencies.
Brunt knew so get your facts right. Yet despite knowing, he and Sky News still went ahead and aired her doorstepping, what a despicable bunch of morons they are.
Look that is why I asked that "heartless question" for then we would know and could temper our responses accordingly. I must have missed just how Martin Brunt would have known about Brenda's suicidal tendencies.
"Brunt knew so get your facts right" How did he know?
She told him. Did you miss the evidence he gave to the coroner?
she did not tell him anything until after the doorstepping...even then he did not realise she was serious...whats the point in an discussion forum if you are going to remove posdts just to make your own point
She told him but he didn't think she was serious. So pathetic!!
so he didnt know before the doorstepping
Says more about them in reality imo.
He knew before the footage was aired and that is what counts.
ETA. Any further disruptive posts will not be tolerated.
I put on the supporters thread that all supporters appear to agree with everything a supporter does. Brenda's case is a good point. None here will say they were part of the dossier gang yet every one agrees with the media onslaught that Brenda faced.Suicide is a personal choice. I don't get any satisfaction from that. Mind you if someone I detested committed suicide maybe I'd be glad that part is over. It is pretty hard to be fully forgiving to everyone. I'm a Christian - "forgive those who who trespass against us etc" but do I really do that?
I am sure if he were asked, that Martin Brunt would not do his doorstepping of Brenda but all supporters on here are glad he did it appears regardless of the consequences.
And yet they claim that sceptics are heartless.
Davel your last post is a good example of the above.
So they deserve the, death penalty... Lol...why dont you statrt a petition...death penalty for dossier compiling...just to show what a rational person you are
You are treating Brenda's death as a joke. I doubt others agree with you.
She told him. Did you miss the evidence he gave to the coroner?Probably I don't make a point of studying this case.
is a disruptive post on ethat disagrees with you
It is against forum rules to post false information in order to support an argument.
Are you absolutely sure that what Davel posted is "false"?
No one knew brenda had, mental health issues, apart from her family.... They are, the ones, who should have helped her....brenda was free to abuse... Sky was, free to name and shame her....
Absolutely. According to Brunt himself, BL told him that she was contemplating suicide but that she had had a drink and spoken to her son and felt better now. Alarm bells ringing yet they still aired the footage.
This was the post I strongly objected to. It was false and misleading. Brunt knew about her mental health issue so should have stood back immediately. I don't know what sanctimonious selfserving code Sky operates to but it stinks frankly. The coroner let Sky News off far too lightly imo.
I see my original post answering this has gone.
Surely he only knew once he had spoken to her.
She invited him into her home later on that day.
The footage had been shown before .then.
Thats something you should take up with Sky.
I think you are confused as to the timing. The footage was aired after she invited him into her home. Contrary to what some people think, the whole sorry episode was recorded, it was not aired live.
Well it's certainly contrary to what I believe to be true.
Surely you don't honestly think she would have invited him into her home after they did the dirty on her and aired the doorstepping footage?
I doubt very much if the rationale behind the compilation of the dossier was revenge. In my opinion the dossier compilers simply wanted the torrents of abuse and persecution as exemplified by the many thousands of abusive posts directed at one named family to stop.
A psychiatrist who had treated Brenda Leyland in the past gave evidence to her inquest as follows:
Dr Z - Consultant Psychiatrist (he was not treating Brenda at the time of her death, but had seen her as a patient many years ago)
Brenda did have a mental health condition of recurrent depression and certain unstable emotional personality traits. He understood they were lifelong conditions.
It would not be obvious to others that she had a mental health condition. She was a very private person with complex psychological endowment. She had very contrasting emotions and conversations.
Coroner asked - did she always have full insight into her conversations?
Dr Z - yes, she would understand consequences of her actions. In discussions I think she flirted with talk of suicide.
He said he was not aware she had tried to take her own life in the past.
I've noted "suicidal tendencies".
Coroner - "But the risk of serious harm is always there?"
I've noted "not aware of any actions; risk of serious self-harm".
Dr Z - yes. He described her as an extremely intelligent lady.
Her reaction, could not have been expected by others. And with his knowledge it couldn't have been foreseen.
Coroner - her personality would be to trigger such events?
No one knew brenda had, mental health issues, apart from her family.... They are, the ones, who should have helped her....brenda was free to abuse... Sky was, free to name and shame her....
She told Brunt she had been thinking of suicide. What do you think he should have done with that information?I hope he said "please don't do that".
Yes.
I believe she did.
After she drove away and the footage had been shown, Brunt later on in the day said that when she came back she contacted him and invited him into her home.
After she was doorstepped, and before it was aired, Brenda contacted her son to see if there was anything they could do to stop the footage being aired. It’s all there in the coroner’s transcript.
There’s a moral hole in anyone who knows Brenda spoke to Brunt about suicide yet still supports her despicable treatment by him.
Yes.
I believe she did.
After she drove away and the footage had been shown, Brunt later on in the day said that when she came back she contacted him and invited him into her home.
And there is a moral hole in anyone who hounds and posts hate against the family of a missing child.
And in my opinion that was what Brenda joined in with.
The doorstepping and interview later that day were on the 30 September. The doorstepping footage aired on the 2 October and BL was found dead two days later.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/20/sky-news-mccann-brenda-leyland
So now Angelo and Sunny have posted the proof that Brunt knew Brenda was thinking of suicide before the footage was aired, do you still think Sky should have aired the footage ?
Why was it shown in two distinctive sections.
The first footage ends with her driving away.
Then later on that day the next footage showed Brenda and Martin Brunt gong into her house.
I reiterate all I have said before.
She chose to hound the family of a missing child.
Why?
Bullying even though it may not be criminal is morally reprehensible.
Bullying in schools is dealt with even though it may not be criminal.
The public have a right to be concerned about bullying wherever it occurs.
I regret that anyone chooses to end their life, and I think the pain the family feels must be ntolerable.
The suicide victim is at peace but their families have to cope with the pain forever.
So you choose not to answer my question.
Let me ask you Erngath. If you thought a person, no matter what your view of their behaviour, was contemplating suicide would you simply carry on in the action which you knew had a good chance of tipping them over the edge ?
Why was it shown in two distinctive sections.
The first footage ends with her driving away.
Then later on that day the next footage showed Brenda and Martin Brunt gong into her house.
I reiterate all I have said before.
She chose to hound the family of a missing child.
Why?
Bullying even though it may not be criminal is morally reprehensible.
Bullying in schools is dealt with even though it may not be criminal.
The public have a right to be concerned about bullying wherever it occurs.
I regret that anyone chooses to end their life, and I think the pain the family feels must be ntolerable.
The suicide victim is at peace but their families have to cope with the pain forever.
You'll need to ask Jonathan Levy that question as he was head of the editorial team who put the footage together.
Abuse is wrong wherever it originates so I make no excuses on that front.
Good luck. I've been through the mill.
Your personal experience may have been with a school which has failed in its duty to help children who are being bullied but many schools here have good anti bullying policies.
In the past schools have not dealt well with bullying but now most schools have adopted strong anti bullying practices.
If not, then they will incur strong criticism from HMI.
I can't believe you would ask anyone on this forum such an insensitive and frankly insulting question.
Good luck. I've been through the mill.
But that is at the core of this debate.
And it is a very simple question. I myself can categorically say that no matter what the person had done if I thought by my actions that they may take their own life I would not take those actions.
No I would do my very up most to make sure a loved one committed suicide.
You have no idea of whether I have had to cope with or been involved with this situation in my real life.
Brunt said he didn't think the remark was made, seriously... Did anyone contact sky... Her son fir instance and explain the situation.... It appears not
People want to blame sky.. Brunt... or the compilers... They all acted reasonably IMO... The problem started with the, abusive tweets... They were the cause if the situation arising... Anyone posting anything on line should have the decency only to post that which they are prepared to publicly acknowledge... Posting abuse anonymously is, rank cowardice
Did Brunt say he thought her suicide remark was not serious ? Do you have a cite ?
Good luck. I've been through the mill.
Yes he said he thought it was a throw away remark
Do you have a cite ?
It’s surprising that you are asking me to consider what you have coped with in your life when you give no thought to what Brenda had had to cope with.
So from your answer above can I take it that you think Brunt was wrong to air the footage when he knew Brenda was suicidal ?
It’s surprising that you are asking me to consider what you have coped with in your life when you give no thought to what Brenda had had to cope with.
So from your answer above can I take it that you think Brunt was wrong to air the footage when he knew Brenda was suicidal ?
And (from the coroners inquest)Snipped from my earlier post with Martin Brunt's evidence to the coroner. Brunt had originally intended to contact others mentioned in the dossier.
He said that the intention was to contact others [mentioned] in the dossier.
Snipped from my earlier post with Martin Brunt's evidence to the coroner. Brunt had originally intended to contact others mentioned in the dossier.
If he was so convinced that what he had done to Brenda Leyland was correct, why did he not do this?
IMO.... Because of the death of brenda... Showing a bit of restraint... Perhaps her fellow abusers showed restraint to and stopped the abuse
I expect there are those who think they should have carried on regardless.
And there is a moral hole in anyone who hounds and posts hate against the family of a missing child.
And in my opinion that was what Brenda joined in with.
As I have said previously, she couldn’t hound as they were not on twitter and the only evidence of “hate” was in response to another unknown tweet.She was abusive towards the McCanns... Over and over again.. Most of her posts, are no longer available
She was abusive towards the McCanns... Over and over again.. Most of her posts, are no longer available
It doesn’t appear so. Are you suggesting the dossier compilers didn’t have the worst tweets?
Statement by the coroner... Who knows more, about the case than anyone here..
Recording a verdict of suicide, Mason said she did not think that anyone could have known that Leyland had made a decision to take her own life.
Brunt didn't know Brenda was suicidal and he didn't air the footage, get your facts right.
Snipped from my earlier post with Martin Brunt's evidence to the coroner. Brunt had originally intended to contact others mentioned in the dossier.
If he was so convinced that what he had done to Brenda Leyland was correct, why did he not do this?
She was abusive towards the McCanns... Over and over again.. Most of her posts, are no longer available
Before I provide the cite... Are you really not aware of it... If you are not I will be glad to provide it
Brunt didn't know Brenda was suicidal and he didn't air the footage, get your facts right.
Let's be clear then.
You are accusing Davel of not caring that a woman ended her own life.
By the way I said objectionable not disappointing.
He has made it abundantly clear that he blames her death entirely on herself and has shown no care at all. Read his posts on the subject and I suppose I could say I find Davel's attitude regarding her death objectional, Erngath.
