Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on October 25, 2014, 10:26:41 PM
Title: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 25, 2014, 10:26:41 PM
Thank you to A Brewer from the Amazon forum for his interesting post.
"A. Brewer says: Police Coroner's Officers have very specific, but very wide ranging powers, when it comes to collecting and collating all the facts relating to a sudden premature death ready for presentation to the coroner at the inquest. It will be very telling to see the full extent of the inquiries and investigations undertaken by the Coroner's Officer responsible for the Brenda Leyland case, once the inquest resumes in December.
Just to clarify for those that may not be too au fait with these types of inquiries, an inquest is an inquisitorial process, not adversarial, and it has just 3 basic tasks to complete: ascertain the identity of the deceased; determine when and where the person died; decide how the deceased died and what circumstances brought about their death.
In this particular case, personally, I would expect to see detailed evidence presented on the snitches "dossier", with statements from those that compiled it, as well as a summary of what was in the "dossier" that pertained directly to Mrs Leyland; information on when and to whom it was handed (MPS? McCanns? Sky News?) with accompanying statements from the receiving parties. I would also expect the coroner to summon some of these people to give evidence in person so that they can be cross-examined by her, or indeed by any other person who has a 'proper interest' in the inquest and who is permitted to do so by the coroner.
There may, of course, be other people who wish to submit evidence to the inquest, but whether they will be allowed to or not will always be a matter for the coroner to decide. However it is worth noting that CPS guidelines state categorically: "It is the general duty of every citizen (under common law) to attend an inquest if they are in possession of any information or evidence that details how a person came to their death."
I hope and trust that in December we shall see a full and detailed examination of the circumstances leading up to Brenda Leyland's sad and premature demise, followed by a comprehensive and determined investigation into any criminal actions and conspiracies should they be revealed by the inquiry."
For me while Sky might have been happy to give the dossier compilers anonymity I doubt the coroner will be quite so accommodating.
1154
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on October 26, 2014, 07:38:51 AM
Thank you to A Brewer from the Amazon forum for his interesting post.
"A. Brewer says: Police Coroner's Officers have very specific, but very wide ranging powers, when it comes to collecting and collating all the facts relating to a sudden premature death ready for presentation to the coroner at the inquest. It will be very telling to see the full extent of the inquiries and investigations undertaken by the Coroner's Officer responsible for the Brenda Leyland case, once the inquest resumes in December.
Just to clarify for those that may not be too au fait with these types of inquiries, an inquest is an inquisitorial process, not adversarial, and it has just 3 basic tasks to complete: ascertain the identity of the deceased; determine when and where the person died; decide how the deceased died and what circumstances brought about their death.
In this particular case, personally, I would expect to see detailed evidence presented on the snitches "dossier", with statements from those that compiled it, as well as a summary of what was in the "dossier" that pertained directly to Mrs Leyland; information on when and to whom it was handed (MPS? McCanns? Sky News?) with accompanying statements from the receiving parties. I would also expect the coroner to summon some of these people to give evidence in person so that they can be cross-examined by her, or indeed by any other person who has a 'proper interest' in the inquest and who is permitted to do so by the coroner.
There may, of course, be other people who wish to submit evidence to the inquest, but whether they will be allowed to or not will always be a matter for the coroner to decide. However it is worth noting that CPS guidelines state categorically: "It is the general duty of every citizen (under common law) to attend an inquest if they are in possession of any information or evidence that details how a person came to their death."
I hope and trust that in December we shall see a full and detailed examination of the circumstances leading up to Brenda Leyland's sad and premature demise, followed by a comprehensive and determined investigation into any criminal actions and conspiracies should they be revealed by the inquiry."
For me while Sky might have been happy to give the dossier compilers anonymity I doubt the coroner will be quite so accommodating.
Clutching at straws IMO.
No Coroner would regard concerned members of the public reporting evidence of lawbreaking to the police as 'snitches' Especially 'evidence' which is in the public domain for all to witness - and which can easily be verified.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 07:47:05 AM
No Coroner would regard concerned members of the public reporting evidence of lawbreaking to the police as 'snitches' Especially 'evidence' which is in the public domain for all to witness - and which can easily be verified.
'concerned members of the public' ???
So if these people had not handed the dossier to sky news Brenda Leyland would still be alive, wouldn't she ?
Now let's consider the people who gave the dossier to sky news, and the mccanns who gave it to the police.
Therefore direct links exist between the mccanns and these 'concerned members of the public'.
OH YES.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 07:51:52 AM
are you expecting the coroner to say...cause of death...Kate and Gerry Mccann
As this is an inquest into BLs death coroner may well want to look into the abuse she was suffering online and could well use the list of dossier compilers as a way of finding those responsible for the abuse.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 08:42:01 AM
As this is an inquest into BLs death coroner may well want to look into the abuse she was suffering online and could well use the list of dossier compilers as a way of finding those responsible for the abuse.
BL was a full time twitter troll dishing out abuse so it's no surprise she was the subject of abuse. She could have closed her account at anytime and then would have received no abuse..she chose to carry on tweeting
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 08:57:08 AM
BL was a full time twitter troll dishing out abuse so it's no surprise she was the subject of abuse. She could have closed her account at anytime and then would have received no abuse..she chose to carry on tweeting
The coroner is interested in what happened to her.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 09:26:33 AM
"The Coroner is expected to open an inquest where there is reasonable suspicion that the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown or if the deceased died while in custody or state detention as defined by section 1(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009".
What is an inquest? "Inquests are legal inquiries into the cause and circumstances of a death, and are limited, fact-finding inquiries; a Coroner will consider both oral and written evidence during the course of an inquest. The Coroner's duty to hold an inquest is contained in section 6 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Inquests are public hearings and can be held with or without juries - both are considered equally valid. Under Rule 8 of the Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013, Coroners are required to complete an inquest within 6 months of the date on which the Coroner is made aware of the death, or as soon as is reasonably practicable".
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 09:52:45 AM
"The Coroner is expected to open an inquest where there is reasonable suspicion that the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown or if the deceased died while in custody or state detention as defined by section 1(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009".
What is an inquest? "Inquests are legal inquiries into the cause and circumstances of a death, and are limited, fact-finding inquiries; a Coroner will consider both oral and written evidence during the course of an inquest. The Coroner's duty to hold an inquest is contained in section 6 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Inquests are public hearings and can be held with or without juries - both are considered equally valid. Under Rule 8 of the Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013, Coroners are required to complete an inquest within 6 months of the date on which the Coroner is made aware of the death, or as soon as is reasonably practicable".
Thank you for that Alice.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 26, 2014, 10:03:21 AM
I posted about this on the "Brenda" thread. As I said then The Ministry of Justice and The Chief Coroners Office have a fair bit on it. It kind of stops some from trying to flimflam others!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 10:06:12 AM
I posted about this on the "Brenda" thread. As I said then The Ministry of Justice and The Chief Coroners Office have a fair bit on it. It kind of stops some from trying to flimflam others!
as I said the inquest is a matter of course
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Anyone who seriously believes that an inquest will turn the spotlight on the dossier compilers is seriously deluding themselves...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 10:08:12 AM
Brenda Leyland's unilateral decision to take her own life will have no legal implications for anyone else.
In the chain of cause and effect, you would need to be able to show that there was guilty intent: a (foreseeable and intended) consequence that exposing Brenda Leyland's inexcusable hounding of the McCanns might lead to the tragedy of Brenda taking her own life.
Revelation that Kate was suicidal did nothing to curb the vitriol aimed at Kate and Gerry, including by the late Brenda Leyland.
That's the succinct version, Alfred ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 10:17:03 AM
So alfred, if not for the dossier compilers, would Brenda Leyland still be alive ?
Wrong question.
Could the (tragic) consequence of exposing Brenda Leyland's vile activities have been anticipated?
Answer: no!
End of discussion.
Put the question another way.
Should the vile trolls who, to this day, continue to hound the McCanns, be left to continue their hounding unchallenged for fear that challenging them might drive them to suicide?
The answer, very obviously, is no!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on October 26, 2014, 10:28:54 AM
So alfred, if not for the dossier compilers, would Brenda Leyland still be alive ?
As you reminded us yourself - the cause of death has not been established. Are you now suggesting we should forget that and start speculating and pointing the finger at specific people?
Please clarify.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 10:32:08 AM
So alfred, if not for the dossier compilers, would Brenda Leyland still be alive ?
Would Brenda be alive if she hadn't tweeted 50 tweets a day criticising the mccanns..always trying to blame someone else
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 26, 2014, 10:56:37 AM
It is not known what happened to Maddie or whether the original police investigation was flawed or spot on hence speculative posts will be removed. I for one sincerely hope that those anonymous individual's who abused Brenda Leyland online AFTER her identity was revealed by Martin Brunt are themselves unmasked publicly and appropriate action taken against them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 26, 2014, 11:02:55 AM
This might be more apposite as it is Leicestershire. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoroners.leicester.gov.uk%2FEasysiteWeb%2Fgetresource.axd%3FAssetID%3D63613%26type%3Dfull%26servicetype%3DAttachment&ei=h9JMVJboJYXW7Aadi4DoBg&usg=AFQjCNGPrTXU_m3wHSOqPf0rzgYe2efHGw
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 26, 2014, 11:19:14 AM
In very simple terms posting "Maddie was abducted" will always be removed whereas "Maddie was abducted imo" can stand but then that has always been the case. Posters have from the beginning been invited to report all posts which break this cardinal rule so nothing new but a reminder does no harm.
As far as the coroner's court is concerned I don't see the dossier having a significant contribution to proceedings. In fact I don't see it having any part to play at all even with the police as the threshold of abuse tolerance online these days is very high. Tit for tat abuse between anonymous warring trolls is not something the police will ever spend resources on imo.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 11:36:31 AM
It is not known what happened to Maddie or whether the original police investigation was flawed or spot on hence speculative posts will be removed. I for one sincerely hope that those anonymous individual's who abused Brenda Leyland online AFTER her identity was revealed by Martin Brunt are themselves unmasked publicly and appropriate action taken against them.
it would be great if all abusive trolls are identified and dealt with
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 12:03:57 PM
I guess this article, quoting Andy Redwood, will be removed, then:
Police say one reading of Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Portugal in 2007 is that it has "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 26, 2014, 12:22:32 PM
It is not known what happened to Maddie or whether the original police investigation was flawed or spot on hence speculative posts will be removed. I for one sincerely hope that those anonymous individual's who abused Brenda Leyland online AFTER her identity was revealed by Martin Brunt are themselves unmasked publicly and appropriate action taken against them.
Martin Brunt didn't reveal her identity, AFAIK. Brenda had revealed it herself, although she seemingly later chose to try to conceal it.
Brunt gave her an opportunity to publicly air her views, and her accusations by insinuation, and justify them. For some reason, she didn't seem comfortable with that.
For the moment, no one knows what led to her death, nor even what caused it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on October 26, 2014, 12:24:32 PM
Martin Brunt didn't reveal her identity, AFAIK. Brenda had revealed it herself, although she seemingly later chose to try to conceal it.
Brunt gave her an opportunity to publicly air her views, and her accusations by insinuation, and justify them. For some reason, she didn't seem comfortable with that.
For the moment, no one knows what led to her death, nor even what caused it.
It was the Daily Mail newspaper who revealed her identity.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 26, 2014, 12:30:20 PM
Martin Brunt didn't reveal her identity, AFAIK. Brenda had revealed it herself, although she seemingly later chose to try to conceal it.
Brunt gave her an opportunity to publicly air her views, and her accusations by insinuation, and justify them. For some reason, she didn't seem comfortable with that.
For the moment, no one knows what led to her death, nor even what caused it.
Is Carana your real name ?
If not, why not ?
If you are happy to stand behind your opinions why aren't you using your real name ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 12:32:17 PM
the difference is that I would not be ashamed of any of my posts...Brenda's posts were something to be ashamed of
Brenda had nothing to be ashamed of, certainly not her tweets. I cannot help but get the impression that you McCann supporters feel that she deserved her fate because she did not believe the parents.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 12:52:31 PM
Brenda had nothing to be ashamed of, certainly not her tweets. I cannot help but get the impression that you McCann supporters feel that she deserved her fate because she did not believe the parents.
A gross distortion of the thrust of the discussion.
We are discussing whether those who defame the McCanns deserve anonymity.
They clearly don't.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 12:55:10 PM
Brenda had nothing to be ashamed of, certainly not her tweets. I cannot help but get the impression that you McCann supporters feel that she deserved her fate because she did not believe the parents.
I disagree...she had plenty to be ashamed of...I'm not ashamed of anything I have posted
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 12:56:27 PM
Brenda had nothing to be ashamed of, certainly not her tweets. I cannot help but get the impression that you McCann supporters feel that she deserved her fate because she did not believe the parents.
Nothing to be ashamed of?? You cannot be serious.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 26, 2014, 12:58:13 PM
A gross distortion of the thrust of the discussion.
We are discussing whether those who defame the McCanns deserve anonymity.
They clearly don't.
Actually the purpose of this thread seems to be to put the frighteners on the dossier compilers, a bit of a tick-tock, see you in the dock kind of thread - it's laughable, really.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 12:59:30 PM
A gross distortion of the thrust of the discussion.
We are discussing whether those who defame the McCanns deserve anonymity.
They clearly don't.
The thrust of this discussion, as you call it, is what will be revealed at the coroner's court.
If anonymity is an issue, it is whether the anonymity of the dossier compilers and those who abused Brenda both before and after her 'outing' will be revealed.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 26, 2014, 01:02:43 PM
Being vilified by the press, even if there was no real justification for it, could have pushed her to take her own life.
