Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[carlymichelle]

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 world has moved on 99.9%  of people around the world dont think of the mcanns  now  the  tweens and teens  at the time have  moved on and probably have their own families  now

[G-Unit]

The public are outraged at online abuse but not if that online abuse is directed at the MCcanns??

I don't think the UK public are sufficiently cohesive to agree on what is or isn't 'outrageous'. The only time I've seen a cohesive reaction was after the death of Princess Diana.

Using the McCanns as their example was a misjudgement because they thought everyone cared about the McCanns as much as they did. That's my opinion anyway.

[jassi]

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

Indeed it has. Even the McCanns' rich sponsors appear to have moved on.
Another decade and it'll all be a foot note in some police manual.

[Brietta]

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.

[jassi]

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.

If they could be bothered to tick a box at all. Apathy is a powerful force.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?"

That is a pretty complex question.   I agree too biased.

[G-Unit]

"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.

[Robittybob1]

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?"

[jassi]

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 .

[slartibartfast]

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 .

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.

[G-Unit]

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?"

There are so many things wrong with that question it would never be asked by a reputable polling organisation.

[faithlilly]

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 suppose it depends what you want to achieve.

If this was about protecting the McCanns from online threats, as claimed, then the police are the only people with that capability. If it was about humiliation then the press was certainly the way to go. I suppose it depends what you REALLY wanted to achieve.

As to freedom of the press, the press have no right to hound innocent people. They didn’t when they did it to the McCanns and they didn’t when It came to Brenda. Each, it could be argued, by their actions played a significant part in the events that lead to their hounding but that doesn’t make their hounding any more acceptable.