I think what is clear how misguided someone could be.... I'm one of the most compassionate people anyone could meet... So I'm not in the slightest offended... I'm totally comfortable in my own compassionate skin
I've followed his posts and believe he has attributed much of her difficulties to her own personal life situation.
He believes that it was correct that the bullying and hounding of the parents of Madeleine should have been reported both to the police and the media.
You have chosen to interpret this as his not caring that a woman ended her own life.
I feel you have no right to make such a presumption.
The discussion was Did Brenda Leyland have the right to due process. The answer is yes. Did she receive it ? The answer of course is no.Was this the finding of the inquest?
Conclusion: supporters ( including the dossier compilers ) insist on due process for the McCanns while denying it to Brenda Leyland.
I think that is a heartless question to ask Rob.Bsically what you and Claire want is for the media to consider and research the mental health of everyone they write stories on before publishing them. Perhaps that too should be extended to everyone who passes a personal opinion on another person in a public place.
I also am intrigued that yourself and none of the supporters who have replied to my previous post have mentioned the final part of my quote by Claire Hardacre
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.
Claire Hardacre agreed with me that "a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice". Do you and others think it was the right way?
Brietta, whether or not Brenda had suicidal tendencies was almost certainly unknown to Brunt, the rest of the media that piled in to call her a trxll and also those who created the dossier.
The result of the dossier and Martin Brunt (and the daily Mail story), led to a witch hunt on a massive scale that I cant remember seeing before and all because one woman made some tweets. I do not deny they were abusive and deeply unpleasant but I believe that murders appear to get less media coverage than Brenda did.
I suppose all supporters are following Gerry McCanns' stance
“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”
Personally I wish that Martin Brunt had found someone to make and "example of" one of who had posted the alleged threats to the family rather than a woman in her 60s who lived alone who did not.
Martin Brunt of course claims to be devastated by Brenda's death but it seems the supporters by and large on here were not (one in particular).
May well be...abuse such as brenda was part of needs to be stopped... Although you seem to disagree
They deserve the same fate as BL who also broke no laws.So lthough you think what the dossier compilers and sky did was reprehensible, you want them to receive the same treatment as Brenda. And what if Brunt or a dossier compiler killed themselves, would that be justified as suitable retribution in your view?
All very poor excuses. She had confided in Brunt that she was extremely upset and had thought about ending it all yet Sky still went ahead and aired the footage. For me that was an extremely callous thing to do.
I concur with that Dave but using the press and media is not how it will be stopped. If anything, the Brenda Leyland case should be a lesson to all that there is a right and a wrong way of doing these things. Had the police bothered to speak to her I am quite sure that would have been enough to end the nonsense but clearly they were too busy with other things to get involved.
He has made it abundantly clear that he blames her death entirely on herself and has shown no care at all. Read his posts on the subject and I suppose I could say I find Davel's attitude regarding her death objectional, Erngath.
I don't think it was... Brunt didn't take her remark seriously... As I have said... Why didn't her son ring Brunt... Brenda had his number
You have your opinion I have mine... I don't attach any blame to the compilers... Brunt... Or Sky... They had information that need to be acted on
So lthough you think what the dossier compilers and sky did was reprehensible, you want them to receive the same treatment as Brenda. And what if Brunt or a dossier compiler killed themselves, would that be justified as suitable retribution in your view?
But that is at the core of this debate.We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not?
And it is a very simple question. I myself can categorically say that no matter what the person had done if I thought by my actions that they may take their own life I would not take those actions.
Brunt knew Brenda was having suicidal thoughts yet still chose to air the doorstepping footage. Do you condemn him for making such a heartless decision ? If you don’t you don’t care and it is your attitude which should be scrutinised not the poster who highlighted it.Why not commend him for his honesty? He could have omitted this detail from his testimony but he chose to reveal it, showing that he is a man of integrity and conscience. Martin Brunt is not, as far as I know, the final arbiter of what is and what is not shown on Sky News.
Two wrongs don't make a right as the saying goes.Try tellng that to Angelo who appears to have an Old Testament approach to justice.
Was this the finding of the inquest?
It was beyond the inquest’s scope.Surely being “denied due process” is a matter that should be investigated by the relevant authorities? Why weren’t they?
We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not?
Surely being “denied due process” is a matter that should be investigated by the relevant authorities? Why weren’t they?
She seems to have a pretty good handle on WUM spotting.
Why not commend him for his honesty? He could have omitted this detail from his testimony but he chose to reveal it, showing that he is a man of integrity and conscience. Martin Brunt is not, as far as I know, the final arbiter of what is and what is not shown on Sky News.
We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not?
In life Brenda was indeed denied due process due to Sky and the dossier compilers taking the law into their own hands. After her death of course she was found to have committed not criminal offence.neither did Brunt or sky
He never showed the slightest concern for Madeleine and her family.
I doubt he ever considered Kate's fragile state.
This opinion is based on my judgement of his words and actions.
Sorry I thought you were talking about Brunt. Everyone seems to forget his 100% DNA claim.
Amaral obviously didn't care about how much anguish he caused the McCanns. Neither did Brenda
It wasn't his claim
Amaral and Brenda were certainly not the only people who had no care about how much anguish they added to he McCanns.
I saw him claim it with my own eyes.
Criminals are commended for confessing and often receive reduced sentences for doing so. Are you suggesting Martin Brunt is similar to a murderer?
His honesty ? That’s like commending a murderer for confessing.
Did he say he had told Sky about Brenda’s suicide comment ?
Criminals are commended for confessing and often receive reduced sentences for doing so. Are you suggesting Martin Brunt is similar to a murderer?
I find your whole post laughable with no basis in fact... But IMO there's lots you misunderstand
Online abuse is a serious topic that needs to be addressed.... Not the tit for tat arguments between posters, but the targetting if individuals not involved with the sites. For this, reason I applaud the action of the compilers and of Brunt and Sky and don't believe they have any responsibility fir the death of Brenda
I think what is clear how misguided someone could be.... I'm one of the most compassionate people anyone could meet... So I'm not in the slightest offended... I'm totally comfortable in my own compassionate skin
in your opinion...we dont know how they feel ...If i was one of the I certainly would not feel in any way to blame for brendas death.....if you expect compassion in times of difficulty it might be an idea to show some to others...brenda showed none
perhaps the dossier makers thought brenda deserved maximum exposure........in order to curb bullying and abuse online....I cant help but agree with them...lets have an end to abuse and bullying
brenda had no thoughts whatsoever for the mccanns feelings...why should she expect any for herself
of course ...it a was brendas choice
In life Brenda was indeed denied due process due to Sky and the dossier compilers taking the law into their own hands. After her death of course she was found to have committed not criminal offence.The same could be said for named police officers in the Hillsborough tragedy, for the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrnece, and many other examples named and shamed prior to any court case. I presume you are equally disgusted by the way these individuals have been treated by the media?
OK No basis in fact. Who do you blame for Brenda's death then. You have said many times here that it wasn't the dossier and it wasn't Martin Brunt and the media, who is left?
You say
And yet
Regarding her taking of her own life
I don't consider you compassionate, at least towards Brenda Leyland's death davel.
I think your comparison is comparable.It was your comparison, so you DO think Martin Brunt is similar to a murderer, and yet somehow despite being investigated no charges were brought. As the police are the only people who matter (your words) that should be that, so why do you keep harping on?
Snipped from my earlier post with Martin Brunt's evidence to the coroner. Brunt had originally intended to contact others mentioned in the dossier.He was working for someone wasn't he? So his boss would have had a say in that.
If he was so convinced that what he had done to Brenda Leyland was correct, why did he not do this?
Brendas mental illness... Combined with her lonliness.... The fact as, I understand she killed herself on her estranged sons birthday make me think she wanted to punish him.. All my opinion but you did ask the question
The same could be said for named police officers in the Hillsborough tragedy, for the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrnece, and many other examples named and shamed prior to any court case. I presume you are equally disgusted by the way these individuals have been treated by the media?
The ones left behind are those who suffer the most.
OK No basis in fact. Who do you blame for Brenda's death then. You have said many times here that it wasn't the dossier and it wasn't Martin Brunt and the media, who is left?
You say
And yet
Regarding her taking of her own life
I don't consider you compassionate, at least towards Brenda Leyland's death davel.
It was your comparison, so you DO think Martin Brunt is similar to a murderer, and yet somehow despite being investigated no charges were brought. As the police are the only people who matter (your words) that should be that, so why do you keep harping on?
The ones left behind are those who suffer the most.
In life Brenda was indeed denied due process due to Sky and the dossier compilers taking the law into their own hands. After her death of course she was found to have committed not criminal offence.Had she not committed suicide maybe she could have gotten a good payout for libel. Be like the McCanns.
Brendas mental illness... Combined with her lonliness.... The fact as, I understand she killed herself on her estranged sons birthday make me think she wanted to punish him.. All my opinion but you did ask the question
In many cases... But not all
I think commending Brunt for his honesty is like commending a murderer for confessing. The commendation is absurd.
I saw him claim it with my own eyes.Did he see the report from FSS too?
Could anyone please show me where anyone who has only made alleged abusive posts on twitter has ever had the mass media hysteria that Brenda Leyland was forced to suffer for over 2 days before she took her own life.I remember a young woman on Big Brother who used the “N” word in a good humoured chat with a black housemate and attracted mass media hysteria for several days, attracting plenty of comment from newspapers. She got kicked off the show for it. I remember standing up for her online and being vilified for doing so. Ironic isn’t it?
Some here think it was a final straw IMO it was the main one.
Goes to show it isn't that easy to predict.
I know four families of suicide victims and they continually blame themselves and wonder what they could have done to help prevent their loved one ending their life.
Could anyone please show me where anyone who has only made alleged abusive posts on twitter has ever had the mass media hysteria that Brenda Leyland was forced to suffer for over 2 days before she took her own life.What did her therapist think?
Some here think it was a final straw IMO it was the main one.
I remember a young woman on Big Brother who used the “N” word in a good humoured chat with a black housemate and attracted mass media hysteria for several days, attracting plenty of comment from newspapers. She got kicked off the show for it. I remember standing up for her online and being vilified for doing so. Ironic isn’t it?
What did her therapist think?
Could anyone please show me where anyone who has only made alleged abusive posts on twitter has ever had the mass media hysteria that Brenda Leyland was forced to suffer for over 2 days before she took her own life.
Some here think it was a final straw IMO it was the main one.
That was someone who wanted the media attention, and they got it.She wanted to be the nation’s pariah, and dubbed a racist? Do you have a cite for that?