So we should stop vilifying people?...perhaps you should stop vilifying the McCanns...Brenda vilified the mccanns...would she have lost any sleep if kate had committed suicide...would you....I doubt either of you would
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 01:04:22 PM
Brenda wholeheartedly approved of outing "shills" as she called them and played an active role in attempting to do so on twitter. FACT..
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 26, 2014, 01:07:25 PM
So we should stop vilifying people?...perhaps you should stop vilifying the McCanns...Brenda vilified the mccanns...would she have lost any sleep if kate had committed suicide...would you....I doubt either of you would
Didn't Kate say she didn't read what doubters said and she certainly didn't value their opinion ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on October 26, 2014, 01:07:47 PM
So, you think her attempts to intimidate and out another Twitter user, in the mistaken belief that she was a witness in the McCann case, and in the hope that she would lose her job was nothing to be ashamed of? You think mocking her appearance and weight quite admirable do you? You think wishing eternal misery on the parents of a missing child perfectly understandable and acceptable do you? I could go on...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 26, 2014, 01:29:55 PM
In very simple terms posting "Maddie was abducted" will always be removed whereas "Maddie was abducted imo" can stand but then that has always been the case. Posters have from the beginning been invited to report all posts which break this cardinal rule so nothing new but a reminder does no harm.
As far as the coroner's court is concerned I don't see the dossier having a significant contribution to proceedings. In fact I don't see it having any part to play at all even with the police as the threshold of abuse tolerance online these days is very high. Tit for tat abuse between anonymous warring trolls is not something the police will ever spend resources on imo.
What a wonderful description. I'll drink to that! Of course the word "dossier" lends gravitas to what is really a list compiled by one group of people with questionable principles of another group of people with questionable principles. Like you I don't see this list featuring too much in the proceedings. One can envisage the coroner asking questions about the "what and where and when and how and why and who" regarding Mr Brunt's interview with the unfortunate lady as it would appear he was one of the last people to see her alive.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 02:16:49 PM
The thrust of this discussion, as you call it, is what will be revealed at the coroner's court.
If anonymity is an issue, it is whether the anonymity of the dossier compilers and those who abused Brenda both before and after her 'outing' will be revealed.
I read, somewhere, that someone described Brenda as a true cyber warrior, or some-such ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 02:27:25 PM
The thrust of this discussion, as you call it, is what will be revealed at the coroner's court.
If anonymity is an issue, it is whether the anonymity of the dossier compilers and those who abused Brenda both before and after her 'outing' will be revealed.
The post mortem ruled out foul play, so that only leaves natural causes or suicide.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 26, 2014, 02:34:06 PM
What a wonderful description. I'll drink to that! Of course the word "dossier" lends gravitas to what is really a list compiled by one group of people with questionable principles of another group of people with questionable principles. Like you I don't see this list featuring too much in the proceedings. One can envisage the coroner asking questions about the "what and where and when and how and why and who" regarding Mr Brunt's interview with the unfortunate lady as it would appear he was one of the last people to see her alive.
Erm. One of the last... ok, possibly.
When did the Daily Mail take photos of her? Wasn't that after Brunt?
Unless Brunt was also a hotel receptionist, he can't have been the last person to see her alive.
I don't particularly wish to get into a debate on this as there are no doubt family members and close friends who are grieving right now.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 26, 2014, 03:17:04 PM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
If Brenda was a cyber activist, then I guess that makes anyone who spends a large part of their life tweeting abuse at and about others a cyber activist. Still, I suppose it sounds more noble than troll or abuser.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 04:03:55 PM
An example of "cyberactivism" at work:
516342284955418624|Sun Sep 28 21:42:48 +0000 2014|@StoppsJason @PORTUGALONLINE @RothleyPillow @alfibab3 #mccann Well she will be bloody scared now everyone knows where she works, haha
516341291500994561|Sun Sep 28 21:38:51 +0000 2014|@siamesey @RothleyPillow @PORTUGALONLINE #mccann hahah, she and Jen ( the convicted stalker ) look very alike, as in fat and frumpy
516694945034698752|Mon Sep 29 21:04:09 +0000 2014|@siamesey Mod is a total f..ktard, I despise him
|Mon Sep 29 08:36:12 +0000 2014|#mccann Outing Shills who have threatened others, is no different to FBI releasing name of Jihadi John, 4 good of safety
516280532356055040|Sun Sep 28 17:37:25 +0000 2014|@LarryPKay #mccann Jeez, if that is ..., no wonder she touts 4 sex with strangers ! only way for her
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 26, 2014, 04:09:36 PM
So, you think her attempts to intimidate and out another Twitter user, in the mistaken belief that she was a witness in the McCann case, and in the hope that she would lose her job was nothing to be ashamed of? You think mocking her appearance and weight quite admirable do you? You think wishing eternal misery on the parents of a missing child perfectly understandable and acceptable do you? I could go on...
You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.
I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like. I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 26, 2014, 06:01:02 PM
You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.
Firstly, we were discussing whether or not she had anything to be ashamed of. I gave examples of behaviour that I felt were likely to cause her shame on reflection. I did not say they were justification for being outed on TV - YOU have made that assumption. You have also assumed that I believe Brenda to be evil and vile. Wrong. I believe her to have been seriously misguided, foolish and desperate to please her new cyber pals. Evil no, but she certainly was responsible for some vile tweets.
Quote
I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like. I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.
Thanks for getting that off your chest and reminding us all why you hate the McCanns so much - you must feel better for that.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 06:02:01 PM
You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.
I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like. I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.
Well said.
The McCann's also refuse to condemn their supporters who use 'derogatory' language and threats.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 26, 2014, 06:02:16 PM
You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.
I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like. I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.
There is no proof that Brenda Leyland was hounded to her death by The Press and TV, so please don't state it as a fact.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 06:02:59 PM
Firstly, we were discussing whether or not she had anything to be ashamed of. I gave examples of behaviour that I felt were likely to cause her shame on reflection. I did not say they were justification for being outed on TV - YOU have made that assumption. You have also assumed that I believe Brenda to be evil and vile. Wrong. I believe her to have been seriously misguided, foolish and desperate to please her new cyber pals. Evil no, but she certainly was responsible for some vile tweets.
Thanks for getting that off your chest and reminding us all why you hate the McCanns so much - you must feel better for that.
Pathetic.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 26, 2014, 06:06:22 PM
You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.
I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like. I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.
You can say what you like about the mccanns on here but should you be outed you should not whinge...as posters are doing now for brenda... I happen to believe they are an absolutely wonderful couple
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 27, 2014, 12:13:20 PM
I do hope this is a dignified inquiry. I also hope that 'Bennet crew' stay away- they will do more harm that good for Brenda's family.
I also hope there is a mention of how she came to be alone in a hotel room, so distraught, she thought being dead would solve her problem or just release her from what she may have perceived a terror campaign against her. And that was proved correct, she was front line news about being a vile troll.
It is good to see this has not affected the McCANN TROLLS or the family.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 08:01:58 AM
Well it seems there is more available on the compilers of the dossier, and it appears they were colluding with Sky News.
Available on page 271 of the Amazon discussion of the mccann case.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on October 31, 2014, 09:47:45 AM
Well it seems there is more available on the compilers of the dossier, and it appears they were colluding with Sky News.
Available on page 271 of the Amazon discussion of the mccann case.
JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.
IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:
1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics; 2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book; 3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.
But it backfired.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on October 31, 2014, 09:55:40 AM
JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.
IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:
1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics; 2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book; 3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.
But it backfired.
BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police. The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on October 31, 2014, 10:05:33 AM
JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.
IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:
1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics; 2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book; 3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.
But it backfired.
Thanks for that reply, as it raises pertinent points.
Nothing has come out form SY to date it seems, so we now await for the inquest in December and what line the Coroner takes.
As regards to the involvement of SY , nothing from them it seems so far, and meanwhile Sky News and Brunt, have been noticeably quiet.
Has he retired ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on October 31, 2014, 10:26:35 AM
BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police. The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter.
If this were the case, then why didn't they let the police handle it instead of going to the press. If they did have a case for harassment, keeping quiet would have been more effective.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on October 31, 2014, 10:36:02 AM
If this were the case, then why didn't they let the police handle it instead of going to the press. If they did have a case for harassment, keeping quiet would have been more effective.
IIRC Mrs Leyand had already involved the press herself - by previously making contact with Martin Brunt, a newspaper reporter? (from memory so apols if I'm wrong about that)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
BHH - radio interview - said the dossier had been handed to the Met and passed on to Leicester police who were looking into the matter.
Handed to them by the mccanns.
Yes we know.
Handed to Sky by ??? 8)-)))
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2014, 10:56:34 AM
I think it is an excellent idea to wait for the Coroner's Court to reconvene in December.
First, out of respect for her family who had no idea of her on-line activities.
Second, if the police are involved in the investigation, I think that might include examination of her computer hard drive and her on-line history which will include those with whom she was in contact.
Third ... with reference to the high profile case of the nurse who took her life allegedly as a result of a prank telephone call ... problems with a colleague at work were mentioned in court ... the pranksters were not prosecuted ... and the media, of course dug further once the Court was out of the way ...
>>snip<< Jacintha Saldanha, 46, was treated in intensive care at a hospital in Mangalore, India, in January, after reportedly falling from a building.
It came just nine days after she attempted to commit suicide with an overdose of pills during a family visit to India, according to reports.
The details emerged as Scotland Yard submitted a file and asked prosecutors to consider whether any potential offences were committed by two Australian DJs who called the nurse who then transferred their call to a colleague who described Kate's condition.
IIRC Mrs Leyand had already involved the press herself - by previously making contact with Martin Brunt, a newspaper reporter? (from memory so apols if I'm wrong about that)
Brenda Leyland did not involve the press herself, it was Martin Brunt who doorstepped her.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 11:18:02 AM
Brenda Leyland did not involve the press herself, it was Martin Brunt who doorstepped her.
516339051591643137|Sun Sep 28 21:29:57 +0000 2014|@RothleyPillow @PORTUGALONLINE #mccann I sometimes send their most outrageous ones direct to CM & Brunt
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
516694464455528448|Mon Sep 29 21:02:14 +0000 2014|#mccann Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 31, 2014, 01:08:08 PM
515241926568984576|Thu Sep 25 20:50:22 +0000 2014|@TeddyShepherd @veniviedivici @ThomasBadenRies @skymartinbrunt #mccann yeah, they will set up faux sceptic who is weak and inarticulate
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 01:32:29 PM
You don't think she was stalking Martin Brunt, do you?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 01:37:21 PM
So are you saying that Martin Brunt`s visit was independent of any so - called "dossier" compiled by frustrated "members of the public" who hadn`t received the response they wanted from the police?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
516694464455528448|Mon Sep 29 21:02:14 +0000 2014|#mccann Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?
Ah..........he called round for a neutral discussion about facts, whilst waving this tweet at her on the doorstep.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on October 31, 2014, 01:44:12 PM
So are you saying that Martin Brunt`s visit was independent of any so - called "dossier" compiled by frustrated "members of the public" who hadn`t received the response they wanted from the police?
It would seem to be at least a possibility. Given that she was in contact with Brunt in September, and her tweets were not exactly hard to find.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 01:44:47 PM
It does make you wonder why the McCanns chose to bring a civil action against Tony Bennett rather than report him to the police for harassment ?
It seems they simply wanted him to stop defaming them - leaflets, books, the "foundation" etc. Bringing a civil action was a way of doing so where they could exercise a measure of control over the proceedings.
They were not to know that he felt that standing by an undertaking to the High Court was optional.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 02:11:49 PM
..........and apparently he was following her.............so it was just between the two of them, then............(plus his entourage and rolling sky news reports ?)
Is that about right?
Dossiers compiled by Concerned Cowardly Anonymous Members of the Public purely coincidental?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 02:35:35 PM
..........and apparently he was following her.............so it was just between the two of them, then............(plus his entourage and rolling sky news reports ?)
Is that about right?
Dossiers compiled by Concerned Cowardly Anonymous Members of the Public purely coincidental?
No. She was involving other people.
There is nothing cowardly about being anonymous. Unless some posters here have got some very funny names. And anyway, The Police will know who compiled the dossier.
And it is all true and documented.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 02:39:31 PM
IIRC Mrs Leyand had already involved the press herself - by previously making contact with Martin Brunt, a newspaper reporter? (from memory so apols if I'm wrong about that)
It sounds as if you`d like some sort of distance between dossier compilers and their possible involvement with Sky News to be established.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 02:47:12 PM
There is nothing cowardly about being anonymous. Unless some posters here have got some very funny names. And anyway, The Police will know who compiled the dossier.
And it is all true and documented.
...........and yet you seem to be trying to create distance between the confrontation of Mrs Leyland by Sky News and the dossier + its compilers.
Is that because you wish the confrontation hadn`t occurred and that the police should have made the decision if and who should be investigated?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: jassi on October 31, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
There is nothing cowardly about being anonymous. Unless some posters here have got some very funny names. And anyway, The Police will know who compiled the dossier. And it is all true and documented.
If it is the dossier that you are talking about, how do you know? Have you read the complete thing for yourself?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
...........and yet you seem to be trying to create distance between the confrontation of Mrs Leyland by Sky News and the dossier + its compilers.
Is that because you wish the confrontation hadn`t occurred and that the police should have made the decision if and who should be investigated?
I wish Brenda had never started on her highly questionable campaign in the first place. And actually, I feel sympathy for how miserable her life must have been. But this sort of persistent abuse was bound to attract the attention of The Press eventually.
No I don't blame Martin Brunt for her death. There is still a Free Press in UK. And what has so far come out is all true.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2014, 03:06:28 PM
If it is the dossier that you are talking about, how do you know? Have you read the complete thing for yourself?
