Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Erngath]

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.

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.?
 

[John]

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

And the other hundreds who also took part?  Picking on BL alone was a cowardly act by Sky News IMHO.

When the police detect a relatively minor offence the offender gets a warning, possibly a caution. BL was given no such opportunity to reconsider her activities, she was thrown to the lions like some sacrificial lamb. She was plastered all over national TV for an entire day, no wonder the poor woman gave up her will to live.

[jassi]

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 mostly down to one pathetic old man and a couple of hanger-ons. Not much of a group

[Erngath]

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

Oh I believe there may be more than a couple of hangers on( researchers)

[Erngath]

Now that every group has been besmirched, perhaps time to call it a day on this thread.

It was a sceptic who began the thread and most often than not, IMO, 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.

[John]

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."

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

I agree... They lose, all sense of what is right and wrong... That's why those posting abuse need reminding of what is right

[Lace]

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.?
 

They boasted there were over two thousand of them.   

[Mr Gray]

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.

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

[John]

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.

Had I not spent several hours yesterday editing the thread I might have agreed with you.  However, I can see that many posters do have a genuine wish to explore and discuss the various issues involved.

Please keep posts constructive, relative and refrain from making personal comments. TY

[Sunny]

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

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

Perhaps a starting point for discussion would be a cite for both parts of your statement: " ... 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."

[barrier]

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?

If Brenda Leyland never received a caution then the supposed bullying is just that, your opinion.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

What an interesting[droll?] choice of words.
It has a familiar ring to it.