She wanted to be the nation’s pariah, and dubbed a racist? Do you have a cite for that?
Don't put words into my mouth Vertigo Swirl. Who on earth would appear on Big Brother without wanting to be "famous". It's what the whole programme is about for contestants IMO.Famous, but not infamous, for being a racist.
It isn't some here.. It's her son who thought it was the final straw... And I think hes more informed than you are
Rob were you involved in the case when Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda? It was huge in the media and was why I became interested in the case.But what did her therapist think?
I am sure that the fact it was her estranged son's birthday and the outing together proved too much for her and I am not surprised. Without Brunt and his and others escapade then Brenda would still be here I am sure.
Some though IMO seem to be glad as at least she isn't tweeting.
Famous, but not infamous, for being a racist.Emily Parr courted fame. She made a mistake on national television and was ejected from the show. I don't know the details by the way as I don't watch Big Brother but she was expecting to be in the media just not in the way it ended up.
“Emily also told of the guilt she is now suffering over the impact that her ejection has had on her family. “My whole family’s a mess. They don’t deserve this – any of them. My sisters are doing their A levels. Examiners have been walking them to their cars after their exams. They’re much less prepared for this stuff than me.”
She went on: “I haven’t had any sleep. The whole family is stressed. My mother smoked the other day. I haven’t seen her do that for 20-odd years. I was taken to the psychiatrist and broke down in tears constantly – pretty much non-stop for the first two days. First it was shock and devastation – second was because I’d let my family down.”
Read more at https://www.whatsontv.co.uk/big-brother/big-brother-emily-parr-speaks-216973/#0KSI4YeoCGUhiGuL.99
No one can know what was in her mind at the time but I imagine having her entire life and character destroyed by the media onslaught would have been a considerable part of the reason she decided to end her life.
Of course you can carry on trying to make out it made no difference if you wish.
No one can know what was in her mind at the time but I imagine having her entire life and character destroyed by the media onslaught would have been a considerable part of the reason she decided to end her life.
Of course you can carry on trying to make out it made no difference if you wish.
Her son said it was the final straw.. Which indicates, something quite minor
From Brunt at the inquest
Mr Brunt, a respected veteran journalist, said he ended the conversation by telling her: "I hope I have not ruined your day".
She replied: "I don't know yet if you have ruined my day or my life."
And
Mr Brunt said he spoke to her again on the phone before his report was broadcast and she told him she had "thought about ending it all".
"It was a throw-away remark," he said. "She said she was feeling better. I had no idea about her mental background or history."
I can't believe he though her saying she may kill herself was a "throw-away remark".
Hopefully Davel the above will show that it wasn't a minor thing to Brenda as any sensible person would know IMO.
From Brunt at the inquestDid she seek professional help at that time?
Mr Brunt, a respected veteran journalist, said he ended the conversation by telling her: "I hope I have not ruined your day".
She replied: "I don't know yet if you have ruined my day or my life."
And
Mr Brunt said he spoke to her again on the phone before his report was broadcast and she told him she had "thought about ending it all".
"It was a throw-away remark," he said. "She said she was feeling better. I had no idea about her mental background or history."
I can't believe he though her saying she may kill herself was a "throw-away remark".
Hopefully Davel the above will show that it wasn't a minor thing to Brenda as any sensible person would know IMO.
Ben Leyland
He said his mother was “completely destroyed” by what had occurred.”.
Did she seek professional help at that time?
Psychiatric help would have been needed in addition to legal help at that time. To stop the media circus that destroyed her according to her son IMO.
Ben Leyland
He said his mother was “completely destroyed” by what had occurred.”.
According to her son it was not the media circus which destroyed her
Do you have a cite for that Davel.
I have this
He said his mother was “completely destroyed” by what had occurred
It's quite odd that brenda is copying kates words in relation to amaral... How obsessed was she
She did not find that because of statements in the book, documentary and a newspaper interview Kate and Gerry had been “completely destroyed
So he didn't mention media circus... False claim
He said it was the final straw indicating other factors, already in place
The McCanns claimed to be "totally destroyed" and "depressed" not "completely destroyed" Davel. Get something right for a change.
Anyone who believes Brenda is the only person who has ever been named and shamed by the media should read “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” by Jon Ronson, it’s a salutary tale that we should all take heed of.
So he didn't mention media circus... False claim
He said it was the final straw indicating other factors, already in place
Is the fact that Brenda wasn’t the first to be named and shamed really relevant.I was replying to Sunny who seemed to be under the impression that Brenda’s case was a first. Any reason why you are unable to accept the decision of “the only people who matter”in this case, and who clearly did not believe Brenda was denied her legsl rights?
The Birmingham Six weren’t the first people to have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Does that make it any more acceptable?
I was replying to Sunny who seemed to be under the impression that Brenda’s case was a first. Any reason why you are unable to accept the decision of “the only people who matter”in this case, and who clearly did not believe Brenda was denied her legsl rights?
The only people that matter ie the police, deemed Brenda to have committed no criminal offence. So for her to be hounded when she had done nothing criminally wrong was indeed to deny her due process. Due process entails investigation, arrest, charge, trial, verdict. Due process is not accusation, humiliation, death.
So far the only people that matter iie the police have deemed the parents of Madeleine to have committed no criminal offence.
So for them to be hounded when they have done nothing criminally wrong is to deny them due process.
Due process entails investigation, arrest , charge, trial, verdict.
Due process is not accusation, insults, setting up of Facebook pages to humiliate, decry, lie about, post myths and self appointed , "researchers" stalking the family of a missing child.
Pity Brenda didn't consider "due process"
Brenda did it no one else.
Brenda did what? Sorry your post does not make sense Rob.https://youtu.be/TBP9k2Xsj6g?list=RDVnuf9-zgdyw "Dolly did it"
https://youtu.be/TBP9k2Xsj6g?list=RDVnuf9-zgdyw "Dolly did it"
BL, who didn’t post abuse or commit any offence appears to be being pilloried by the usual suspects for not being convinced of the McCanns non involvement. Talk about post truth.
Sorry still not making sense Rob but I am off now anyway.I couldn't find the right clip, but that comedian blamed everything on Dolly, by saying "Dolly did it" and I was trying to being funny saying "Brenda did it". I'll try again later....
Speak tomorrow.
She chose not to continue living in hope of eventually learning the truth - which imo signifies that her quest was not as important to her as her own reputation. Egos & reputations have long since overtaken the sceptic cause of justice for Madeleine, clearly visible on twitter & other fora. Is Madeleine McCann deserving of a name forever synonymous with the behaviour of those who play at seeking their own version of justice?
It would be better than a name synonymous with parental neglect.
She chose not to continue living in hope of eventually learning the truth - which imo signifies that her quest was not as important to her as her own reputation. Egos & reputations have long since overtaken the sceptic cause of justice for Madeleine, clearly visible on twitter & other fora. Is Madeleine McCann deserving of a name forever synonymous with the behaviour of those who play at seeking their own version of justice?
The only people that matter ie the police, deemed Brenda to have committed no criminal offence. So for her to be hounded when she had done nothing criminally wrong was indeed to deny her due process. Due process entails investigation, arrest, charge, trial, verdict. Due process is not accusation, humiliation, death.Why were there no prosecutions following Brenda’s death then?
BL, who didn’t post abuse or commit any offence appears to be being pilloried by the usual suspects for not being convinced of the McCanns non involvement. Talk about post truth.Brenda didn’t post abuse??! Did you write that with a straight face?
What is, the point if this thread... Shouldn't Brenda be allowed to RIP....Brenda’s death was a gift to the sceptics, a great big juicy stick to bring out regularly to use for McCann and McCann supporter bashing. Sick and sad IMO, but maybe that’s what Brenda would have wanted.
What is, the point if this thread... Shouldn't Brenda be allowed to RIP....
Brenda didn’t post abuse??! Did you write that with a straight face?
I've found it most informative. Those who have accused others of lacking empathy seem to have jettisoned their own. Those who insist that the McCanns have the right to be presumed innocent appear to have denied that presumption to Brenda Leyland. Those who think the police are the right people to investigate Madeleine's disappearance have supported the idea of bypassing the police and using the media if they think a person is guilty. In my opinion they change their morals and beliefs depending on the circumstances.I think pretty much every McCann supporter here has expressed empathy for Brenda. Brenda was not denied any rights, the media simply reported the facts, which she had the opportunity to deny or defend. Instead she chose to end her life. The same thing happened to the McCanns initially, with the media reporting that they left their kids alone and all the outrage that enused. The McCanns chose to defend their position. In the end they were not prosecuted, and neither probably would Brenda have been - she would have received due process, but didn’t stick around long enough for it.
Yes, nothing posted would look out of place on many of the active fora both supporter and sceptic.So despite the fact that many sceptics on this thread have agreed that what Brenda wrote was bullying and abusive, you think it was acceptable because others do it too, is that the gist?
Bsically what you and Claire want is for the media to consider and research the mental health of everyone they write stories on before publishing them. Perhaps that too should be extended to everyone who passes a personal opinion on another person in a public place.Interesting point to ponder.
Interesting point to ponder.Yet not a word from sceptics here
From memory, Richard Bilton came in for a lot of criticism, on here, for his 10th anniversary piece re Madeleine, particularly re 2 doorstep interviews, Vitor dos Santos and Paulo Ribeiro. The latter, in particular, was clearly not mentally fit for an inquisatorial intervew. The former was doorstepped at his place of work.
Should the BBC have considered the mental health of Paulo Ribeiro?
Why were there no prosecutions following Brenda’s death then?
Did Sonia Poulton consider the mental health of Kate McCann?
Sorry if this is Off Topic, but it does seem to be about Door Stepping.
Did Sonia Poulton consider the mental health of Kate McCann?I made this point before on this thread, it was ignored.
Sorry if this is Off Topic, but it does seem to be about Door Stepping.
Why would there be prosecutions ?You tell me, you’re the one claiming Brenda was done an injustice.
I made this point before on this thread, it was ignored.
“We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not? “
All those expressing outrage that Brenda’s mental state was not considered might like to ask themselves what happened to their outrage when it was Kate McCann and her mental state being put through the media wringer? I suspect all the while Kate was being pilloried bu the press many of these bleeding hearts were only adding to the online bile being heaped on the woman. Am I wrong?
No I’m sure she didn’t and her doorstepping of Kate was absolutely deplorable too.You will of course be boycotting Sonia’s latest video effort then?
I made this point before on this thread, it was ignored.