I have read quite a lot of the Tweets. And I am sure that the rest is all true. You can't mess with Screen Caps, and it will still all be on Brenda's computer.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
..........and apparently he was following her.............so it was just between the two of them, then............(plus his entourage and rolling sky news reports ?)
Is that about right?
Dossiers compiled by Concerned Cowardly Anonymous Members of the Public purely coincidental?
Brenda herself could be describes as a cowardly anonymous member of the public
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 31, 2014, 03:12:57 PM
..........and apparently he was following her.............so it was just between the two of them, then............(plus his entourage and rolling sky news reports ?)
Is that about right?
Dossiers compiled by Concerned Cowardly Anonymous Members of the Public purely coincidental?
What do you find cowardly about someone sending in information on threatening posts related to wishes of physical or psychological harm? What if some nutcase might actually decide to act out?
Why should however it is reveal his/her/their identity to the lynch mob brigade?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 03:15:07 PM
What do you find cowardly about someone sending in information on threatening posts related to wishes of physical or psychological harm? What if some nutcase might actually decide to act out?
Why should however it is reveal his/her/their identity to the lynch mob brigade?
Sending information where ?............To the press?
What lynch mob brigade?
The only actual "acting out" seems to have been done to Ms Leyland.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 03:25:06 PM
There is nothing cowardly about being anonymous. Unless some posters here have got some very funny names. And anyway, The Police will know who compiled the dossier.
And it is all true and documented.
There is nothing cowardly in being anonymous but there is something cowardly in being abusive and anonymous
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 31, 2014, 03:42:03 PM
What do you find cowardly about someone sending in information on threatening posts related to wishes of physical or psychological harm? What if some nutcase might actually decide to act out?
Why should however it is reveal his/her/their identity to the lynch mob brigade?
Presumably the police having read the "dossier" will, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecute someone for the act of "encouraging or assisting a crime" ? Has anyone heard of such a case being brought resultant from the police receiving the "dossier"?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 31, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
Presumably the police having read the "dossier" will, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecute someone for the act of "encouraging or assisting a crime" ? Has anyone heard of such a case being brought resultant from the police receiving the "dossier"?
Presumably not.
No one intended, foresaw or could reasonably predict that confronting Brenda Leyland over her on-line activities might result in an outcome as tragic as her loss of life.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on October 31, 2014, 03:47:50 PM
Brenda Leyland deserved to be outed by Brunt..IMO...she chose to spend all day tweeting abuse towards the mccanns...she brought it on herself
Brunt didn't though. He never mentioned her name, nor the name of the village where she lived.
It was the Daily Mail, I believe, that first named her.
From what I've been able to gather, at some point she posted quite happily in her own name, and only later chose to take her name off. Was she being egged on by her "friends" on that tag?
It does seem as if she was looking forward to interaction with Brunt... yet when he obliged by offering her a live opportunity to justify her views, she didn't seem too happy about that.
Some of her comments show a dismal lack of understanding about the case. Who was feeding her this misinformation?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 31, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
No one intended, foresaw or could reasonably predict that confronting Brenda Leyland over her on-line activities might result in an outcome as tragic as her loss of life.
My post was not related to Mrs Leyland. It was in reply to Carana's "what if some nutter decides to take action" or whatever [against the McCanns].
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 04:57:40 PM
No one intended, foresaw or could reasonably predict that confronting Brenda Leyland over her on-line activities might result in an outcome as tragic as her loss of life.
It was intended, foreseen and predicted that Mrs Leyland would be the selected target to confront over her on-line activities, though..........
.......not the alleged waterboarders or kidnappers of twins........" some nut-case " who might actually decide to act it out according to Carana`s post.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 05:01:00 PM
No one intended, foresaw or could reasonably predict that confronting Brenda Leyland over her on-line activities might result in an outcome as tragic as her loss of life.
So no one could have predicted that a woman living by herself and plastered over the news media of the country, with her face and address easily identifiable would not be vulnerable ?
I don't think so. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
....and meanwhile what has happened to Brunt ?
Likewise what has happened to the compilers of the dossier and those who colluded with them, and you know who I mean by that. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
I hope Brenda Leyland's son's will take the appropriate action, as some have it coming.
IMO of course.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 05:03:07 PM
So no one could have predicted that a woman living by herself and plastered over the news media of the country, with her face and address easily identifiable would not be vulnerable ?
I don't think so. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
She chose to become involved in abusive tweets against the McCanns..her choice
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on October 31, 2014, 05:03:32 PM
It was intended, foreseen and predicted that Mrs Leyland would be the selected target to confront over her on-line activities, though..........
.......not the alleged waterboarders or kidnappers of twins........" some nut-case " who might actually decide to act it out according to Carana`s post.
Which was perfectly legal ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 05:07:36 PM
Choose your words carefully., since you are condoning vigil[ censored word]m, which is undeniably breaking the law.
who mentioned revenge..you did not me
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2014, 05:38:35 PM
As far as I can see, the coroner needed more time for the cause of death to be established; possibly needing toxicology reports etc; it will be up to her to decide whether or not a judicial inquiry into the death is necessary.
Since it has been reported that foul play is not involved … her involvement may cease when the actual cause of death is known.
Whatever the coroner decides there will doubtless be a media scrum reporting on the inquiry, should there be one, as it happens … and should there be no inquiry there will be media coverage dissecting her on-line activities.
In either case, the big losers in all of this are her family.
A post-mortem examination on the body of a woman accused of "trolling" the family of Madeleine McCann's parents failed to find a cause of death, an inquest has heard. Brenda Leyland, from Leicestershire, was found dead at a hotel days after Sky News confronted her over thousands of messages posted on Twitter. An inquest into the 63-year-old's death was told there was no foul play. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-29541009
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 05:55:27 PM
Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts (Adrian Sherratt)
THEY are the modern scourge: cowards who use the anonymity of the internet to viciously abuse people by issuing threats to rape, mutilate or murder.
Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, better known for his tough stance on the European convention on human rights, has turned his fire on so-called trolls, people who use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to harass and intimidate victims.
“People are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion,” Grayling said last night.
“We must send out a clear message: if you troll, you risk being behind bars for two years.”
Many of the victims of these trolls are women, among them the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the TV presenter Judy Finnigan and her daughter Chloe Madeley, and Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine.
Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets,
It seems they simply wanted him to stop defaming them - leaflets, books, the "foundation" etc. Bringing a civil action was a way of doing so where they could exercise a measure of control over the proceedings.
They were not to know that he felt that standing by an undertaking to the High Court was optional.
Surely 'control' wasn't an issue, stopping the harassment was and involving the police was the best way of achieving this, and certainly a lot cheaper for the fund.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 31, 2014, 07:04:23 PM
As far as I can see, the coroner needed more time for the cause of death to be established; possibly needing toxicology reports etc; it will be up to her to decide whether or not a judicial inquiry into the death is necessary.
Since it has been reported that foul play is not involved … her involvement may cease when the actual cause of death is known.
Whatever the coroner decides there will doubtless be a media scrum reporting on the inquiry, should there be one, as it happens … and should there be no inquiry there will be media coverage dissecting her on-line activities.
In either case, the big losers in all of this are her family.
A post-mortem examination on the body of a woman accused of "trolling" the family of Madeleine McCann's parents failed to find a cause of death, an inquest has heard. Brenda Leyland, from Leicestershire, was found dead at a hotel days after Sky News confronted her over thousands of messages posted on Twitter. An inquest into the 63-year-old's death was told there was no foul play. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-29541009
The coroner adjourned the inquest because the police were still investigating and the pathologist had not given a cause of death. The coroner will remain "interested" until her report is completed. A coroner has the power to investigate the circumstances leading to a sudden or unexpected death, ask the police to perform specific investigations on her behalf and to questions properly interested parties. This one may or may not have a lot of legs left in it; I wouldn't lay my purse on either option. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoroners.leicester.gov.uk%2FEasysiteWeb%2Fgetresource.axd%3FAssetID%3D63613%26type%3Dfull%26servicetype%3DAttachment&ei=YNtTVLKoKuea7gbioICoCw&usg=AFQjCNGPrTXU_m3wHSOqPf0rzgYe2efHGw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.ZGU
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2014, 07:22:59 PM
The coroner adjourned the inquest because the police were still investigating and the pathologist had not given a cause of death. The coroner will remain "interested" until her report is completed. A coroner has the power to investigate the circumstances leading to a sudden or unexpected death, ask the police to perform specific investigations on her behalf and to questions properly interested parties. This one may or may not have a lot of legs left in it; I wouldn't lay my purse on either option. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoroners.leicester.gov.uk%2FEasysiteWeb%2Fgetresource.axd%3FAssetID%3D63613%26type%3Dfull%26servicetype%3DAttachment&ei=YNtTVLKoKuea7gbioICoCw&usg=AFQjCNGPrTXU_m3wHSOqPf0rzgYe2efHGw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.ZGU
It all depends on the coroner.
I think under normal circumstances she would choose to close everything as discretely as possible to spare the family; I think she will be aware that in this particular case the last thing that will be taken into consideration are the sensibilities of the family, so she may decide that since it is going to happen anyway (I am sure the papers are just waiting for the verdict so they can run with it), it will be carried out by her court.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 07:50:40 PM
I think under normal circumstances she would choose to close everything as discretely as possible to spare the family; I think she will be aware that in this particular case the last thing that will be taken into consideration are the sensibilities of the family, so she may decide that since it is going to happen anyway (I am sure the papers are just waiting for the verdict so they can run with it), it will be carried out by her court.
The coroner is duty bound to investigate circumstances surrounding the death and give a verdict and report. A coroners inquest is carried out in the public interest. The real point I was driving at is whether or not that investigation into the circumstances will be a) as minimal as some would have or b) as far reaching as others would have. My view is that the coroner will do what she is obliged to do under the law and I would not bet on how far it will go because I don't have the information she will have so second guessing whilst the oxygen of life for a forum like this is in real terms a somewhat fruitless exercise. IMHO of course.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 31, 2014, 08:25:13 PM
As the dossier compilers have done absolutely nothing wrong they will certainly not be required to give an account of themselves at the inquest. And that really is all you need to know.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 08:36:15 PM
As the dossier compilers have done absolutely nothing wrong they will certainly not be required to give an account of themselves at the inquest. And that really is all you need to know.
Oh yes they have.
They took the laws into their own hands.
Nasty little pieces of work , who have tried to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
Unfortunately, for them not quite as anonymous as they thought.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 31, 2014, 08:38:38 PM
Poor old Alf clearly has no idea how a coroners inquest works. It ain't adversarial and does not take into account wrong and right whatever they may be. The objective is to determine the circumstances surrounding an unexpected death. Anyone who knows anything or who the coroner thinks may know something maybe summoned to the presence to assist the coroner in determining the circumstance leading to the death. What happens after that ...who knows?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 08:52:37 PM
Poor old Alf clearly has no idea how a coroners inquest works. It ain't adversarial and does not take into account wrong and right whatever they may be. The objective is to determine the circumstances surrounding an unexpected death. Anyone who knows anything or who the coroner thinks may know something maybe summoned to the presence to assist the coroner in determining the circumstance leading to the death. What happens after that ...who knows?
Excellent points, but as we know alfred is tied to cause mccann.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 08:54:01 PM
Nasty little pieces of work , who have tried to hide behind the clock of anonymity.
Unfortunately, for them not quite as anonymous as they thought.
The compilers reported a suspected crime to the police...that's not taking the law into their own hands...It was Brenda who was a nasty piece of work...IMO
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: slartibartfast on October 31, 2014, 09:00:53 PM
The compilers reported a suspected crime to the police...that's not taking the law into their own hands...It was Brenda who was a nasty piece of work...IMO
I am very happy for anyone to report what they believe to be wrong doing to the police. I am not keen for anyone having reported something to the police to then pass the story, either at the same time or after the police have investigated the complaint, to the press. That way lies vigilanteism.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 09:03:32 PM
I am very happy for anyone to report what they believe to be wrong doing to the police. I am not keen for anyone having reported something to the police to then pass the story, either at the same time or after the police have investigated the complaint, to the press. That way lies vigilanteism.
I see nothing wrong with reporting concerns to the press....that's why a free press is so important..
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on October 31, 2014, 09:07:54 PM
The compilers reported a suspected crime to the police...that's not taking the law into their own hands...It was Brenda who was a nasty piece of work...IMO
Brenda's postings were uncalled for.
So were the actions of people who took the law into their own hands.
Do they feel any regrets over her death ?
After all, if the dossier had not been passed to Sky News.............
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on October 31, 2014, 09:09:04 PM
The coroner is duty bound to investigate circumstances surrounding the death and give a verdict and report. A coroners inquest is carried out in the public interest. The real point I was driving at is whether or not that investigation into the circumstances will be a) as minimal as some would have or b) as far reaching as others would have. My view is that the coroner will do what she is obliged to do under the law and I would not bet on how far it will go because I don't have the information she will have so second guessing whilst the oxygen of life for a forum like this is in real terms a somewhat fruitless exercise. IMHO of course.
I do not know if you have followed what I have been saying ... I do not think we are talking at cross purposes here.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 09:11:46 PM
The coroner is duty bound to investigate circumstances surrounding the death and give a verdict and report. A coroners inquest is carried out in the public interest. The real point I was driving at is whether or not that investigation into the circumstances will be a) as minimal as some would have or b) as far reaching as others would have. My view is that the coroner will do what she is obliged to do under the law and I would not bet on how far it will go because I don't have the information she will have so second guessing whilst the oxygen of life for a forum like this is in real terms a somewhat fruitless exercise. IMHO of course.
Anyone who commits suicide is likely to have a history of depression....perhaps this is something the coroner will look at.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 09:12:33 PM
People seem to disappear from social media and fora for various lengths of time, are you implying it means something bad?
