Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Gertrude]

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.

[jassi]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me

[G-Unit]

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.

Very well put.

[Erngath]

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.

Excellent post

[John]

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 strongly disagree, it was not Martin Brunt's job to doorstep a member of the public in such a way. BL was not a criminal, she was not about to be arrested nor was she the subject of any criminal proceedings.

The aftermath indicates that Sky News, their producer and reporter all overstepped the mark.  They had no right to single out a member of the public in such a cowardly manner. All Sky was after was some sensationalist footage to broadcast and to hell with the consequences. The Sky team were lucky to keep their jobs following such a stupid prank. They appear to have learned their lesson but all too late for the victim.

I suspect the truth behind what occurred was more to do with saving face over the fiasco in Praia da Luz than it was to do with unearthing an internet troll.

[Gertrude]

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.
 

[John]

A little point but an important one, the Sky broadcast was not live.

[Erngath]

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.
 

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?

[misty]

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.

[kizzy]

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.

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

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

As to Brenda, I believe it was tit for tat with none of those taking part in the twitter dialogue being covered in glory.

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

Quite ironic that... contrite and apologetic...

[Venturi Swirl]

See my post.
Your post is living proof you like to dispense not to receive.
QED

Who really would like to be on the receiving end of you regularly dispensed withering contempt andd occasional obscenity?

[slartibartfast]

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?

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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 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.

I don’t believe Martin Brunt conducted a live broadcast from outside Brenda’s house -that would have been very risky.