“We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not? “
All those expressing outrage that Brenda’s mental state was not considered might like to ask themselves what happened to their outrage when it was Kate McCann and her mental state being put through the media wringer? I suspect all the while Kate was being pilloried bu the press many of these bleeding hearts were only adding to the online bile being heaped on the woman. Am I wrong?
I made this point before on this thread, it was ignored.
“We know Kate McCann has contemplated suicide in the past and has had a fragile mental state. She was understandably caused anguish by a best sellng book claiming her and her husband probably sedated their child, hid her body and transported it for re-hiding/burial 23 days later. Did Amaral consider whether or not his book might have driven Kate McCann to suicide before publication? Did he have any reason to know for certain it would not? “
All those expressing outrage that Brenda’s mental state was not considered might like to ask themselves what happened to their outrage when it was Kate McCann and her mental state being put through the media wringer? I suspect all the while Kate was being pilloried bu the press many of these bleeding hearts were only adding to the online bile being heaped on the woman. Am I wrong?
You tell me, you’re the one claiming Brenda was done an injustice.
Go on, I will bite, cite for Kate’s mental state.Read her book. Look at the pictures. Read the interviews at the time.
Read her book. Look at the pictures. Read the interviews at the time.
Had Kate contemplated suicide ? It’s funny but in the Lisbon trial she seemed to deny such a deep depression.Whether or not she was actually close to suicide is immaterial. No one apart from the individual would know that for sure one way or the other, yet one could use empathy and imagine the mental state of a woman who’s child had gone missing couldn’t one, and therefore moderate one’s behaviour taking this into account? Did the media? Did Amaral? I very much doubt it, yet this is what you Brenda supporters appear to want - the media considering the mental state of eveyone whose alleged misdemeanours they report on.
I said she was denied due process which is patently true.Being denied due process is legally permitted then?
Yet not a word from sceptics here
Is Faithlilly a sceptic in your opinion?Good stuff IMO.
snip/
Bilton haranguing an obviously mentally disabled man or rudely questioning a gentleman, who was never even an arguido, at his place of work?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8131.msg403455#msg403455
Read her testimony at the Lisbon hearings.I have. I have also read her book and various interviews on the subject of how she felt, both at the time Madeleine went missing and subsequently, and her feelings about Amaral’s book. They paint a picture of a distraught, devastated, at times emotionally fragile woman, who had considered swimming out to sea, never to return. Admittedly she is clearly made of stronger stuff than many, and that is why she is still here today.
Being denied due process is legally permitted then?
Unless someone wants to sue privately it would appear so.So obviously those nearest and dearest to Brenda were content to let it lie, unlike Brenda’s Barmy Army who keep going on and on about it, forever it would seem.
I have. I have also read her book and various interviews on the subject of how she felt, both at the time Madeleine went missing and subsequently, and her feelings about Amaral’s book. They paint a picture of a distraught, devastated, at times emotionally fragile woman, who had considered swimming out to sea, never to return. Admittedly she is clearly made of stronger stuff than many, and that is why she is still here today.
So obviously those nearest and dearest to Brenda were content to let it lie, unlike Brenda’s Barmy Army who keep going on and on about it, forever it would seem.
So no mention of suicide? And in her Lisbon testimony she specifically says she was not depressed, a prerequisite I would have thought for suicidal thoughts ?No mention of suicide? What is swimming in the sea and never returning then? Moving to another country? I didn’t say suicide is only for the weak, you are putting words in my mouth.
It is interesting though that you seem to believe that suicide is only for the weak.
It would appear her family have taken the issue no further, yes. That doesn’t change my point.Why can’t you respect the family’s wishes and dial down the noise on their nearest and dearest’s death? Is there any evidence that they want people like you to keep banging on about it?
No mention of suicide? What is swimming in the sea and never returning then? Moving to another country? I didn’t say suicide is only for the weak, you are putting words in my mouth.
Why can’t you respect the family’s wishes and dial down the noise on their nearest and dearest’s death? Is there any evidence that they want people like you to keep banging on about it?
Had Kate contemplated suicide ? It’s funny but in the Lisbon trial she seemed to deny such a deep depression.
It’s like saying I want to start running and never stop. It doesn’t allude to suicide. Now do you have a proper cite or will we let Kate’s testimony at Lisbon stand ?Do people in a happy place write of jumping in the ocean and swimming out to sea? What sort of mental state does that suggest to you? If someone said that to you in a private moment, would you then do a TV broadcast about the fact that in your opinion they neglected their children, or worse?
You said Kate never attempted suicide because she was made of sterner stuff. Isn’t that suggesting people who do attempt suicide are weak ?
Why don’t you admit that their nearest and dearest wouldn’t be dead if it wasn’t for individuals with no thought for their nearest and dearest ?It’s an overly simplistic argument you are presenting and one which I do not agree with. You are suggesting that Brunt and the dossier compilers caused Brenda’s death. If that was the case they would have been prosecuted.
Kate had said she felt like ending it all... At one stage... Obviously many people, say this but they are not... And it is not taken seriously.... As Brenda didhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kate-mccann-contemplated-suicide-after-detectives-book-on-madeleines-disappearance-8829175.html
Kate had said she felt like ending it all... At one stage... Obviously many people, say this but they are not... And it is not taken seriously.... As Brenda did
A cite would be nice.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg486062#msg486062
It’s an overly simplistic argument you are presenting and one which I do not agree with. You are suggesting that Brunt and the dossier compilers caused Brenda’s death. If that was the case they would have been prosecuted.
"I had an overwhelming urge to swim out across the ocean, as hard and as fast as I could; to swim and swim and swim until I was so far out and so exhausted I could just allow the water to pull me under and relieve me of this torment.
"I wasn't keeping that desire to myself, either. I was shouting it out to anyone who happened to be in the room. Both this urge and the expression of it were, I suppose, an outlet for the crucifying anguish.
"Somehow, inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain. The other truly awful manifestation of what I was feeling was a macabre slide show of vivid pictures in my brain that taunted me relentlessly.
"I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled, on a big grey stone slab. Looking back, seeing me like this must have been terrible for my friends and relatives, particularly my parents, but I couldn't help myself."
So, not alluding to suicide then, Faithlilly?
If the compilers and Brunt hadn’t humiliated Brenda then she would still be alive. Those are the bold, unarguable facts.
exactly the dossier creators and sky news uk are to blame for brenda killing herself imo
The above alludes to the pain she was feeling but not to suicide.Brenda said ‘ I was thinking of suicide’.......cite
Brenda said ‘ I was thinking of suicide’.
Do you see the difference?
You need to be clinically depressed to seriously contemplate suicide. Kate categorically said she was not.
That's an assumption... Not a fact
No it’s a fact.
She said to Brunt that she was contemplating suicide over his actions.....and then she did.
It’s not hard to join up the dots.
The above alludes to the pain she was feeling but not to suicide.What rot. Was Juliet clinically depressed? How about Romeo?
Brenda said ‘ I was thinking of suicide’.
Do you see the difference?
You need to be clinically depressed to seriously contemplate suicide. Kate categorically said she was not.
no its not a fact,...she had other problems and may have committed suicide for those raesons...
cite for...Brenda said ‘ I was thinking of suicide’..
What rot. Was Juliet clinically depressed? How about Romeo?
‘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'".So when she spoke to Brunt she was feeling better, and over her thoughts of ending it all. But we now know this wasn’t true, was Brunt supposed to guess she was not telling the truth?
‘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'".
Sorry but @)(++(*I thought you’d enjoy that. Now tell me only clinically depressed people commit suicide again.
So when she spoke to Brunt she was feeling better, and over her thoughts of ending it all. But we now know this wasn’t true, was Brunt supposed to guess she was not telling the truth?
I thought you’d enjoy that. Now tell me only clinically depressed people commit suicide again.
headline..
Kate McCann 'contemplated suicide' after detective's book on Madeleine's disappearance
so if kate had committed suicide would sceptics accept that it was amarals book that caused it or would they say it was other factors in her life...what did the Judge say
But she didn’t.
If she had said to Amaral ‘I have become suicidal at the thought that you might publish a book accusing me of a heinous crime’ and when the book was published she did, whose fault do you think that would be ?
I understand you cant answer the question...it would destroy your argument..
But she didn’t.
If she had said to Amaral ‘I have become suicidal at the thought that you might publish a book accusing me of a heinous crime’ and when the book was published she did, whose fault do you think that would be ?
I would question whether her loss of reputation really had meant more to her than the loss of her child.
Martin Brunt was told Brenda, due to his doorstepping, had contemplated suicide. None of friends or family at the inquest suggested she had talked about suicide before her doorstepping. Even you can join the dots.
i asked thefirst question...now my second..
if she had said taht ...do you think amaral would still have published his book
I would question whether her loss of reputation really had meant more to her than the loss of her child.
Martin Brunt was told Brenda, due to his doorstepping, had contemplated suicide. None of friends or family at the inquest suggested she had talked about suicide before her doorstepping. Even you can join the dots.
Were Romeo and Juliet real ?No, but their story has been repeated in real life many times. Now, tell me again that only the clinically depressed commit suicide.
I think he would have and would have had to live with the fact that he may have contributed to her suicide.
No, but their story has been repeated in real life many times. Now, tell me again that only the clinically depressed commit suicide.
should he go ahead
I think he would have and would have had to live with the fact that he may have contributed to her suicide.
Now you.
If Kate had said to Amaral ‘I have become suicidal at the thought that you might publish a book accusing me of a heinous crime’ and when the book was published she did, whose fault do you think that would be ?
But she didn’t.Who’s fault would it be? You tell us. Do you think if every Tom, Dick or Harriet said to the press “don’t publish an article showing what a nasty b........ I’ve been, I’m feeling suicidal” that the press should err on the side of caution and not print the facts?
If she had said to Amaral ‘I have become suicidal at the thought that you might publish a book accusing me of a heinous crime’ and when the book was published she did, whose fault do you think that would be ?
Then why not bring the real life cases here rather than a fictional one ?Because I couldn’t be arsed to google. Do you accept now that you don’t have to be clinically depressed to commit suicide, yes or no?
I would question whether Brenda's loss of reputation meant more to her than having lost the company and pleasure and love of having her eldest child in her life.
Because I couldn’t be arsed to google. Do you accept now that you don’t have to be clinically depressed to commit suicide, yes or no?
No.Oh dear.
Surely you realise that family relationships can be complex. We have no idea why Brenda and her son were estranged.
Surely you realise that family relationships can be complex. We have no idea why Brenda and her son were estranged.I think ben and I have a mutual friend...perhaps I can find out....i wouldnt post anything here
Ofcom guidelines;What was Ofcom’s finding in this case, assuming a complaint was made?