NO! Did you not see the ??? marks.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on October 31, 2014, 10:13:28 PM
Whether or not you approve of people reporting crimes to the police and/or the press, the fact of the matter is that doing either or both, simultaneously or otherwise, is not against the law. Sorry to burst some bubbles.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 10:28:19 PM
Brenda made herself a legitimate target..perhaps the others could not be identified
Oh right!..........
So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......
.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 31, 2014, 10:40:05 PM
So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......
.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?
Brenda Leyland was targeted IMO solely because she lived close to the McCanns and her location gave the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 10:41:06 PM
So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......
.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?
Brenda was identified as someone who may have broken the law...that's it...I don't understand all the outpouring of sympathy...she is responsible for her own actions
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 31, 2014, 10:50:22 PM
Brenda was identified as someone who may have broken the law...that's it...I don't understand all the outpouring of sympathy...she is responsible for her own actions
If Brenda had broken the law then it was up to the police to investigate and charge her.
What if no charges had been brought, as seemed likely ? Would you still believe that what Sky did was justified ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on October 31, 2014, 11:03:59 PM
Brenda Leyland was targeted IMO solely because she lived close to the McCanns and her location gave the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.
A police investigation might well have brought no charges against Ms Leyland.......or even consider her, or any others in the dossier to have broken the law.
Presumably the police have known her location since early September, too, but apparently weren`t under the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 11:11:15 PM
A police investigation might well have brought no charges against Ms Leyland.......or even consider her, or any others in the dossier to have broken the law.
Presumably the police have known her location since early September, too, but apparently weren`t under the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.
very true...she acted very hastily..perhaps there were other factors
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on October 31, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
A police investigation might well have brought no charges against Ms Leyland.......or even consider her, or any others in the dossier to have broken the law.
Presumably the police have known her location since early September, too, but apparently weren`t under the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.
Precisely but I'm sure Sky News believed it would add a certain excitement to their report.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 31, 2014, 11:35:35 PM
Precisely but I'm sure Sky News believed it would add a certain excitement to their report.
Oh absolutely Faith. And I also believe that the dossier gang- MI 666- would get off on causing damage. They sent the report to NSY, who in turn sent it to the local bobbies. Why would 'they' send it to NSY who were investigating NcCanns missing daughter? any ideas?
Hmmmm Well, maybe to show what poor McCanns are having to 'suffer', did they expect Redwood to take half his £10million team off the 'missing persons' investigation to go and investigate Brenda? when NSY gave that the laugh off, 'They' were pouting and needed the WORLD to know, so they took it to media...where, the shy couple who hate the press intrusion, had to endure more publicity...Oh dear!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2014, 11:50:37 PM
anyone know if the abuse of the mccanns on twitter has improved or worsened since Brenda's demise
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on October 31, 2014, 11:55:55 PM
I certainly care about abusing people like that. No one wanted her dead, but what was she thinking of?
I guess she was lonely and enjoying the admiration of like minded abusive souls.
I guess she didn't realise that most rational people would turn on her when they found out
And I guess it became too much for her when the "world" turned on her.
Sad but she "set it up" herserlf by being cruel to others.
I agree Sadie and having 'friends' who had previously encouraged her and patted her on the back - swiftly drop her like a hot potato and accuse her of being an actor etc because she didn't respond to Martin Brunt as they thought she should have - must have been particularly hurtful.
But ultimately - it was her own choice to make herself part of a vicious hate campaign. And that says it all IMO .
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: sadie on November 01, 2014, 02:06:29 AM
I agree Sadie and having 'friends' who had previously encouraged her and patted her on the back - swiftly drop her like a hot potato and accuse her of being an actor etc because she didn't respond to Martin Brunt as they thought she should have - must have been particularly hurtful.
But ultimately - it was her own choice to make herself part of a vicious hate campaign. And that says it all IMO.
8((()*/ The stab her in the back brigade must have been the worst, especially if they had 'brown nosed' her before
Very sad
Nigh Night
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 07:29:00 AM
Brenda was identified as someone who may have broken the law...that's it...I don't understand all the outpouring of sympathy...she is responsible for her own actions
Yes we know.
She was identified by trolls supporting the mccanns.
Not police officers of course, just trolls.
IMO of course.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2014, 07:31:48 AM
I certainly care about abusing people like that. No one wanted her dead, but what was she thinking of?
I guess she was lonely and enjoying the admiration of like minded abusive souls.
I guess she didn't realise that most rational people would turn on her when they found out
And I guess it became too much for her when the "world" turned on her.
Sad but she "set it up" herserlf by being cruel to others.
'the "world" turned on her.' ???
Nah.
Though with irony, finally more people have been made of the mccann trolls in the aftermath of her death.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 07:48:41 AM
This case has reminded me of a well know novel by J.B.Priestley and the themes of social responsibility vs. the modern phenomenon of 'It ain't me gov....I'll just blame everyone else for what I did wrong'
Priestley got it right.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2014, 07:56:03 AM
She was identified by trolls supporting the mccanns.
Not police officers of course, just trolls.
IMO of course.
Trolls?
How could anyone know that the people who compiled the dossier ever posted anywhere themselves? They may have confined themselves to simply collating the evidence of lawbreaking.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 08:20:58 AM
How could anyone know that the people who compiled the dossier ever posted anywhere themselves? They may have confined themselves to simply collating the evidence of lawbreaking.
They are known, and they do post.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on November 01, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
She was identified by trolls supporting the mccanns.
Not police officers of course, just trolls.
IMO of course.
can i point out that if th mcanns had bene proper parents the night of may 3rd brenda would stilll be alive and maddie would not have bene vanished for 7 years? their actions have caused all this
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2014, 10:36:11 AM
If the police won`t shape up ...........get the press in to sort it!
Turn the question another way.
Should vile and repulsive trolls of the McCanns be exempt from challenge on their behaviour for fear that challenging the frail, delicate, fragile wilting petals (when it comes to their own rights!) might be driven to suicide by being challenged on their objectionable behaviour?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on November 01, 2014, 12:15:54 PM
Should vile and repulsive trolls of the McCanns be exempt from challenge on their behaviour for fear that challenging the frail, delicate, fragile wilting petals (when it comes to their own rights!) might be driven to suicide by being challenged on their objectionable behaviour?
So you believe in "trial by media" ..........whether the police decide to bring charges or not, against people you decide are vile trolls ?
Why bother to hand your dossier to the police in the first place then?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 01, 2014, 12:20:52 PM
So you believe in "trial by media" ..........whether the police decide to bring charges or not, against people you decide are vile trolls ?
Why bother to hand your dossier to the police in the first place then?
Do you have evidence / proof that Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland was solely as a result of the press being sent a dossier? And that Leyland had no prior knowledge that Brunt was "onto" her?
As for "trial by media" - I wonld not expect you to see the irony of that remark.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carew on November 01, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
Do you have evidence / proof that Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland was solely as a result of the press being sent a dossier? And that Leyland had no prior knowledge that Brunt was "onto" her?
As for "trial by media" - I wonld not expect you to see the irony of that remark.
Erm..........It was the irony of a raft of posts defending as "ethical, thoroughly justified and legal" the attitude of McCann supporters and the media towards those who have not been charged with any offence..................whilst at the same time bleating on behalf of the McCanns when it`s perceived they are similarly wronged, which prompted my use of it !
(Never mind.........)
I know that many are sensitive about the dossier and seem to seek to establish distance between it and the Sky News confrontation...........hence the rest of your comments.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 01, 2014, 02:39:28 PM
Erm..........It was the irony of a raft of posts defending as "ethical, thoroughly justified and legal" the attitude of McCann supporters and the media towards those who have not been charged with any offence..................whilst at the same time bleating on behalf of the McCanns when it`s perceived they are similarly wronged, which prompted my use of it !
(Never mind.........)
I know that many are sensitive about the dossier and seem to seek to establish distance between it and the Sky News confrontation...........hence the rest of your comments.
Not at all. It was a very simple question.
We are both members of a forum which, in discussing the case of the disappearance of Madeleine, are in effect, egaging in "trail by media".
And do I take it that your deflection of my question suggests do not have any evidence that Martin Brunt's doorstepping of the unfortunate Ms Leyland was as a direct consequence of the dossier presented to the Met, and subsequently passed on to Leicester police.
Or was it as a result of direct contact with Martin Brunt.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 01, 2014, 02:43:08 PM
Erm..........It was the irony of a raft of posts defending as "ethical, thoroughly justified and legal" the attitude of McCann supporters and the media towards those who have not been charged with any offence..................whilst at the same time bleating on behalf of the McCanns when it`s perceived they are similarly wronged, which prompted my use of it !
(Never mind.........)
I know that many are sensitive about the dossier and seem to seek to establish distance between it and the Sky News confrontation...........hence the rest of your comments.
Brenda was guilty of the behaviour.
The question of whether the behaviour constituted a criminal offence is a separate question.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
We are both members of a forum which, in discussing the case of the disappearance of Madeleine, are in effect, egaging in "trail by media".
And do I take it that your deflection of my question suggests do not have any evidence that Martin Brunt's doorstepping of the unfortunate Ms Leyland was as a direct consequence of the dossier presented to the Met, and subsequently passed on to Leicester police.
Or was it as a result of direct contact with Martin Brunt.
'....suggests do not have any evidence that Martin Brunt's doorstepping of the unfortunate Ms Leyland was as a direct consequence of the dossier presented to the Met, and subsequently passed on to Leicester police.'
The dossier presented to Sky was a separate event from it's compilers, who had a direct tie-in with the mccanns themselves, which puts to bed the myth that the mccanns had no contacts with their 'supporters'.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 01, 2014, 02:51:20 PM
'....suggests do not have any evidence that Martin Brunt's doorstepping of the unfortunate Ms Leyland was as a direct consequence of the dossier presented to the Met, and subsequently passed on to Leicester police.'
The dossier presented to Sky was a separate event from it's compilers, who had a direct tie-in with the mccanns themselves, which puts to bed the myth that the mccanns had no contacts with their 'supporters'.
Are you saying, Stephen, that the very first contact Brenda Leyland had with Martin Brunt was when she was "doorstepped" by him as she was going out?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 03:01:17 PM
However, and undeniably the filming outside and then inside her house brought humiliation, and SY weren't even investigating her.
The behaviour as I said of Sky, bunt, and the compilers of the dossier, needs to be held to account.
If she found it humilaiting, then so be it. It was a risk she took when she chose to use a public forum to air her views.
Dont forget, 4000 "tweets" on a public forum intended to humilate and hurt her targets. Maybe Brunt could be forgiven for thinking that if she could dish it out, she could take it.
Hows your little "dossier" going, btw?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 01, 2014, 03:21:44 PM
If she found it humilaiting, then so be it. It was a risk she took when she chose to use a public forum to air her views.
Dont forget, 4000 "tweets" on a public forum intended to humilate and hurt her targets. Maybe Brunt could be forgiven for thinking that if she could dish it out, she could take it.
Hows your little "dossier" going, btw?
Amended.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: misty on November 01, 2014, 03:46:50 PM
It would appear that the police may well have liaised with Twitter as I see that a few prolific posters have had accounts suspended or been banned from making remarks about the McCanns. Perhaps a Twitter user, maybe Stephen, would care to tell us exactly what has happened.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on November 01, 2014, 05:26:45 PM
Just like benice you can't be bothered to read through my posts to find the links already given, as you failed to do yourself last night.
and let's not forget not long ago you accused me of providing false links to BBC as regards BHH.
Please provide a link with that accusation.
When you are unable to do so ... please amend your post immediately.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 01, 2014, 06:43:16 PM
Having just re-read he opening post of this thread I really have to say it's a load of old tutt. It has been written (by a non-forum member with a poor grasp of reality) with the sole purpose of intimidating and frightening the dossier compilers, and it has been posted here on this forum for the same reason. If anyone seriously believes the coroner will be calling upon and cross-questioning these individuals over the death of Brenda Leyland they must have rocks in their heads where their brains should be.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2014, 06:50:05 PM
Having just re-read he opening post of this thread I really have to say it's a load of old tutt. It has been written (by a non-forum member with a poor grasp of reality) with the sole purpose of intimidating and frightening the dossier compilers, and it has been posted here on this forum for the same reason. If anyone seriously believes the coroner will be calling upon and cross-questioning these individuals over the death of Brenda Leyland they must have rocks in their heads where their brains should be.
I would think that the dossier compilers do not have rocks for brains and will see the OT for what it is...a load of old tutt
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 01, 2014, 07:00:49 PM
The OP talks about criminal actions and conspiracies in the final paragraph, what conspiracy would that be, I wonder, and specifically what criminal action? The act of handing over a list of vile tweets to the police / media? Is that a conspiracy or a criminal act? *&*%£
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 01, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
The OP talks about criminal actions and conspiracies in the final paragraph, what conspiracy would that be, I wonder, and specifically what criminal action? The act of handing over a list of vile tweets to the police / media? Is that a conspiracy or a criminal act? *&*%£
I have just re-read the OP again. Agreed - a load of irrelevant tosh written by someone who clearly gleans their knowledge of the law from watching TV.
But unsurprisingly it has inspired a few members here.
Perhaps they would care to enlighten us as to exactly what laws they think may have been broken.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 01, 2014, 07:16:27 PM
Well, partial credit where it's due:
Just to clarify for those that may not be too au fait with these types of inquiries, an inquest is an inquisitorial process, not adversarial, and it has just 3 basic tasks to complete: ascertain the identity of the deceased; determine when and where the person died; decide how the deceased died and what circumstances brought about their death.
I checked the part I underline and (I confess!) was surprised to discover that's right.
