Did Brenda Leyland Have the Right to Due Process ?

[Erngath]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

Yes, the newspapers are allowing comments again. Carter-Ruck stopped that for a while, I believe.

[faithlilly]

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?

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.

[faithlilly]

You said that already and ignored my reply.

I didn’t ignore your reply, it simply didn’t alter my previous reply.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[faithlilly]

So you think Brenda’s intentions are irrelevant to the issue?

Unless her intentions were illegal, yes.

[Venturi Swirl]

Unless her intentions were illegal, yes.

Then apply this same rationale to the dossier compilers and bring this discussion  to a close.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

Sorry, but from personal experience that is utter nonsense.   

[carlymichelle]

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.

exactly the mcanns  dont even probably  care 

[faithlilly]

Then apply this same rationale to the dossier compilers and bring this discussion  to a close.

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.

Conclusion: supporters ( including the dossier compilers ) insist on due process for the McCanns while denying it to Brenda Leyland.

[Robittybob1]

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.

The final straw - doesn't weight heavy but it tips the balance.

[Brietta]

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.

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?

[Erngath]

Sorry, but from personal experience that is utter nonsense.   

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.

[Robittybob1]

Are there any here who are prone to suicidal tendencies? 

[Angelo222]

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.

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.