8.1 Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted.
8.11 Doorstepping for factual programmes should not take place unless a request for an interview has been refused or it has not been possible to request an interview, or there is good reason to believe that an investigation will be frustrated if the subject is approached openly, and it is warranted to doorstep. However, normally broadcasters may, without prior warning interview, film or record people in the news when in public places.
In this section “warranted” has a particular meaning. It means that where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted. If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-eight-privacy
In my opinion the 'public interest' was not a reason for doorstepping in this instance, and could not have been demonstrated to outweigh the right to privacy. That's because 'public interest' can't be defined by ten 'outraged' people and one news organisation.
Brunt is an educated professional. Even suggesting she had contemplated suicide should have rung huge alarm bells. You don’t get over feeling suicidal with a few drinks.
I wonder if he told anyone at Sky of this conversation with Brenda. I’m guessing not. Too good a scoop I suppose.
It’s telling they never attempted to doorstep anyone else in the dossier ( cue grinding of false teeth ).
headline..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg486087#msg486087
Kate McCann 'contemplated suicide' after detective's book on Madeleine's disappearance
so if kate had committed suicide would sceptics accept that it was amarals book that caused it or would they say it was other factors in her life...what did the Judge say
If Brenda was obviously suicidal why did her son not act.... Obviously he did not think she wasThinking is inaccurate. What sort of action would have helped. Further intervention could just about make the matter worse. It is a hard decision.
Thinking is inaccurate. What sort of action would have helped. Further intervention could just about make the matter worse. It is a hard decision.Tho point I'm making is I don't think he did.... Hevwas, trying to arrange solictors whereas if he'd realized how bad she was he could have caught a plane home or arranged for someone to look after her... I'm sure he would have done this if he'd realised how bad she was... He didn't and neither did brunt
I think that is very cruel Misty when you say
She chose not to continue living in hope of eventually learning the truth - which imo signifies that her quest was not as important to her as her own reputation.
Can you not sympathise with the shock and horror she must have felt seeing Martin Brunt outside her house accusing her of trolling the McCanns and saying she was being looked at by the police, all the while knowing that this would appear at least once on television. Then it doesn't appear just once but many times on Sky followed by the Daily Mail naming her and others following suit all calling her a trxll and picking her life apart.
You say "eventually" how long is eventually to someone suffering from depression who feels that her entire life has caved in in one day IMO.
One thing I am sure of is that even when the MSM furore had died down the supporters would be sharing the video and taunting others using her experience as the stick. They have done it before IMO
Tho point I'm making is I don't think he did.... Hevwas, trying to arrange solictors whereas if he'd realized how bad she was he could have caught a plane home or arranged for someone to look after her... I'm sure he would have done this if he'd realised how bad she was... He didn't and neither did brunt
Why on earth would 'supporters' or anyone else do any such thing if Mrs Leyland's actions and those of others sharing a place along side her in the dossier were due to be consigned to the dustbin of history by Leicestershire police?
Bit of a damp squib?
Why would Martin Brunt have a greater insight into Brenda Leyland's state of mind than her son who knew her well did? Although concerned for her in the situation she had put herself in Ben didn't suspect for a moment that she would take her own life.
In my opinion the subsequent trolling of Martin Brunt and the demands for his job were unwarranted ... but typical behaviour for some.
Don't you think the circumstances of the time rather preempted any follow up of the dossier as far as Martin Brunt or Sky news were concerned?
Read her book. Look at the pictures. Read the interviews at the time.
I already have, no need to be so rude.
I have quoted verbatim from Kate’s book, did you perhaps delete it? And whilst you’re demanding cites, how about demanding one from Sunny regarding her claim that a McCann supporter made that vile image of Brenda?I read that too - page numbering varies between editions. Have you checked your posts "find posts" link?
I have quoted verbatim from Kate’s book, did you perhaps delete it? And whilst you’re demanding cites, how about demanding one from Sunny regarding her claim that a McCann supporter made that vile image of Brenda?
I read that too - page numbering varies between editions. Have you checked your posts "find posts" link?
Go on, I will bite, cite for Kate’s mental state.The devastated mother of missing Madeleine McCann considered suicide and told her psychologist of 'dark thoughts' after a Portuguese detective published a book alleging she faked her daughter's disappearance, a libel trial has heard.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kate-mccann-contemplated-suicide-after-detectives-book-on-madeleines-disappearance-8829175.html
The devastated mother of missing Madeleine McCann considered suicide and told her psychologist of 'dark thoughts' after a Portuguese detective published a book alleging she faked her daughter's disappearance, a libel trial has heard.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kate-mccann-contemplated-suicide-after-detectives-book-on-madeleines-disappearance-8829175.html
"I deduced it was an indication of how she felt rather than something she ever intended to do."
No you haven’t. Kate’s book isn’t a cite, page and quote may be.But this is a cite ... sorry, no page number.
Which post was that?http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg486062#msg486062
The psychologist who was supposed to have enough of an insight into her state of mind to testify said...Just as Martin Brunt deduced regarding Brenda Leyland?
"I deduced it was an indication of how she felt rather than something she ever intended to do."
But this is a cite ... sorry, no page number.
Snip
In a new book to mark the fourth anniversary of her daughter's disappearance, Mrs McCann recalls running outside, screaming: "Madeleine's gone! Someone's taken her!"
Later, she sank into fits and anguish and depression that eventually threatened to destroy her relationship with her husband, Gerry.
She writes: "I had an overwhelming urge to swim out across the ocean, as hard and as fast as I could; to swim and swim and swim until I was so far out and so exhausted I could just allow the water to pull me under and relieve me of this torment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8500990/Kate-McCann-felt-like-committing-suicide-after-Madeleines-disappearance.html
The psychologist who was supposed to have enough of an insight into her state of mind to testify said "I deduced it was an indication of how she felt rather than something she ever intended to do."
Just as Martin Brunt deduced regarding Brenda Leyland?
Which post was that?#1755. Looking forward to your acknowledgment that I posted a cite.
Oh SNAP!! What do I see before me? Is it a cite?yes that’s another cite I had forgotten I posted - lol! So, 2 cites, yet still I get the heavy treatment.
Just in case you missed it.So she only felt suicidal? Oh well that’s alright then.
I didn’t know Martin Brunt was a psychologist?
#1755. Looking forward to your acknowledgment that I posted a cite.
So she only felt suicidal? Oh well that’s alright then.Had Kate actually done it, then it would be considered "justice", "karma" or the such like.
There is still the requirement for cites concerning allegations made on this thread ... in my opinion it would be excellent if you transferred your zeal to that one.
If you have to ask me which one I will point it out but I'm sure with your eye for these details you will have clocked it already.
Had Kate actually done it, then it would be considered "justice", "karma" or the such like.
No, why?From years of experience. I'm not saying everyone would, but I'm sure some would.
It was a storm in a teacup, despite the hopes of the dossier compilers. They hoped the 'general public' would rise up in support of the McCanns and against the 'vile trolls' perhaps, but they didn't. They brought trouble to Brenda's door for nothing. The 'trolls' continue to 'troll', the media continues to complain, and the ;general public' continues to be disinterested. All they achieved was to push a vulnerable woman over the edge. What a waste of time and effort.
Al your opinion... My opinion is Brenda sadly brought trouble to her own door.... She was, a victim... A victim of the propaganda that has come out of Portugal that is supposed to prove the McCanns were involved as suggested by amaral et al... If you are silly enough to believe that.... Then no wonder so much anger towards the McCanns....
Does that make you a victim of the propaganda that has come out of Team McCann?
I think your idea that the dossier compilers wanted or expected a mass uprising of the genral public against the trolls is laughable frankly. How on earth do you know this is what they hoped for? I also think you are wrong to say the public isn’t interested or concerned with online bullying or abuse, I think the fact that it is so very often in the news shows that it is a valid issue that troubles many people, even if you’re not one of them.
It was you who suggested that the 'general public' reacted, not me. If the dossier compilers weren't trying to garner support why did they go to Sky? Were they trying to force the hand of the police, perhaps?IMO... The compilers, wanted to highlight and hopefully stop the online abuse... A commendable action
People may well be concerned about online bullying or abuse in general, I don't know. I was talking about it in relation to the McCanns in particular.
Do you think the news reflects public opinion or seeks to influence it? I don't think it's always easy to tell. I do know that their tales of 'trolls' had no effect on those who contributed to the fund for Amaral's defense. A lot of those who donated laughed at the media's suggestion that they were 'trolls'.
It was you who suggested that the 'general public' reacted, not me. If the dossier compilers weren't trying to garner support why did they go to Sky? Were they trying to force the hand of the police, perhaps?I can’t find an article written about Brenda pre her death but this one in the Daily Mail attracted over 1200 comments, the most recommended of which seem to suggest that many people disapproved of her actions and felt that Sky had don nothing wrong http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782824/McCann-troll-Brenda-Leyland-sent-thousands-hate-tweets.html.
People may well be concerned about online bullying or abuse in general, I don't know. I was talking about it in relation to the McCanns in particular.
Do you think the news reflects public opinion or seeks to influence it? I don't think it's always easy to tell. I do know that their tales of 'trolls' had no effect on those who contributed to the fund for Amaral's defense. A lot of those who donated laughed at the media's suggestion that they were 'trolls'.
To those who believe police matters should be solely the domain of the police and who deplore the actions of the media in shining a light on possible ciminal behaviour, what do you feel about the Telegraph’s investigation into Philip Green alleged sexual harrassment / bullying and Lord Hain’s revelation in the HoL yesterday? Was this immoral and disgraceful in your view?
Sure, we could also start another thread about a dear old man who racially abused a woman on a Ryan Air flight who has very publicly been named and shamed by the media. There must be many on here who are outraged at the way the press have treated this man.
My view is all three deserved to be named and shamed... If you are not willing to stand up and defend what you say... Then don't say it... It really is a simple as that
The police should have better things to do and there are worse crimes. name calling isn't nice but not worth the bother.Depends on what the name calling involves... The law should be enforced and the newspapers should name and shame... As they have done in all three, cases
Depends on what the name calling involves... The law should be enforced and the newspapers should name and shame... As they have dine in all three, cases
Comparing a horse with a donkey is futile and pointless really.FYI: Twitter is “in a public place” unless you choose to protect your tweets. If the dear old man in question dies of shame whose fault will it be?