But then this:
I hope and trust that in December we shall see a full and detailed examination of the circumstances leading up to Brenda Leyland's sad and premature demise, followed by a comprehensive and determined investigation into any criminal actions and conspiracies should they be revealed by the inquiry."
There's nothing criminal about gathering information and passing it on to the police.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 01, 2014, 07:17:27 PM
OP The first two paragraphs are reasonable. The third is an opinion. The fourth is reasonable enough The fifth is expression of a wish The sixth is speculation.
Hardly worth getting in a muck sweat of emotive terms over it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2014, 07:21:39 PM
OP The first two paragraphs are reasonable. The third is an opinion. The fourth is reasonable enough The fifth is expression of a wish The sixth is speculation.
Hardly worth getting in a muck sweat of emotive terms over it.
Certainly not for Brenda. Poor, silly soul. Nothing is worth death. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 01, 2014, 07:50:09 PM
Certainly not for Brenda. Poor, silly soul. Nothing is worth death. In my opinion.
that's the problem when you start to view yourself as a "warrior" or "soldier for justice", you get daft ideas about making a personal sacrifice to the cause. Not saying Brenda laid down her life for justice, but the way she is being deified in some places there are obviously people who do see her act in this light.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2014, 08:06:47 PM
that's the problem when you start to view yourself as a "warrior" or "soldier for justice", you get daft ideas about making a personal sacrifice to the cause. Not saying Brenda laid down her life for justice, but the way she is being deified in some places there are obviously people who do see her act in this light.
Yes, sadly some people do. But I don't really want to think about why she finished up in the place that she did. I only wonder why she had no one to help her, or no one to whom she could go.
I know all about passing depression, but mine is only ever passing, and it does pass.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2014, 08:09:48 PM
Yes, sadly some people do. But I don't really want to think about why she finished up in the place that she did. I only wonder why she had no one to help her, or no one to whom she could go.
I know all about passing depression, but mine is only ever passing, and it does pass.
Brenda had no on to talk to because sadly she was a lonely person...that's almost certainly part of why she comitted suicide...not because of the actions of the McCanns as has been claimed.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2014, 08:36:42 PM
Brenda had no on to talk to because sadly she was a lonely person...that's almost certainly part of why she comitted suicide...not because of the actions of the McCanns as has been claimed.
No, certainly never for that. This was never the fault of The McCanns. And I don't want to talk about what she said and did.
Some of us are lonely. This is a fact, for whatever reason. And there is no shame in this. We all deal with our lives in whatever way we can. I am just vaguely devastated by Brenda having no one to go to. I don't really care about what she did. Only that she had nothing better to do. And no one to help her.
Now, any of you tell me that you are any different, other than a bit tougher when push comes to shove.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on November 01, 2014, 09:34:53 PM
No, certainly never for that. This was never the fault of The McCanns. And I don't want to talk about what she said and did.
Some of us are lonely. This is a fact, for whatever reason. And there is no shame in this. We all deal with our lives in whatever way we can. I am just vaguely devastated by Brenda having no one to go to. I don't really care about what she did. Only that she had nothing better to do. And no one to help her.
Now, any of you tell me that you are any different, other than a bit tougher when push comes to shove.
What happened to BL had nothing to do with the McCanns, except for her hate for them.
You are spot on in what you are saying Eleanor, Everyone suffers loneliness at some time or another in their life and can even be depressed by the situation, but most of us manage to pull it together and recover from the feeling without taking drastic steps to escape.
I get lonely laying in this bed all day and I keep busy reading or with the computer on this site, but I am not bitter, because I know there is a lot of love and support in my family.
I don’t say much on the BL threads, because I think that it was terribly sad, that she had no-one to turn too and had to go to a Hotel. She could have been a very independent lady to the extreme and didn’t want to involve others……..Who knows why she ran away or why she died? It is a depressing subject on its own 8(8-))
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 01, 2014, 09:46:19 PM
Brenda had no on to talk to because sadly she was a lonely person...that's almost certainly part of why she comitted suicide...not because of the actions of the McCanns as has been claimed.
From what I saw, when Martin Brunt confronted Brenda Leyland she was going shopping with a friend. Why do you naturally assume that she was a sad and lonely person simply because she did not believe the McCanns? Maybe you want to believe otherwise but I think that the McCanns were behind this troll dossier. They are capable since they have already tried to destroy Gonçalo Amaral in everyway possible, IMO and they'll stop at nothing in their quest to silence anyone from saying anything negative about them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 01, 2014, 10:12:43 PM
From what I saw, when Martin Brunt confronted Brenda Leyland she was going shopping with a friend. Why do you naturally assume that she was a sad and lonely person simply because she did not believe the McCanns? Maybe you want to believe otherwise but I think that the McCanns were behind this troll dossier. They are capable since they have already tried to destroy Gonçalo Amaral in everyway possible, IMO and they'll stop at nothing in their quest to silence anyone from saying anything negative about them.
Perhaps because she was divorced, estranged from one son, and a couple of days after her online activity as "sweepyface" - obsessively tweeting hate mail about a grieving family - was revealed she apparently went to a hotel and killed herself. Extremely sad in every respect.
As for Amaral. Are we talking about a policeman who, having failed "prove his case" about the McCanns through due process decided (uniquely) to write a book accusing them of crimes. (And of course lining his pockets the expense of a missing little girl in the meantime - but that is by the by)
And then made a career out of promulgating his theories in documentary and sordid chat shows.
The McCanns are simply taking appropriate legal action to stem the tide of libel - not to "destroy" him. He is doing that all by himself.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 01, 2014, 10:19:06 PM
Fancy the McCanns trying to put a stop to the spread of vicious lies and spiteful bile posted about them on social media - how very dare they!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2014, 10:42:53 PM
What happened to BL had nothing to do with the McCanns, except for her hate for them.
You are spot on in what you are saying Eleanor, Everyone suffers loneliness at some time or another in their life and can even be depressed by the situation, but most of us manage to pull it together and recover from the feeling without taking drastic steps to escape.
I get lonely laying in this bed all day and I keep busy reading or with the computer on this site, but I am not bitter, because I know there is a lot of love and support in my family.
I don’t say much on the BL threads, because I think that it was terribly sad, that she had no-one to turn too and had to go to a Hotel. She could have been a very independent lady to the extreme and didn’t want to involve others……..Who knows why she ran away or why she died? It is a depressing subject on its own 8(8-))
Good on ya, Anna, for agreeing that some of us have lonely lives that leave us open to depression, albeit not actually suicidal. Most of us will never be that.
But I very much doubt that anyone who posts here has an ideal life. This is the nature of the beast.
Some of us are kind and some of us are not. But who is right is by the by.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 01, 2014, 11:35:01 PM
Good on ya, Anna, for agreeing that some of us have lonely lives that leave us open to depression, albeit not actually suicidal. Most of us will never be that.
But I very much doubt that anyone who posts here has an ideal life. This is the nature of the beast.
Some of us are kind and some of us are not. But who is right is by the by.
And some of us are kind and logical.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on November 01, 2014, 11:47:29 PM
From what I saw, when Martin Brunt confronted Brenda Leyland she was going shopping with a friend. Why do you naturally assume that she was a sad and lonely person simply because she did not believe the McCanns? Maybe you want to believe otherwise but I think that the McCanns were behind this troll dossier. They are capable since they have already tried to destroy Gonçalo Amaral in everyway possible, IMO and they'll stop at nothing in their quest to silence anyone from saying anything negative about them.
I think you have the chain of cause and effect the wrong way.
Amaral tried to destroy the McCanns.
The McCanns were resilient enough to stand up to him and strike back. As a result, it looks as if Amaral might end up being the one destroyed.
No joy in that, just a natural consequence of the chain of cause and effect.
I fear Amaral may get a consolation "prize" though.
The McCanns and Madeleine's brother and sister may just never know what happened to Madeleine ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 02, 2014, 09:28:16 AM
If you feel free to say something like that about a dead person, this shows your mind set and it is not nice to see.
Brenda has been saying vile things about the McCanns for years it seems..day after day...you and others have been saying vile things about the McCanns .....
Strange how you have just become so sensitive..
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2014, 11:10:28 AM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2014, 11:14:58 AM
it's quite interesting the way posters are offended by criticism of Brenda but accept the constant criticism of the McCanns of which Brenda was a leader
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 11:22:14 AM
The evidence of Brenda's mind-set is implicit in her tweets.
All the McCanns have ever done is try to get their daughter back ...
All the McCanns have very done over these last 7+ years is to try to save their reputations. It has never been about Madeleine, it has always been about them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 02, 2014, 11:24:31 AM
All the McCanns have very done over these last 7+ years is to try to save their reputations. It has never been about Madeleine, it has always been about them.
Substitute Amaral for the McCanns and I would agree.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 02, 2014, 11:29:12 AM
[quote removed]
It tends to be trolls who ignorantly or wilfully ignore the fact that the McCanns have told the truth.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 11:32:28 AM
All the McCanns have very done over these last 7+ years is to try to save their reputations. It has never been about Madeleine, it has always been about them.
They hide behind the presumption of innocence.
'You can have whatever opinion you like about us, but Madeleine is innocent in all of this'
So said Mr McCann outside the lisbon court.
Certain of Madeleine's innocence 'in all of this', so he was, a little less definite about his & hers though.
There's a reason for that.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2014, 11:33:10 AM
Don't agree....Brenda brought everything on herself...no one else has committed suicide because Maddie disappeared
Kate & Gerry started it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on November 02, 2014, 12:51:21 PM
Personally I blame the people who egged Brenda Leyland on. By the look of it this person was a lonely woman, twitter brought her the company she craved, she found her niche with people who gathered in a large group to mock and torment the McCann's. Brenda knew what she was doing, she was a woman in her sixties, an intelligent woman, no one made her do it, but she gained power from those who slapped her on the back and so she continued doing what she did.
Debating the McCann case is one thing, opening up facebook and twitter for the sole intention of whipping up hatred for other people is another.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:10:19 PM
According to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação from October 2010 when the book ban was overturned, the judges stated that, as the McCanns sought the press and used the media to push their story, they had to take criticism along with praise. They can't decide what people are to think of them, they can't force people to like them or even respect them. I believe that people have the right to say what they want about them, excluding of course racism, blackmail and actual threats. After 7+ years, no one has ever attempted to attack them, so why would they want to now.
I find it hypocritical that the McCanns are upset about people taking photos of the twins when they so happily posed with them in photo shoots in the Algarve just after Madeleine's disappearance.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
According to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação from October 2010 when the book ban was overturned, the judges stated that, as the McCanns sought the press and used the media to push their story, they had to take criticism along with praise. They can't decide what people are to think of them, they can't force people to like them or even respect them. I believe that people have the right to say what they want about them, excluding of course racism, blackmail and actual threats. After 7+ years, no one has ever attempted to attack them, so why would they want to now.
I find it hypocritical that the McCanns are upset about people taking photos of the twins when they so happily posed with them in photo shoots in the Algarve just after Madeleine's disappearance.
So, you'd be happy for people to take photos of your kids without your permission and put them on the web, even if you had previously had a picture of yourself and your children published in the paper would you? Really?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 01:14:09 PM
Personally I blame the people who egged Brenda Leyland on. By the look of it this person was a lonely woman, twitter brought her the company she craved, she found her niche with people who gathered in a large group to mock and torment the McCann's. Brenda knew what she was doing, she was a woman in her sixties, an intelligent woman, no one made her do it, but she gained power from those who slapped her on the back and so she continued doing what she did.
Debating the McCann case is one thing, opening up facebook and twitter for the sole intention of whipping up hatred for other people is another.
8@??)( Very well said.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
So, you'd be happy for people to take photos of your kids without your permission and put them on the web, even if you had previously had a picture of yourself and your children published in the paper would you? Really?
Obviously, the only reason the parents stopped having their children photographed was because Social Services warned them imo.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 02, 2014, 01:19:58 PM
So, you'd be happy for people to take photos of your kids without your permission and put them on the web, even if you had previously had a picture of yourself and your children published in the paper would you? Really?
You wouldn't do a photo shoot with your kids if you don't want that to happen. Do what I say not as I do is hypocritical.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 02, 2014, 01:21:30 PM
According to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação from October 2010 when the book ban was overturned, the judges stated that, as the McCanns sought the press and used the media to push their story, they had to take criticism along with praise. They can't decide what people are to think of them, they can't force people to like them or even respect them. I believe that people have the right to say what they want about them, excluding of course racism, blackmail and actual threats. After 7+ years, no one has ever attempted to attack them, so why would they want to now.
I find it hypocritical that the McCanns are upset about people taking photos of the twins when they so happily posed with them in photo shoots in the Algarve just after Madeleine's disappearance.
And it follows that the McCanns have the right, within the law, to retaliate. The operative word is of course within the law.
Do I take it, montclair, that you are perfectly comfortable with grown adults engaging in online discussion of which school bus the twins take, and taking covert photographs of them?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:25:23 PM
Personally I blame the people who egged Brenda Leyland on. By the look of it this person was a lonely woman, twitter brought her the company she craved, she found her niche with people who gathered in a large group to mock and torment the McCann's. Brenda knew what she was doing, she was a woman in her sixties, an intelligent woman, no one made her do it, but she gained power from those who slapped her on the back and so she continued doing what she did.
Debating the McCann case is one thing, opening up facebook and twitter for the sole intention of whipping up hatred for other people is another.
I find the people defending the McCanns very short of arguments. Tell me please who was egging Brenda on? Of course, in your mind, it could not be because she decided for herself, after seeing all the information and the police files, that perhaps all was not as the parents said it was. How did she mock and torment the McCanns? She never sent them any personal messages. All she did was express her own opinion that some might find offensive but that's tough luck. Certainly not a reason to be pushed to committing suicide.
As for debating the case, that is something that the McCanns do not want at all, they are afraid of debates and different opinions.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 01:26:07 PM
You wouldn't do a photo shoot with your kids if you don't want that to happen. Do what I say not as I do is hypocritical.
So basically anyone who allows themselves to be photographed by the media is fair game for paparazzi regardless of the circumstances, is that your view?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:27:54 PM
And it follows that the McCanns have the right, within the law, to retaliate. The operative word is of course within the law.
Do I take it, montclair, that you are perfectly comfortable with grown adults engaging in online discussion of which school bus the twins take, and taking covert photographs of them?
Personally, I have been on a lot of blogs and fora and I have never seen any discussion about which bus the children or anyone wanting to take photos of them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
I find the people defending the McCanns very short of arguments. Tell me please who was egging Brenda on? Of course, in your mind, it could not be because she decided for herself, after seeing all the information and the police files, that perhaps all was not as the parents said it was. How did she mock and torment the McCanns? She never sent them any personal messages. All she did was express her own opinion that some might find offensive but that's tough luck. Certainly not a reason to be pushed to committing suicide.
As for debating the case, that is something that the McCanns do not want at all, they are afraid of debates and different opinions.
Yup, because their story just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The abduction theses are laughably improbable & they'd much prefer it people didn't know that & that we would all just lay down & surrender to their toxic media campaign.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 01:30:56 PM
I find the people defending the McCanns very short of arguments. Tell me please who was egging Brenda on? Of course, in your mind, it could not be because she decided for herself, after seeing all the information and the police files, that perhaps all was not as the parents said it was. How did she mock and torment the McCanns? She never sent them any personal messages. All she did was express her own opinion that some might find offensive but that's tough luck. Certainly not a reason to be pushed to committing suicide.
As for debating the case, that is something that the McCanns do not want at all, they are afraid of debates and different opinions.
Who do you think pushed Brenda to suicide then? One minute you have her as an independent, clear-headed rational person, the next someone who was easily pushed to suicide. The two are not compatible.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 02, 2014, 01:33:54 PM
Personally, I have been on a lot of blogs and fora and I have never seen any discussion about which bus the children or anyone wanting to take photos of them.
Time for your opthalmist checkup then.
Funny how people are very quick to defend their rights of free speech, and defend Brenda Leyland's right to post whatever she likes as "sweepyface" and then get terribly exercised when the media, in the shape of Martin Brunt, exercise that selfsame right.
Double standards, perhaps.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2014, 01:38:05 PM
According to the "acordão" of the Tribunal de Relação from October 2010 when the book ban was overturned, the judges stated that, as the McCanns sought the press and used the media to push their story, they had to take criticism along with praise. They can't decide what people are to think of them, they can't force people to like them or even respect them. I believe that people have the right to say what they want about them, excluding of course racism, blackmail and actual threats. After 7+ years, no one has ever attempted to attack them, so why would they want to now.
I find it hypocritical that the McCanns are upset about people taking photos of the twins when they so happily posed with them in photo shoots in the Algarve just after Madeleine's disappearance.
You obviously have a very poor understanding of the law..no one has the right to libel the McCanns...as some have already found out
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:42:49 PM
You are so in love with this couple that you are completely blind to logic and facts.
Do you think that's Andy Redwood's problem too then? In love with Kate is he? One could turn the tables and say that your utter contempt for the McCanns as people has blinded YOU to logic and facts, but I don't suppose you'd be able to see that, so blinded are you by contempt... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2014, 01:47:21 PM
Do you think that's Andy Redwood's problem too then? In love with Kate is he? One could turn the tables and say that your utter contempt for the McCanns as people has blinded YOU to logic and facts, but I don't suppose you'd be able to see that, so blinded are you by contempt... @)(++(*
Do you have any idea what Andy Redwood is thinking? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2014, 01:52:21 PM
Do you think that's Andy Redwood's problem too then? In love with Kate is he? One could turn the tables and say that your utter contempt for the McCanns as people has blinded YOU to logic and facts, but I don't suppose you'd be able to see that, so blinded are you by contempt... @)(++(*
Redwood really does believe them, doesn't he Alf.
Whereas 'Hulk' has murder in mind.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2014, 01:58:54 PM
And it follows that the McCanns have the right, within the law, to retaliate. The operative word is of course within the law.
Do I take it, montclair, that you are perfectly comfortable with grown adults engaging in online discussion of which school bus the twins take, and taking covert photographs of them?
I believe it was Kate who instigated the discussion with regard to the school bus by the use of her son to emotionally manipulate the judge in Lisbon and as to the 'covert photograph' if you are talking about the Commonwealth games photograph wasn't that a screen grab from the BBC's coverage ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on November 02, 2014, 02:27:19 PM
Do you see Amaral in the newspapers all the time with a spokesman spouting lies?
I believe Dr Amaral has carved out a chequered media career for himself, taking part in many discussion and current affairs programmes.
Whether or not he was “spouting lies” as you put it, is not for me to say.
Since you have raised the subject of lying, it is perhaps pertinent to mention that the Portuguese judiciary saw fit to convict Dr Amaral of telling lies and awarded him an 18 month suspended sentence for doing so.
Many of the opinions tweeted and discussed on forums set up specifically to "research" Madeleine's case base their creed on Dr Amaral's works and it was as a very active part of this underbelly that Ms Leyland tweeted and posted.
McCann detective guilty of perjury
Published: Fri, May 22, 2009
The disgraced former Portuguese police chief who previously led the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been convicted of perjury in a separate case. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/102810/McCann-detective-guilty-of-perjury
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 02, 2014, 02:33:28 PM
I believe it was Kate who instigated the discussion with regard to the school bus by the use of her son to emotionally manipulate the judge in Lisbon and as to the 'covert photograph' if you are talking about the Commonwealth games photograph wasn't that a screen grab from the BBC's coverage ?
On the latter point you may be right Faith. Fair enough.
On the former, I tyhink the initial reference was to a radio news program, and the effect on the twins. I am sorry to say there was subsequently an extended discussion on social media about which bus they caught, times etc.
In my view, unacceptable.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on November 02, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
I find the people defending the McCanns very short of arguments. Tell me please who was egging Brenda on? Of course, in your mind, it could not be because she decided for herself, after seeing all the information and the police files, that perhaps all was not as the parents said it was. How did she mock and torment the McCanns? She never sent them any personal messages. All she did was express her own opinion that some might find offensive but that's tough luck. Certainly not a reason to be pushed to committing suicide.
As for debating the case, that is something that the McCanns do not want at all, they are afraid of debates and different opinions.
Brenda Leyland was in a group who mocked and tormented the McCann's. Did she know if they were reading twitter or not when she made her posts?
The point I am making is, when a large group of people get in a baying crowd, the individual person can feel powerful.
How do you know the McCann's do not want debate?
Debate is a lot different.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 02, 2014, 02:42:34 PM
I find the people defending the McCanns very short of arguments. Tell me please who was egging Brenda on? Of course, in your mind, it could not be because she decided for herself, after seeing all the information and the police files, that perhaps all was not as the parents said it was. How did she mock and torment the McCanns? She never sent them any personal messages. All she did was express her own opinion that some might find offensive but that's tough luck. Certainly not a reason to be pushed to committing suicide.
As for debating the case, that is something that the McCanns do not want at all, they are afraid of debates and different opinions.
In what way do you think she was "pushed to commit suicide" then?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 02, 2014, 02:51:59 PM
On the latter point you may be right Faith. Fair enough.
On the former, I tyhink the initial reference was to a radio news program, and the effect on the twins. I am sorry to say there was subsequently an extended discussion on social media about which bus they caught, times etc.
In my view, unacceptable.
Agreed it is unacceptable but im afraid it was their mother who informed the public that they rode the bus, information that no one except those closest to the McCanns need have known.
Just a thought. We have heard several times of a threat to kidnap the twins to make their parents talk. Would the McCanns really let the twins ride on the school bus if their safety was in question, especially as Kate has a car and doesn't work ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on November 02, 2014, 02:53:01 PM
Can anyone give me a reason why people would congregate in large numbers just to jeer and call the McCann's names, talk about seeing them and where they saw them, taking photo's, and swapping stories of how they would like to 'waterboard' them etc. etc.
What is the point of it? It is not debating is it.
If they had been taking place involving my family I would certainly be very concerned, and don't anyone say they would just brush it off.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2014, 02:59:05 PM
Can anyone give me a reason why people would congregate in large numbers just to jeer and call the McCann's names, talk about seeing them and where they saw them, taking photo's, and swapping stories of how they would like to 'waterboard' them etc. etc.
What is the point of it? It is not debating is it.
If they had been taking place involving my family I would certainly be very concerned, and don't anyone say they would just brush it off.
Because some people really don't like the McCanns very much at all & they believe that the pair are as guilty as hell, perhaps.
I reckon it's because of that.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 02, 2014, 03:00:53 PM
Can anyone give me a reason why people would congregate in large numbers just to jeer and call the McCann's names, talk about seeing them and where they saw them, taking photo's, and swapping stories of how they would like to 'waterboard' them etc. etc.
What is the point of it? It is not debating is it.
If they had been taking place involving my family I would certainly be very concerned, and don't anyone say they would just brush it off.
That's a good question Lace. Why do the McCanns, out of all the parents who have had a child abducted or murdered, elicit such anger in a great many of the general public ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on November 02, 2014, 03:07:16 PM
There is no answer to that Faithfully, except to say that maybe it is because the McCann's have not hit back.
It should in my opinion have been nipped in the bud early on, it started with some people who THINK the McCann's are guilty of something starting a forum.
This escalated, now you have people who don't THINK they are right they believe that they KNOW they are right and demand that the McCann's are arrested and made to answer questions.
Whilst you get those who want to put their point across by debating in a rational manner, you get others who just want to throw abuse.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 02, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
Because some people really don't like the McCanns very much at all & they believe that the pair are as guilty as hell, perhaps.
I reckon it's because of that.
Listen to yourself. BELIEVE THAT THE PAIR ARE AS GUILTY AS HELL, well in this country it is innocent until proven guilty. SY have said they are not suspects in the investigation.
No one has the right to throw continual abuse at a family just because they BELIEVE they are guilty, it is how things were done in the dark ages.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: jassi on November 02, 2014, 03:30:19 PM
Don't exaggerate, dislike is not hatred
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 02, 2014, 03:31:51 PM
Do you have any idea what Andy Redwood is thinking? I don't think so.
I do actually - he has told us he is investigating a stranger abduction and that is why the focus of attention has been on various PT nationals who were made arguidos (ie: persons of interest) earlier in the year.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 02, 2014, 03:41:40 PM
Not blind hatred ferryman, just cool, clear logic.
Here's one to test your cool, clear logic, Faith
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
The penultimate sentence and paragraph of Mark Harrison's third and final report.
Who was lying?
Harrison or Amaral?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 03:55:56 PM
If someone dislikes someone so much that they spend a part of each day, every day, for seven years reminding the world what they dislike about someone and why, is that still just common or garden dislike in your view, or perhaps something a bit more serious?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on November 02, 2014, 04:09:34 PM
Not blind hatred ferryman, just cool, clear logic.
IMO 'cool clear logic' is the last thing that many sceptics display. Quite the opposite in fact.
What is 'logical' about admiring and looking up to a corrupt ex policeman with a criminal conviction for lying to the court in an attempt to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman? And why would anyone admire a proven adulterer who defrauded his own brother?
That isn't logic - it's the bizarre ability of so many sceptics to convince themselves that 'black is actually white', time after time, because all the evidence shows that logically speaking Amaral is the last person in the world to trust, admire or believe - on any level.
That's self-delusion - not logic.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2014, 04:12:15 PM
If someone dislikes someone so much that they spend a part of each day, every day, for seven years reminding the world what they dislike about someone and why, is that still just common or garden dislike in your view, or perhaps something a bit more serious?
obsession comes to mind
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 02, 2014, 04:23:55 PM
IMO 'cool clear logic' is the last thing that many sceptics display. Quite the opposite in fact.
What is 'logical' about admiring and looking up to a corrupt ex policeman with a criminal conviction for lying to the court in an attempt to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman? And why would anyone admire a proven adulterer who defrauded his own brother?
That isn't logic - it's the bizarre ability of so many sceptics to convince themselves that 'black is actually white', time after time, because all the evidence shows that logically speaking Amaral is the last person in the world to trust, admire or believe - on any level.
That's self-delusion - not logic.
One might add - what is logical about assuming that the compilers of the troll dossier are about to be called to be cross-questioned about the death of Brenda Leyland as stated in the opening post of this thread? It's completely, absurdly illogical but Faithlilly thought the OP was sufficiently interesting and important to post here! Cool, clear logic my Aunt Fanny.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: sadie on November 02, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
Back on Brenda Layland
This guy says a lot of sense
http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/
The people who spread the early disinformation and black propaganda about The Mccanns for others (suckers tbh) to libellously spread, will vanish and leave the suckers to wallow.
Already they are wiping stuff wholesale from the internet.
They will look after themselves
The suckers will pick up the punishments. Sorry, but the signs are there that it is true.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 02, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
The people who spread the early disinformation and black propaganda about The Mccanns for others (suckers tbh) to libellously spread, will vanish and leave the suckers to wallow.
Already they are wiping stuff wholesale from the internet.
They will look after themselves
The suckers will pick up the punishments. Sorry, but the signs are there that it is true.
It is the compilers of the dossier and the assorted trolls associated with that who need to watch out sadie.
Their activities led to Sky News questioning a woman who had not been charged with any crime or investigated for one.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 02, 2014, 05:09:34 PM
The journalist in this case went to Brenda Leyland on the basis of a lie, I.e. the police were investigating her.
They weren't of course.