I am not outraged he was on TV my questions would be why? is this news worthy? well NO not at all. Same as Brenda- not news worthy
FYI: Twitter is “in a public place” unless you choose to protect your tweets. If the dear old man in question dies of shame whose fault will it be?
Oh my, swing a cat - hit a door and blame the cat or the door!
We are led to believe the MCs do not do social media so there was no direct contact from Brenda to the parents. The dear old man was having a face to face altrication with a woman. It was reported on social media and went viral- the airline also contacted the police. newsworthy? no not at all. And what Brenda did was not newsworthy either.
Oh my, swing a cat - hit a door and blame the cat or the door!Who are you to judge what is or is not newsworthy? The professionals deemed otherwise. If this poor old man decidedto kill himself whose fault would that be, in your view? What about Philip Green? Were the Telegraph wrong to investigate him? Surely that’s the job of thr police? Do you have sympathy for the poor old billionaire?
We are led to believe the MCs do not do social media so there was no direct contact from Brenda to the parents. The dear old man was having a face to face altrication with a woman. It was reported on social media and went viral- the airline also contacted the police. newsworthy? no not at all. And what Brenda did was not newsworthy either.
Who are you to judge what is or is not newsworthy? The professionals deemed otherwise. If this poor old man decidedto kill himself whose fault would that be, in your view? What about Philip Green? Were the Telegraph wrong to investigate him? Surely that’s the job of thr police? Do you have sympathy for the poor old billionaire?
Who are you to judge what is or is not newsworthy? The professionals deemed otherwise. If this poor old man decidedto kill himself whose fault would that be, in your view? What about Philip Green? Were the Telegraph wrong to investigate him? Surely that’s the job of thr police? Do you have sympathy for the poor old billionaire?
I might be wrong but no complaint was made to the police,the Telegraph got wind of a story that Green had paid NDA to some personnel and were investigating that.
I might be wrong but no complaint was made to the police,the Telegraph got wind of a story that Green had paid NDA to some personnel and were investigating that.It's irrelevant what the media were investigating, the fact is they attempted to "take the law into their own hands" by their determination to bring the details into the public eye. If Philip Green jumps off his yacht as a result, whose fault will that be?
It's irrelevant what the media were investigating, the fact is they attempted to "take the law into their own hands" by their determination to bring the details into the public eye. If Philip Green jumps off his yacht as a result, whose fault will that be?
It's irrelevant what the media were investigating, the fact is they attempted to "take the law into their own hands" by their determination to bring the details into the public eye. If Philip Green jumps off his yacht as a result, whose fault will that be?
His.Not the media's or the women who went to the media or Lord Hain for revealing his name in parliament?
Why is irrelevant,the Telegraph released the detail of the MP's thieving covered up as expenses,was that wrong,play with fire expect to get burnt in a free democratic society.No it was not wrong, that's my point. Start laying the law down about what the media can and cannot report is a recipe for disaster IMO, nor should they be held accountable if those playing with fire decide to jump on the fire themselves, unless of course the reporting is false.
His.
Not the media's or the women who went to the media or Lord Hain for revealing his name in parliament?
He courted the media when it suited him but when something was alleged that he didn't want out in the general domain then he silence the Telegraph it seems.Ah, so do you think the law needs to be changed so that not all people are considered equal under the law, in other words one rule for some, one for others?
Brenda never courted the media and she was a private person prior to the outrageous media coverage of her. It is a totally different thing IMO.
He courted the media when it suited him but when something was alleged that he didn't want out in the general domain then he silence the Telegraph it seems.
Brenda never courted the media and she was a private person prior to the outrageous media coverage of her. It is a totally different thing IMO.
Why do posters want to keep up the Brenda story..... The press were absolutely right to get involved... As were sky news... The type of behaviour Brenda engaged in needs to be stopped
No it was not wrong, that's my point. Start laying the law down about what the media can and cannot report is a recipe for disaster IMO, nor should they be held accountable if those playing with fire decide to jump on the fire themselves, unless of course the reporting is false.
So you want to kill investigative journalism?What gives you that impression from what Davel wrote? Or do you consider Brenda's activities to fall into the category of "investigative journalism"?
If what is being considered for publication is already a police matter then the media absolutely should not take the law into their own hands.Presumably then your sympathies must lie with the dear old man who racially abused another passenger on Ryanair flight recently? Poor man must be going through hell.
Presumably then your sympathies must lie with the dear old man who racially abused another passenger on Ryanair flight recently? Poor man must be going through hell.
Is it a police matter ?What difference does that make to whether or not you feel this man has been victimized by the media and worthy of your sympathy? I don’t know if it is a police matter or not - should it be in your view?
Twitter is the media... No excuses
So you want to kill investigative journalism?I don't... It seems sceptics do... Martin Brunt was a journalist and broke no laws... Yet has been pilloried... I'm al for investigative journalism...
How many people did Brenda tweet to? 100 - 200 people or the millions that Philip Green wanted to read about his good deeds and fame. Twitter is NOT the media however you want to make it so, IMO.
I don't... It seems sceptics do... Martin Brunt was a journalist and broke no laws... Yet has been pilloried... I'm al for investigative journalism...
Twitter is part of the media... Brenda chose to het involved in promoting hatred....
How many people did Brenda tweet to? 100 - 200 people or the millions that Philip Green wanted to read about his good deeds and fame. Twitter is NOT the media however you want to make it so, IMO.Twitter is part of that 21st century phenomenon known as “Social Media” is it not?
Unless they question the McCanns' story?I’m all for that too, as long as they don’t publish speculation from unnamed sources or false information.
What difference does that make to whether or not you feel this man has been victimized by the media and worthy of your sympathy? I don’t know if it is a police matter or not - should it be in your view?
I don't... It seems sceptics do... Martin Brunt was a journalist and broke no laws... Yet has been pilloried... I'm al for investigative journalism...
Investigative journalism yes and if any laws have been broken pass that information on to the authorities for them to take forward. The media should never act as judge and jury.
Neither should the public
Unless they question the McCanns' story?
They don’t.
If he acted illegally then yes, obviously.First question neatly avoided.
They don’t.Do you not read #McCann on twitter, or any of the myriad forums or comments pages where the public frequently judge the McCanns and find them guilty of all manner of crimes, from having a horrible house to murder?
Do you not read #McCann on twitter, or any of the myriad forums or comments pages where the public frequently judge the McCanns and find them guilty of all manner of crimes, from having a horrible house to murder?
First question neatly avoided.
Twitter is part of that 21st century phenomenon known as “Social Media” is it not?
Paper can be described as media as can photography if we are being picky. Social media wouldn't have "social" in front of it if it was the mainstream media.
Merely opinion.opinion with no judgement?! LOL.
Sorry what was the question ?You asked if it was a police matter and I asked “What difference does that make to whether or not you feel this man has been victimized by the media and is worthy of your sympathy?”
Social media wouldn't be called social media if it wasn't part of the media
Paper can be described as media as can photography if we are being picky. Social media wouldn't have "social" in front of it if it was the mainstream media.Who was talking about the mainstream media? You appear to have shifted the goalposts in this discussion. When Trump tweets is he not using twitter to inform millions of people of his views?
Are you trying to compare to the probably 100 or so people who may have seen Brenda's tweets before her outing, with the millions that read newspapers and watch the TV news?Cite for “100 or so” please.
Cite for “100 or so” please.
Brenda had 182 followers before her outing. Not all of them would be on twitter all the time I assume. Were you there all the time when you were on twitter VS?Are you aware that tweets can be seen by other tweeters that aren’t your followers?
Cite for her followers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns
Are you aware that tweets can be seen by other tweeters that aren’t your followers?
Yes I am but how many of those other people would have seen her tweets? I have read there are millions of tweets a day. How many would see her tweets if they weren't searching for them.Who knows? It’s kind of beside the point though IMO. Many people who tweet hope that their tweets will be retweeted and as widely read as possible, particularly those who believe they are taking part in some sort of campaign for justice. They actively want to be read and to convince as many people as possible to support and join their cause, otherwise why do it in the first place?
Who knows? It’s kind of beside the point though IMO. Many people who tweet hope that their tweets will be retweeted and as widely read as possible, particularly those who believe they are taking part in some sort of campaign for justice. They actively want to be read and to convince as many people as possible to support and join their cause, otherwise why do it in the first place?
Yes I am but how many of those other people would have seen her tweets? I have read there are millions of tweets a day. How many would see her tweets if they weren't searching for them.
you seem yto want to justify brendas nasty tweets,...thats up to you...I think her behaviour was totally unacceptable....
I have no idea why people tweet but my point was very few people would have known who she was or saw her tweets. Then she was monstered by the media at the behest of some McCann supporters. Philip Green was already a well known figure to the mainstream media and he actively courted them to promote a certain image. Brenda did neither.What about due process?
Of course and you are entitled to your opinion as Brenda thought she was too, until the mainstream media made her into a scapegoat IMO.
Of course and you are entitled to your opinion as Brenda thought she was too, until the mainstream media made her into a scapegoat IMO.
You asked if it was a police matter and I asked “What difference does that make to whether or not you feel this man has been victimized by the media and is worthy of your sympathy?”
Cite for “100 or so” please.It was a guess. No cite needed.
It was a guess. No cite needed.A cite was provided and it wasn’t a guess, it was an estimate.
A cite was provided and it wasn’t a guess, it was an estimate.OK, estimate and not a guess.
I don’t know the story as I’ve been away but generally I’m not sure what the media getting involved actually achieves. Rictual humiliation? The thing with that is for every individual posting a comment, appalled at his actions there’ll be another praising his courage to act as he did......Tommy Robinson is a case in point. What really is so wrong with the law doing what it is supposed to do, without let or hinderance ?Hmm, you may struggle to find many people praising the actions of the racist as “courageous” - depends which websites you visit I guess. Nevertheless you have still failed to give me a straight answer.
Hmm, you may struggle to find many people praising the actions of the racist as “courageous” - depends which websites you visit I guess. Nevertheless you have still failed to give me a straight answer.
Have you seen the praise heaped on Tommy Robinson for his actions?Question still dodged. Tommy Robinson was on a mission for justice as he saw it, obviously some people who follow these misguided and vigilantie-ish “justice seekers” are going to heap praise on that sort of individual, it’s a little bit different from an uncouth old man racially verbally abusing a perfectly innocent woman on an aeroplane. I’m sure you can see the difference if you try hard enough. Now, do you have some sympathy for the man at the heart of the racist on a plane story or not?
Just because you and I think someone’s behaviour is abhorrent doesn’t mean your neighbour will......and that’s why individuals should be investigated, charged and tried by the relevant legal authorities and not the media.