Now I'lll throw this in your court.
What would you do if Sky News had harassed your mother and subsequently she had died after considerable intrusion and public identification ?
and who gave the dossier writers the authority to do what they did ?
It certainly wasn't altruism as they are die hard McCann backers.
I will as usual try to actually answer your question, instead of employing your preferred tactics of answering with a question or diverting.
I would be extremely upset, that is without question.
I would be upset on four counts:
Grief at having lost my parent.
I would look for someone to blame, and most likely with anger at Brunt and sky news.
Then anger that she had (I am assuming) taken her own life, alone in a hotel room. That would be anger at her - suicide is an incredibly selfish act, more often than not designed to punish the living. I wonder who she was punishing?
And confusion and bafflement that she had such an incredible secret obsession. 4500. That is four and half thousand tweets about a family she did not know. That is almost as many as your posts on here. _____________
If her name was on the dossier, and that dossier had been handed to the Met and to Leicester police, then it is technically correct that she was being investigated.
Finally, who gave the compliers of the dossier authority? The common law.
What do you imagine is going to happen at the inquest? The dossier compilers cross examined in the dock with plod waiting with handcuffs to "take them down"? If you you have watching far too much TV.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 03, 2014, 03:57:00 PM
On a more interesting note it appears, according to a letter from the coroner overseeing Brenda's death, that there is an ongoing police investigation into the matter. Is this usual in an apparent suicide ?
It would appear the McCanns may indeed have instigated a police investigation into trolls, though perhaps not the one they envisioned.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on November 03, 2014, 04:32:17 PM
On a more interesting note it appears, according to a letter from the coroner overseeing Brenda's death, that there is an ongoing police investigation into the matter. Is this usual in an apparent suicide ?
It would appear the McCanns may indeed have instigated a police investigation into trolls, though perhaps not the one they envisioned.
What does this letter say and to whom?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 03, 2014, 05:03:49 PM
On a more interesting note it appears, according to a letter from the coroner overseeing Brenda's death, that there is an ongoing police investigation into the matter. Is this usual in an apparent suicide ?
It would appear the McCanns may indeed have instigated a police investigation into trolls, though perhaps not the one they envisioned.
Is this the reply to "Mr Rees" by any chance? 8(8-))
The inquest wil confine itself to 4 questions:
Identity of the deceased Place of death Time of death How the deceased came by his/her death
As this is a case of suicide the person who found her will be called as witness, as well as any other witnesses or reports the coroner may require.
The role of the coroners court is quite limied So those expecting the "dossier compliers" or the McCanns to be cross examined are going to be sadly disappointed.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 03, 2014, 05:26:47 PM
Is this the reply to "Mr Rees" by any chance? 8(8-))
The inquest wil confine itself to 4 questions:
Identity of the deceased Place of death Time of death How the deceased came by his/her death
As this is a case of suicide the person who found her will be called as witness, as well as any other witnesses or reports the coroner may require.
The role of the coroners court is quite limied So those expecting the "dossier compliers" or the McCanns to be cross examined are going to be sadly disappointed.
Why don't you just post a link to the Ministry of Justices guide to the duties and objectives of The Coroners Court? Oh I did that about a week ago and still people across the board wish to misdirect. It is like trying to herd cats round here.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 03, 2014, 05:31:57 PM
Why don't you just post a link to the Ministry of Justices guide to the duties and objectives of The Coroners Court? Oh I did that about a week ago and still people across the board wish to misdirect. It is like trying to herd cats round here.
I know you did. And that is why I tried to simplify.
More like herding peacocks.
The law in practice is much less exciting that it is on the telly.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on November 03, 2014, 06:07:45 PM
Is this the reply to "Mr Rees" by any chance? 8(8-))
The inquest wil confine itself to 4 questions:
Identity of the deceased Place of death Time of death How the deceased came by his/her death
As this is a case of suicide the person who found her will be called as witness, as well as any other witnesses or reports the coroner may require.
The role of the coroners court is quite limied So those expecting the "dossier compliers" or the McCanns to be cross examined are going to be sadly disappointed.
I'm sorry JP but where did I say this wasn't the case ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on November 03, 2014, 06:52:12 PM
One of the more prominent "sceptics" is trying to drum up support for an Anonymous march on Parliament in Brenda's memory - I trust you've all cleared your diaries and bought a train ticket for London on Wednesday?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on November 03, 2014, 07:52:00 PM
One of the more prominent "sceptics" is trying to drum up support for an Anonymous march on Parliament in Brenda's memory - I trust you've all cleared your diaries and bought a train ticket for London on Wednesday?
Will the dossier compilers be there to put a face to their anonyomous material ?
Or will they be hiding behind what they think is anonymity ?
%£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: pinkblossoms on November 03, 2014, 08:36:39 PM
"It would appear the McCanns may indeed have instigated a police investigation into trolls, though perhaps not the one they envisioned."
I fear you are going to be disappointed. @)(++(*
And I am touched you care 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on November 03, 2014, 11:12:35 PM
At this stage we don't know.
But suppose the outcome of the inquest is that the shame of being exposed as an on-line activist against the McCanns drove Brenda Leyland to take her own life.
Tragic though that would be, an equally tragic, but opposite, outcome might have been that Kate (or conceivably even Gerry) might have been driven to suicide by the online activities of Brenda (and others of like mind).
That is why on-line abuse must be opposed, even with the weight of the law.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on November 07, 2014, 11:22:27 AM
Clearly Martin Brunts involvement in the death of Brenda Leyland was enough to see him removed from presenting any further news reports on Sky TV or anywhere else for that matter. He has also ceased making any further posts on social media sites so what has become of the globe trotting justice reporter?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Moderator on November 07, 2014, 01:06:15 PM
Clearly Martin Brunts involvement in the death of Brenda Leyland was enough to see him removed from presenting any further news reports on Sky TV or anywhere else for that matter. He has also ceased making any further posts on social media sites so what has become of the globe trotting justice reporter?
I must admit I am not a regular Sky News watcher, possibly he has taken some leave until after the inquest.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on December 18, 2014, 11:24:55 AM
Next session on 20 March 2015 and Martin Brunt called as witness.
Surely by now the cause of death has been established and if not why ?
It's more than establishing the physical cause of death. The sequence of events started with Brunt's doorstepping Brenda Leyland and cause and effect has to be established. It seems that this will be a complex case.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on December 18, 2014, 11:37:50 AM
It's more than establishing the physical cause of death. The sequence of events started with Brunt's doorstepping Brenda Leyland and cause and effect has to be established. It seems that this will be a complex case.
Fair points Montclair.
Brunt, Sky and the dossier compilers are going to have some uncomfortable months ahead, no matter the bluster of the mccann supporters.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 18, 2014, 11:57:22 AM
It's more than establishing the physical cause of death. The sequence of events started with Brunt's doorstepping Brenda Leyland and cause and effect has to be established. It seems that this will be a complex case.
At least where Brunt is concerned, it absurdly simple. He could not reasonably have been expected to predict that asking her a few civil questions about Ms Leyland's deplorable harassment of the McCanns might contribute to her untimely death, and it probably didn't.
The coroner might wag a finger, but that'll be about it.
I'm sure Brunt will be feeling bad, but he shouldn't beat himself up too much.
No one else (with a rounded perspective) will ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on December 18, 2014, 11:59:32 AM
At least where Brunt is concerned, it absurdly simple. He could not reasonably have been expected to predict that asking her a few civil questions about Ms Leyland's deplorable harassment of the McCanns might contribute to her untimely death, and it probably didn't.
The coroner might wag a finger, but that'll be about it.
I'm sure Brunt will be feeling bad, but he shouldn't beat himself up too much.
No one else (with a rounded perspective) will ...
Sure, if Brunt has no conscience, he shouldn't feel too bad about causing a woman's death. God, some of you people have no heart at all. No, I correct myself, you only have feelings for neglectful parents.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on December 18, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
At least where Brunt is concerned, it absurdly simple. He could not reasonably have been expected to predict that asking her a few civil questions about Ms Leyland's deplorable harassment of the McCanns might contribute to her untimely death, and it probably didn't.
The coroner might wag a finger, but that'll be about it.
I'm sure Brunt will be feeling bad, but he shouldn't beat himself up too much.
No one else (with a rounded perspective) will ...
Actually, anyone with a conscience or with 'a rounded perspective' will see the clear connection.
Unfortunately, die hard mccann supporters only have feelings for them, AND NO ONE ELSE.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 18, 2014, 12:11:08 PM
Sure, if Brunt has no conscience, he shouldn't feel too bad about causing a woman's death. God, some of you people have no heart at all. No, I correct myself, you only have feelings for neglectful parents.
I think some people just have no sense of irony ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on December 18, 2014, 12:30:09 PM
Brenda Leyland inquest: Sky News reporter to give evidence about 'McCann Twitter troll' confronted a woman believed to have sent more than 4,000 abusive tweets about the parents of missing youngster Madeleine McCann is to give evidence at her inquest.
Martin Brunt, crime correspondent at Sky News, is to be called as a witness at the inquest into the death of Brenda Katheryn Gabrielle Leyland, of Burton Overy, who was found dead in a room at the Leicester Marriott Hotel in Enderby on October 4.
Mr Brunt questioned Ms Leyland, 63, at her home on Thursday October 2.
At a pre-inquest review at Leicester town hall today coroner Catherine Mason said that Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, would be called to give evidence.
She said: “I understand from my officers that of all of the witnesses to be called to give oral evidence there is nobody who will have any criminal action taken against them.” Mrs Mason heard that the police investigation into circumstances surrounding the death of Ms Leyland had been completed.
Ms Leyland, a mother-of-two, was named on national television on October 4 as an internet troll accused of targeting Kate and Gerry McCann with vile messages on Twitter. Her tweets included accusations the Rothley couple were involved in their daughter’s disappearance. Posting on Twitter under the pseudonym @Sweepyface, her messages included: “I ‘hate’ cruelty, liars, those who profit from another’s tragedy, ergo my ‘hate for Kate and Gerry’ is justified.” Another post read: “To Kate and Gerry, you will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!”
Mrs Mason had opened an inquest into Ms Leyland’s death on October 8. That hearing was told that the cause of her death had not yet been determined. It was not revealed at today’s hearing. Sergeant Kevin Taylor, of Braunstone police station, was the first officer on the scene and found Ms Leyland’s body.
Giving evidence at the first hearing, he said her body had been taken to Leicester Royal Infirmary on Sunday and formally identified by one of her sons Michael Leyland. Sgt Taylor confirmed a postmortem examination had taken place but no cause of death had been determined. Mrs Mason asked if foul play had been involved, to which Sgt Taylor replied: “There did not appear to be. No.” Sgt Taylor is to be called to give evidence at the full inquest.
The inquest will also hear from Ben Leyland, one of Ms Leyland’s sons. Mrs Mason said that Ms Leyland had been in touch with her son Ben, who lives in Los Angeles, prior to her death. The full inquest, which will not feature a jury, is to be held at Leicester town hall on March 20.Read more:
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Brenda-Leyland-inquest-Sky-News-reporter-director/story-25733829- (http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Brenda-Leyland-inquest-Sky-News-reporter-director/story-25733829-detail/story.html#ixzz3MFflH6ES) detail/story.html#ixzz3MFflH6ES (http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Brenda-Leyland-inquest-Sky-News-reporter-director/story-25733829-detail/story.html#ixzz3MFflH6ES) Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=avcTPGh6er4411acwqm_6r&u=Leicester_Merc) | leicestermercury on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=avcTPGh6er4411acwqm_6r&u=leicestermercury)[/
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 18, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Brenda Leyland inquest: Sky News reporter to give evidence about 'McCann Twitter troll' confronted a woman believed to have sent more than 4,000 abusive tweets about the parents of missing youngster Madeleine McCann is to give evidence at her inquest.
Martin Brunt, crime correspondent at Sky News, is to be called as a witness at the inquest into the death of Brenda Katheryn Gabrielle Leyland, of Burton Overy, who was found dead in a room at the Leicester Marriott Hotel in Enderby on October 4.
Mr Brunt questioned Ms Leyland, 63, at her home on Thursday October 2.
At a pre-inquest review at Leicester town hall today coroner Catherine Mason said that Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, would be called to give evidence.
She said: “I understand from my officers that of all of the witnesses to be called to give oral evidence there is nobody who will have any criminal action taken against them.”
Mrs Mason heard that the police investigation into circumstances surrounding the death of Ms Leyland had been completed.
Ms Leyland, a mother-of-two, was named on national television on October 4 as an internet troll accused of targeting Kate and Gerry McCann with vile messages on Twitter.
Her tweets included accusations the Rothley couple were involved in their daughter’s disappearance.
Posting on Twitter under the pseudonym @Sweepyface, her messages included: “I ‘hate’ cruelty, liars, those who profit from another’s tragedy, ergo my ‘hate for Kate and Gerry’ is justified.”
Thanks, DCI.
Key part underlined ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on December 18, 2014, 12:51:19 PM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
What we know is that the police have completed their inquiries; the people who last had anything to do with Brenda Leyland and whose evidence will be heard next year are, the medical staff who dealt with her remains, the police officers who dealt with the situation, the only member of her family from whom she was not estranged and the journalist with whom she spoke in her home.
It appears certain that no criminal action is foreseeable.
It would really be a very good idea for people to stop trying to apportion blame in a personal situation and personal circumstances they really know nothing about.
Martin Brunt to give evidence at Madeleine McCann 'Twitter troll' death inquest By Agency11:41AM GMT 18 Dec 2014
Two Sky News journalists will be called as witnesses at an inquest into the death of an alleged internet "troll" accused of abusing Madeleine McCann's parents.