Question still dodged. Tommy Robinson was on a mission for justice as he saw it, obviously some people who follow these misguided and vigilantie-ish “justice seekers” are going to heap praise on that sort of individual, it’s a little bit different from an uncouth old man racially verbally abusing a perfectly innocent woman on an aeroplane. I’m sure you can see the difference if you try hard enough. Now, do you have some sympathy for the man at the heart of the racist on a plane story or not?
I’m sure the old man your speaking about felt justified in his tirade too and I’m sure you’d get misguided individuals who’d agree.So docI take it that you wholly disagree with all the media coverage surrounding this case? Imagine one of the Tapas group was filmed making obscene gestures in the vicinity of small children and someone went to the papers about it or tweeted it, and it went viral, would you be outraged if the media picked up the story?
As to your question, the gentleman is a despicable individual who deserves to be punished but within the law, not within what is deemed acceptable to the Sky news editor.
So docI take it that you wholly disagree with all the media coverage surrounding this case? Imagine one of the Tapas group was filmed making obscene gestures in the vicinity of small children and someone went to the papers about it or tweeted it, and it went viral, would you be outraged if the media picked up the story?
I’ve been away so I’ve no idea about this case other than what I’ve read here. Again if one of the Tapas group was acting illegally then l would hope the law would take its course, if not it’s none of our business.I guess you would also then support Philip Green’s right to due process?
I guess you would also then support Philip Green’s right to due process?
Isn’t that the only civiliised way to behave ? What else do you suggest, mob rule ?I’m not a fan of mob rule, but I am a fan of freedom of the press to report whatever they see fit, so long as it is accurate and not fanciful. How about you?
I’m not a fan of mob rule, but I am a fan of freedom of the press to report whatever they see fit, so long as it is accurate and not fanciful. How about you?
So would social media equate to the press in your eyes as apparently you consider it "media".No, the press is the press, the clue’s in the name.
I’m not a fan of mob rule, but I am a fan of freedom of the press to report whatever they see fit, so long as it is accurate and not fanciful. How about you?
It was a guess. No cite needed.
I’m a fan of legally punishing those who partake in criminal behaviour. The press should never override the function of due process and it seems that’s what you are suggesting.
There must have been thousands Rob.
I never tweeted Brendas real, or internet, name. I just entered topics and was surprised to see this agressive name come up .... and thinking to myself that person knows nothing about the case, meaning true facts. Thinking why is he /she trolling and spouting out any old hating stuff.
There must have been thousands like me .... imo
I’m a fan of legally punishing those who partake in criminal behaviour. The press should never override the function of due process and it seems that’s what you are suggesting.Absolute rubbish, nowhere have I suggested that. What you seem to be suggesting is that there should be zero reporting of anyone suspected of any crime until they have been cleared or found guilty, nor any reporting of any reprehensible behaviour by anyone at all, ever, in case it interferes with due process at a later date.
From my reading on twitter, Brenda's name and identity was found months before it was passed to Sky News and discussed between supporters on there.I believe that Brenda used to tweet under her own name, using the same account.
I believe her information was passed to the police who said she hadn't broken any laws, then these same supporters and probably others decided to go to Martin Brunt and Sky News. I wonder if it was a concerted effort between the media or simply that Martin Brunt was the only one who ran with the ball, then once he had the other media jumped on the bandwagon. That is how it looks to me as, for example the Daily Mail had her identity very quickly.
(https://twitter.com/winnower1/status/520719702558261248)
This person knew who she was before Brenda's outing.
Was @sweepface the aggressive name or was it Brenda Leyland?
Are you talking about before Brenda was outed or afterwards?
Where did you see her tweets?
Absolute rubbish, nowhere have I suggested that. What you seem to be suggesting is that there should be zero reporting of anyone suspected of any crime until they have been cleared or found guilty, nor any reporting of any reprehensible behaviour by anyone at all, ever, in case it interferes with due process at a later date.
No, according to one site she had another name which was agressive and threatening, IMO.
[They may not have been tweets, but posts in a forum. Where else did she post ?]
I cant remember it and dont intend to search, but if nobody finds it, I am very willing to remove my comment. Let's give it 24 hours, shall we, to see if anyone comes up with that name and its source ?
Please remind me and i will remove it if nothing is found. I don't read everthing on here anymore, so it would be good to pm me as well as post the reminder if you wish.
Tell me VS, if the parents were tried in this country of being involved in their daughter’s disappearance do you think they’d get a fair trial and if not why not ?I’m sure they would, yes. Probably not in Portugal though. Tell me, should the MSM be banned from reporting on the reprehensible behaviour of others under any circumstances, if so why?
I’m sure they would, yes. Probably not in Portugal though. Tell me, should the MSM be banned from reporting on the reprehensible behaviour of others under any circumstances, if so why?
Tell me VS, if the parents were tried in this country of being involved in their daughter’s disappearance do you think they’d get a fair trial and if not why not ?
When you see the almost universally negative comments under every newspaper article about the McCanns, comments from individuals some of whom would be asked to do jury duty, can you honestly say the parents would get a fair trial ? Just out of interest why do you think the parents would get a fair trial here but not in Portugal?
If there was no evidence in Portugal to charge anyone with any type of offence in relation to Madeleine's disappearance ... let alone bring anyone to trial ... don't you think it is a bit presumptive of you to lust after a trial in England?
Do you or anyone else have evidence of this other name that Brenda is alleged to have used? I have read a lot of information about her but never heard of that.
I would appreciate information and a cite on this if it is indeed true.
When you see the almost universally negative comments under every newspaper article about the McCanns, comments from individuals some of whom would be asked to do jury duty, can you honestly say the parents would get a fair trial ? Just out of interest why do you think the parents would get a fair trial here but not in Portugal?How’s about breaking the habit of a lifetime and doing me the courtesy of answering my question first before posing one of your own? Happy to reply once you have.
How’s about breaking the habit of a lifetime and doing me the courtesy of answering my question first before posing one of your own? Happy to reply once you have.
When you ask question after question after question without an input then it’s difficult to ask you a question. Perhaps you can break the habit of a lifetime and answer a question without demanding anything in return ? Novel idea I know......!Your first sentence makes no sense. I have answered all your questions save the last one unless you can provide a cite to show otherwise. You, on the other hand... Tell me why I should do your bidding when you ignore mine?
Coz imo they has all been told to say so on the basis of no evidence but alot of belief and mythology.
After eleven years of "study and research" they still haven't the first clue about the Portuguese legal system other than "it must be bent and everywhere else isn't"
Key:
They = Supporters
I resent that
Nobody has Ever told me what to say
And I am pretty sure that nobody else on our side has been told what to say either.
It’s a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point. Google it....I’m sure Wikipedia will explain.
I have had a very quick shufty and I cant find the page that I skimmed over, late one evening, in the wee small hours. The name was something like Bruiser, but I think I must have mistaken it being Brenda, perhaps they, Bruiser and another unpleasantly named poster, were talking about her ? Dunno now.
Anyway i will delete the offending bit.
Thanks for alerting me. I really shouldn't research when exhausted !
Many thanks sadie. I have had another look and not found anything.
Well your "side" as you call it uses the same arguments and in some instances the same syntax.
Amos 3.3
QED
I'm waiting for a cite from you on another thread. Please oblige or amend your post.
I am waiting for a cite too, which never came. But it was few weeks ago now and I have let it rest.
I do find it strange, nay hypercritical, that someone who supports cites so vigorously on their signature, fails to give cites themselves, despite demanding them of other people all the time.
I am glad that you noticed my error on the Brenda Layland name and caused me to relook at the situation. Thank you for asking for that cite.
However Sunny, i do think that generally you overdo the demanding of cites; it disrupts the flow of the forum tbh.
No offence meant.
I do try to only ask for ones that feel are important. Sadie could you tell me which cite you are waiting for. I must have forgotten about it as I thought I was up to date.
I wish I could, but I haven't a clue now. I let it go. If you really want to find it, may I suggest that you wade thru my posts. It was a short time before you got your new signature IIRC ... cos that sig. made me smile !
Now I must go. Fish and chips from the chippy tonight. Yum yum!
I wish I could, but I haven't a clue now. I let it go. If you really want to find it, may I suggest that you wade thru my posts. It was a short time before you got your new signature IIRC ... cos that sig. made me smile !
Now I must go. Fish and chips from the chippy tonight. Yum yum!
Their 'crimes' existed only in the eyes of those who took it upon themselves to compile the dossier
Surely you should:
a) contact the social media platform and point out someone is breaking it's rules ( if they are)
b) consult lawyers if you think someone is committing libel ( but you have to be the alleged victim to do this)
b) contact police if you believe someone is committing the crimes of harassment or stalking. ( with evidence )
c) not take it upon yourself to contact the media about one particular individual and encourage them to single that person out before the police have investigated that person.
Or maybe I would ignore the posts as they were someones opinion and not threats against someone. It's called freedom of speech. You mention threats, where did Brenda ever make a threat?
From Sky news "she had tweeted or retweeted 2,210 posts, of which 424 mentioned the McCanns. Her tweets did not constitute a criminal offence, the inquest heard. ''
The people who compiled the dossier took it upon themselves to define what is acceptable or not for individuals to say and then in contacting the press engaged in harassing an individual, which is something they were supposedly against!
A huge amount of work was done by a site named 'McCannhateexposed', which seemed to appear in 2012. It was viewable until early 2014 but is now member's only.
Looking at it on wayback there are lists of names who, they assert, are part of a 'Hate Campaign' against the Canns. Some of the people listed have always used their own names, such as Tony Bennett and Pat Brown. Others who posted anonymously had their real names listed with their usernames.
I don't understand why anyone would put so much time and effort into gathering such a lot of information about others. If the intention was to inform why did it go private in 2014?
Anyone concerned for the well being of the poor men who have been outed by the media for their Grenfell Tower bonfire antics?
Anyone concerned for the well being of the poor men who have been outed by the media for their Grenfell Tower bonfire antics?Have they actually broken any laws?
Have they actually broken any laws?
Have they actually broken any laws?Doubtful. Being named and shamed in the media should be enough punishment, but this is a police matter which the media has covered extensively therefore in theory denying these poor men their “due process”. I trust your sympathies lie with them, rather than with anyone who might have suffered distress by their actions?
Doubtful. Being named and shamed in the media should be enough punishment, but this is a police matter which the media has covered extensively therefore in theory denying these poor men their “due process”. I trust your sympathies lie with them, rather than with anyone who might have suffered distress by their actions?
The chances are the victims of Grenfell’s time is more occupied dealing with the effects of the tragedy than getting distressed about some lowlifes and their appalling behaviour.Do you feel these men have lost the right to due process though? Should we feel angry on their behalf, at the media intrusion and demonization they have already suffered?
Do you feel these men have lost the right to due process though? Should we feel angry on their behalf, at the media intrusion and demonization they have already suffered?
I think you are missing the important thing here. These men were arrested by the police. Brenda Leyland had committed no crime, she was never arrested nor likely to be it would seem from the police response regarding her.Then these men are more likely to suffer the loss of due process than Brenda ever was. How did the police find out about their alleged crimes anyway? NB: these men have been released without charges brought so far, so...
Do you feel these men have lost the right to due process though? Should we feel angry on their behalf, at the media intrusion and demonization they have already suffered?
The chances are the victims of Grenfell’s time is more occupied dealing with the effects of the tragedy than getting distressed about some lowlifes and their appalling behaviour.
Rukayet Mamadu, a survivor of the fire, called the video the "climax of intolerance of the system and society".
She told the Victoria Derbyshire programme: "It's chilling, it's cold-blooded. I feel so bad, let alone people who lost relatives.
"This should be brought to justice."
I believe one of these men posted the video on social media themselves so, technically, they denied themselves due process.If the crime is the posting of the video in the first place then how is that also denying themselves due process? That’s ridiculous. What about the other men involved? Also, Brenda posted her opinions and bullying on social media herself didn’t she?
If they have broken the law, I absolutely agree. It doesn’t, however, negate my previous point.What point was that?
If the crime is the posting of the video in the first place then how is that also denying themselves due process? That’s ridiculous. What about the other men involved? Also, Brenda posted her opinions and bullying on social media herself didn’t she?
Did Brenda identify herself ?Did these men?
Did these men?
Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?Has anything been done about it?
Yes!
Can anyone give a rational explanation why they feel some should be precluded from basic English law?
I thought not.
The end.
Has anything been done about it?
Well I believe one of the men posted the video to their own private Facebook account so that would be a yes.OK, that accounts for one of them then, in your view, so what about the other 4 or is it 5, are you concerned that they are being denied due process?
About what?
Do you mean changing the law to suit the personal prejudices of internet jockeys ?
Give me a rational explanation for why anyone should be denied the basic English right of equality at law?
When considering your response forget the McCann case as it does not transcend the law no matter what supporters may like to think.
OK, that accounts for one of them then, in your view, so what about the other 4 or is it 5, are you concerned that they are being denied due process?
Brenda deserved and was afforded due process...I haven't heard any supporter suggesting the McCann case should transcend the law... That appears to be the domain of the supporters
Do I think that they should have been identified, no. If they have broken the law the prosecute them. What do we gain by them being identified ?What if they haven’t broken the law? Does society (includng the media) not have the right to name and shame people who behave in a morally repugnant way, sending out the message that such behaviour whilst not technically illegal, is still not acceptable?
Please describe how Brenda was afforded due process ?Please tell us what you understand by the term “due process”. My understanding is that it relates to the judicial system, so in what way was Brenda denied due process and what would have been the ramifications of this denial of due process on Brenda had she lived, in your opinion?
What if they haven’t broken the law? Does society (includng the media) not have the right to name and shame people who behave in a morally repugnant way, sending out the message that such behaviour whilst not technically illegal, is still not acceptable?
Brenda deserved and was afforded due process...I haven't heard any supporter suggesting the McCann case should transcend the law... That appears to be the domain of the supporters
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Who in your opinion should be the arbiter of "morally repugnant" ?Me. 8)--))
Me. 8)--))
#MeToo.Sure, let’s be joint arbiters, we’re both well qualified 8(0(*
If that's okay with you.
Sure, let’s be joint arbiters, we’re both well qualified 8(0(*
Sure, let’s be joint arbiters, we’re both well qualified 8(0(*
You could well both have been, back in 2014.???
Me. 8)--))
Fine by me as long as you accept the consequences without fear or favor.
Ditto to Eleanor.
But don't come running to me yelling foul when someone elses might is mightier than thine and that person has no conscience.
Fine by me as long as you accept the consequences without fear or favor.
Ditto to Eleanor.
But don't come running to me yelling foul when someone elses might is mightier than thine and that person has no conscience.
Fine by me as long as you accept the consequences without fear or favor.As if I’d ever come running to you ever, for anything!
Ditto to Eleanor.
But don't come running to me yelling foul when someone elses might is mightier than thine and that person has no conscience.
You could well both have been, back in 2014.
Both do extremely well in 2018, given the constant goading they receive - wouldn't you agree? 8)--))
Arbiter@)(++(* oh dear, were you by any chance accusing us of somehow being complicit in Brenda’s death?
Definition of arbiter. 1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : judge The mayor will act as the final arbiter in any dispute between board members.9 Oct 2018
Arbiter | Definition of Arbiter by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbiter
Now explain please Vertigo Swirls power of arbitration on this forum. I am sure you know what I was actually referring to.
Although it's not a phrase I would use there are some things which arouse 'moral outrage' in everyone. The myrder of an innocent child, for example.
At the other end of the scale are things which arouse 'moral outrage' only in some people. Monty Python's Life of Brian, for example.
So some things outrage everyone and there are usually laws prohibiting these things. The things which don't outrage everyone are not against the law. It;s a natter of opinion and no-one's opinion can be allowed to dominate.
One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.
Although it's not a phrase I would use there are some things which arouse 'moral outrage' in everyone. The myrder of an innocent child, for example.Setting all personalities aside, writing spiteful, bitchy, accusatory, judgemental, untrue things publicly on line about alleged victims of crime and their immediate families tends not to be “meat” to most people. IMO, most people view such behaviour as poison.
At the other end of the scale are things which arouse 'moral outrage' only in some people. Monty Python's Life of Brian, for example.
So some things outrage everyone and there are usually laws prohibiting these things. The things which don't outrage everyone are not against the law. It;s a natter of opinion and no-one's opinion can be allowed to dominate.
One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.
As if I’d ever come running to you ever, for anything!
I think Alice was joking, Vee. He's really good at obscure jokes.Arggh, don’t call me Vee, they’ll think I’m that ghastly paedo!!
Arggh, don’t call me Vee, they’ll think I’m that ghastly paedo!!
Arggh, don’t call me Vee, they’ll think I’m that ghastly paedo!!
So much for my Perceptions.Vee8
PS. Which ghastly Paedo?
Setting all personalities aside, writing spiteful, bitchy, accusatory, judgemental, untrue things publicly on line about the IMO victims of crime and their immediate families tends not to be “meat” to most people. IMO, most people view such behaviour as poison.
Arggh, don’t call me Vee, they’ll think I’m that ghastly paedo!!
Vee8
What if they haven’t broken the law? Does society (includng the media) not have the right to name and shame people who behave in a morally repugnant way, sending out the message that such behaviour whilst not technically illegal, is still not acceptable?
Please tell us what you understand by the term “due process”. My understanding is that it relates to the judicial system, so in what way was Brenda denied due process and what would have been the ramifications of this denial of due process on Brenda had she lived, in your opinion?
The dossier was handed to the Met. If they had found criminal behaviour by Brenda she would have been arrested, charged and tried. That is due process. Brenda was denied this basic right under English law and anyone who condones this has no respect for the law.
Due you believe the McCanns have been given this basic rightl by Amaral?
I’m sorry is it okay for Brenda to be denied due process just because you feel the McCanns weren’t ? Is that the maturity of your reasoning?
Your usual insults flow.
You seem to have no problem at all with the McCanns not being given due process of law by both Amaral and Brenda which occurred before Brenda's lack off due process in your opinion.
Rather hypocritical in my opinion.
Amaral followed due process meticulously in his dealings with the McCanns in my opinion. How did he deny them that in your opinion?
Your usual insults flow.
You seem to have no problem at all with the McCanns not being given due process of law by both Amaral and Brenda which occurred before Brenda's lack off due process in your opinion.
Rather hypocritical in my opinion.
Which due processes did he " meticulously" follow before he wrote his book and made many TV appearances ?
Please don’t tell me what I think.
Tell me Erngath do you think one set of people not being afforded due process excuses another not being afforded those same rights ?
Please don’t tell me what I think.
Tell me Erngath do you think one set of people not being afforded due process excuses another not being afforded those same rights ?
As you would expect from a man with a law degree he made sure he expressed his opinion without breaking any laws.
As you would expect from a man with a law degree he made sure he expressed his opinion without breaking any laws.
He also managed to get a criminal conviction.. And it is not yet decided if his book is libellous or not
I don't see the relevance of his conviction and the McCanns failed to prove he libelled them.
Mother to child; 'Why did you take x's toy? Reply 'x took y's toy'
I don't see the relevance of his conviction and the McCanns failed to prove he libelled them.
No.Why not? You clearly don’t believe in the freedom of the press or in free speech then. iMO
The dossier was handed to the Met. If they had found criminal behaviour by Brenda she would have been arrested, charged and tried. That is due process. Brenda was denied this basic right under English law and anyone who condones this has no respect for the law.nothing was stopping any of those things from happening, only Brenda herself by ending her life.
It's relevant to your post and his law, degree which infers knowledge of the law
Due you believe the McCanns have been given this basic rightl by Amaral?
Or indeed by Brenda herself?
Many people who break it understand the law.I'm not sure amaral understands the laws of libel.... We will see if the ECHR give him a lesson
I'm not sure amaral understands the laws of libel.... We will see if the ECHR give him a lesson
It would appear only the parents and you are the slightest bit interested in the outcome.
This is obviously not true.
Such utter immaturity.
It would appear only the parents and you are the slightest bit interested in the outcome.
You were never concerned with due process for the McCanns before your constant bleating about Brenda not having had the same consideration
The lack of due process was not afforded to the McCanns by Amaral and Brenda and you have never shown any concern about that!
Such utter hypocrisy!
I think not.
Many people who break it understand the law.
Oh and you.
If the comments sections of media articles are anything to go by most of the public just want the parents to go away, quietly.
You don’t ?
Bless, how naive.
However to have a law degree and to break the law in what was a rather basic rule of law that is lying and therefore committing perjury does seem rather naive.
It would appear only the parents and you are the slightest bit interested in the outcome.Someone on here keeps on asking if anything has been heard yet re: the ECHR ruling, they ask the question quite regularly. I can’t remember who it is but I know it’s not Davel or one of the McCanns...
Oh and you.But that’s not what you want is it?
If the comments sections of media articles are anything to go by most of the public just want the parents to go away, quietly.