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
Confirming details of a full inquest due to take place next year, Leicester coroner Catherine Mason said she would hear evidence from Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt and Head of Newsgathering Jonathan Levy. Two police officers, a toxicologist and a doctor are also due to give oral evidence at the one-day hearing on March 20.
Adjourning the pre-inquest, Mrs Mason said she would be presented with written statements from a pathologist and one of Mrs Leyland's sons at the next hearing.
Sky News was represented by counsel at the pre-inquest, which heard that officers from Leicestershire Police have completed their inquiries into the 63-year-old's death.
Mrs Mason told Leicester Coroner's Court: "I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is no nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."
Furthermore, the coroner stated that none of the witnesses are currently subject to criminal proceedings but that can change.
OOPS seems Sonia poulton was telling porkies.
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 01:06:00 PM
Mrs Leyland died on the day of her estranged son's birthday. Her estranged husband identified her body ... but apparently will not be called as a witness to the inquest which will be heard next year.
Her other son now resident in America had spoken with her prior to her death, she had spoken to Martin Brunt prior to her death. I suggest they will be called as witnesses to establish her state of mind during those conversations and for no other reason.
I am aware there has been a huge whipping up of rage against Martin Brunt, the compiler of the trolling abuse dossier and of course, Madeleine's parents ... so the chagrin being put on display by the news from the coroner's court is understandable but none the less reprehensible.
This is a real court dealing with real facts and it should be remembered ... real people.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on December 18, 2014, 01:13:10 PM
Mrs Leyland died on the day of her estranged son's birthday. He identified her body ... but apparently will not be called as a witness to the inquest which will be heard next year.
Her other son now resident in America had spoken with her prior to her death, she had spoken to Martin Brunt prior to her death. I suggest they will be called as witnesses to establish her state of mind during those conversations and for no other reason.
I am aware there has been a huge whipping up of rage against Martin Brunt, the compiler of the trolling abuse dossier and of course, Madeleine's parents ... so the chagrin being put on display by the news from the coroner's court is understandable but none the less reprehensible.
This is a real court dealing with real facts and it should be remembered ... real people.
and a real person died, who had not been charged by the police or even investigated.
However, the compilers who had dealings with the mccanns as regards the dossier, and Sly News including Brunt are responsible for their actions in this case.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 01:15:29 PM
Loads and loads of really good people from all walks of life working for all sorts of good causes get attacked by trolls.
I think you exhibit a complete misunderstanding of the warped nature of people who troll others; I think they are very disturbed individuals indeed.
However, if you wish to condone their vile actions, that is entirely up to you.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Kazcutt on December 18, 2014, 01:16:45 PM
I don't feel sympathetic towards her she wasn't nice it's one thing saying things on a forum but to send the mccanns absusive messages hiding under a internet name is stupid . She obviously was embarrassed to have had her face shown in tele . All she had to do was air her thoughts and reasons to Martin brunt . Her actions we're hers and hers alone . She didn't need to kill herself she would have been yesterday's news the day after .
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 18, 2014, 01:21:15 PM
The McCanns, specificly, they get 'trolled' because they are shifty.
That's why they get trolled.
The mccanns get trolled because they went on hiday and left there children asleep in bed while they went to dine . They get trolled because they are quite well off people with high up friends with people throwing money at them Don't think its because they are shifty
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on December 18, 2014, 01:24:25 PM
Mrs Leyland died on the day of her estranged son's birthday. He identified her body ... but apparently will not be called as a witness to the inquest which will be heard next year.
Her other son now resident in America had spoken with her prior to her death, she had spoken to Martin Brunt prior to her death. I suggest they will be called as witnesses to establish her state of mind during those conversations and for no other reason.
I am aware there has been a huge whipping up of rage against Martin Brunt, the compiler of the trolling abuse dossier and of course, Madeleine's parents ... so the chagrin being put on display by the news from the coroner's court is understandable but none the less reprehensible.
This is a real court dealing with real facts and it should be remembered ... real people.
Brietta her son didn't identify her body, Micheal Leyland did (her ex husband). Seems her son Dan isn't involved with the proceedings.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2014, 01:26:02 PM
Mrs Leyland died on the day of her estranged son's birthday. He identified her body ... but apparently will not be called as a witness to the inquest which will be heard next year.
Her other son now resident in America had spoken with her prior to her death, she had spoken to Martin Brunt prior to her death. I suggest they will be called as witnesses to establish her state of mind during those conversations and for no other reason.
I am aware there has been a huge whipping up of rage against Martin Brunt, the compiler of the trolling abuse dossier and of course, Madeleine's parents ... so the chagrin being put on display by the news from the coroner's court is understandable but none the less reprehensible.
This is a real court dealing with real facts and it should be remembered ... real people.
I think the most important point here is she committed suicide on her sons birthday...whyever would a mother do that
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on December 18, 2014, 01:28:21 PM
The mccanns get trolled because they went on hiday and left there children asleep in bed while they went to dine . They get trolled because they are quite well off people with high up friends with people throwing money at them Don't think its because they are shifty
Not quite.
They left their children in unlocked accommodation for several successive nights with infrequent checks.
On the precept that the apartment was a fire risk, yet they left the children by themselves.
It wasn't just dining, it was drinking as well.
Their financial status is irrelevant.
However, their capacity to blame others for their own stupidity is unparalleled.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
and a real person died, who had not been charged by the police or even investigated.
However, the compilers who had dealings with the mccanns as regards the dossier, and Sly News inclusding Brunt are responsible for their actions in this case.
I would suggest from the complexion of the witnesses who will be called to testify at the inquest into Brenda Leyland's death that the coroner has absolutely no interest whatsoever in the compiler of the troll dossier.
Please try to understand that the police have completed their investigation and there is no interest whatsoever in the Drs McCann. Your apparent obsession with them is not being justified, IMO Martin Brunt will be asked questions to help the coroner make an assessment of the state of mind Brenda Leyland was in when she spoke with him, as she had arranged to do.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 01:33:55 PM
The McCanns, specificly, they get 'trolled' because they are shifty.
That's why they get trolled.
Don't you realise internet trolls feel justified in abusing anyone they feel like trolling just because they can and they've been getting off with it for so long they think that is going to continue.
They are really just very sick, pathetic and cowardly individuals ... who get their kicks from abusing every and anyone who shows any individuality whatsoever under any circumstance.
They are really inadequate individuals whose lives seem to consist of dissing whoever comes within their sights, really pathetic. If you want to 'understand' or make excuses for them ... be my guest.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Kazcutt on December 18, 2014, 01:52:33 PM
They left their children in unlocked accommodation for several successive nights with infrequent checks.
On the precept that the apartment was a fire risk, yet they left the children by themselves.
It wasn't just dining, it was drinking as well.
Their financial status is irrelevant.
However, their capacity to blame others for their own stupidity is unparalleled.
Most dining involves a drink at resturants I said they left the children yes in an unlocked apartment Their financial status was brought up by people from day one so it is relevant to be trolled They gave said they shouldn't have done it and blame who ever took her
What amazes me is the so called anti mccanns who said kate killed her and gerry his her have never thought to question that the door was in fact locked . The mccanns saying its open just keeps the abduction theory (if it is ) in the full front . I personally don't think the children were checked every half an hour at all
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 01:57:43 PM
What you fail, yet again to realize, is that as the nature of madeleine's disappearance is STILL UNKNOWN, beliefs of course don't count, options are still open.
The coroner will be making a ruling on Brenda Leyland's death.
I doubt very much if the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Portugal will feature in her deliberations.
Like most intelligent people, she will be dealing with the here and now and what is happening in the here and now and will make her ruling based on the evidence presented to her which is limited to the here and now, not the obsessions of others.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on December 18, 2014, 02:05:58 PM
The coroner will be making a ruling on Brenda Leyland's death.
I doubt very much if the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Portugal will feature in her deliberations.
Like most intelligent people, she will be dealing with the here and now and what is happening in the here and now and will make her ruling based on the evidence presented to her which is limited to the here and now, not the obsessions of others.
Most intelligent people are also familiar with the concept of 'cause and effect'.
Unless, of course they have an ulterior motive in trying to divert attention.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on December 18, 2014, 02:21:34 PM
Most intelligent people are also familiar with the concept of 'cause and effect'.
Unless, of course they have an ulterior motive in trying to divert attention.
Brenda Leyland is dead.
Next year after the coroner's verdict is in the public domain we will be told the circumstances of her demise.
It seems there was a lot more going on in her life than her apparent obsession with twitter and the internet so trying to implicate others in 'cause and effect' is a futile and rather sad endeavour.
Maybe it is time a little respect was shown and Brenda Leyland allowed to rest in peace and not used to further agendas which now have nothing at all to do with her or her family.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on December 18, 2014, 02:24:38 PM
This latest news must come as a bitter blow to those who were looking forward to seeing Brunt and the Dossier compilers charged with murder or whatever it was they thought they should be charged with.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 18, 2014, 02:34:05 PM
So The Leicester Mercury reported: She said: “I understand from my officers that of all of the witnesses to be called to give oral evidence there is nobody who will have any criminal action taken against them.” The Telegraph reported:Mrs Mason told Leicester Coroner's Court: "I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is no nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."
Two posters have highlighted: "no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland". OK lets play spot the difference. Not, you understand, that I am saying anything other than there is enough of a variance to present a quite different picture.
It is interesting that Sky News should choose to be represented by counsel in a coroners court
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 18, 2014, 02:40:06 PM
I think the most important point here is she committed suicide on her sons birthday...whyever would a mother do that
If one is in the frame of mind that one wishes to top ones-self I guess one day is as good as another. I wouldn't read into it anything other than she chose to take her own life.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 18, 2014, 02:43:30 PM
What Martin Brunt did was cowardly but then he has a history of taking on soft targets like the poor old pensioner on the Costs del Sol. When will he grow a pair and go after some real criminals?
A little piece of advice for anyone he might attempt to embarrass in the future, just ask him about his own conduct in the Maddie case when he declared that the DNA results placed her in the hire car. Feckin hypocrite!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3HQ74Rfdbk&sns=tw via
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 18, 2014, 02:46:50 PM
Isn't strange that the very same people now excoriating Martin Brunt hailed him as some sort of hero when he was reporting, way back, 100% DNA match to Madeleine from the Renault Scenic ....
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 18, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
Isn't strange that the very same people now excoriating Martin Brunt hailed him as some sort of hero when he was reporting, way back, 100% DNA match to Madeleine from the Renault Scenic ....
With those who excoriated him back in 2007 now cheering him? Funny old world.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 18, 2014, 02:57:52 PM
Don't you realise internet trolls feel justified in abusing anyone they feel like trolling just because they can and they've been getting off with it for so long they think that is going to continue.
They are really just very sick, pathetic and cowardly individuals ... who get their kicks from abusing every and anyone who shows any individuality whatsoever under any circumstance.
They are really inadequate individuals whose lives seem to consist of dissing whoever comes within their sights, really pathetic. If you want to 'understand' or make excuses for them ... be my guest.
You are confusing my point here, unsurprisingly.
My point was in relation to why the McCanns, specificly, get 'trolled'.
Why Ms Leyland 'trolled' the McCanns & not Kerry Needham, for example.
The reason is, it's because she, like many others, believed the McCanns come across as a couple united in covering up a tragedy, or as I prefer to put it, a pair of massive liars.
That's why she dunnit...to them, that was my point.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2014, 04:56:53 PM
If one is in the frame of mind that one wishes to top ones-self I guess one day is as good as another. I wouldn't read into it anything other than she chose to take her own life.
I would..it's odd...do you have children...birthdays are precious and his will only now be remembered for his mothers death
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 18, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
My point was in relation to why the McCanns, specificly, get 'trolled'.
Why Ms Leyland 'trolled' the McCanns & not Kerry Needham, for example.
The reason is, it's because she, like many others, believed the McCanns come across as a couple united in covering up a tragedy, or as I prefer to put it, a pair of massive liars.
That's why she dunnit...to them, that was my point.
Know what ... maybe you actually have hit on something there.
You think that Brenda Leyland may have trolled them because "she, like many others, believed the McCanns come across as a couple united ..."
Madeleine McCann's parents have risen above the greatest difficulties it is possible to imagine; together they have combated a situation the stresses of which leave many marriages or relationships in pieces.
The trolls don't see the underlying pain of this strong, united couple, they see only the public personae. Their energy and drive in combination with their obvious 'togetherness' must hold up a mirror to their lives which are seriously lacking or flawed in some way.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on December 18, 2014, 06:31:33 PM
Know what ... maybe you actually have hit on something there.
You think that Brenda Leyland may have trolled them because "she, like many others, believed the McCanns come across as a couple united ..."
Madeleine McCann's parents have risen above the greatest difficulties it is possible to imagine; together they have combated a situation the stresses of which leave many marriages or relationships in pieces.
The trolls don't see the underlying pain of this strong, united couple, they see only the public personae. Their energy and drive in combination with their obvious 'togetherness' must hold up a mirror to their lives which are seriously lacking or flawed in some way.
No, no, you seem to have misunderstood, I'm saying..she trolled them because she believed they are up to their bleedin necks, innit.
That's why she trolled them, not for the reasons you've given.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: slartibartfast on December 23, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
I would..it's odd...do you have children...birthdays are precious and his will only now be remembered for his mothers death
A friend of mine committed suicide on my birthday. And I have never been in any doubt that he was sending me a message because he believed that I had let him down. I hadn't, but that is by the by. The memory is always there. But to do this to a son is the most unkind cut of all. And I would rather not think of how that poor boy will deal with this, for the rest of his life.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on December 24, 2014, 02:14:35 AM
I feel very sorry for her family and friends who no doubt are now being harassed by some sceptics who want them to pursue this matter and so are bombarding them with their hate filled AntiMcCann bile. IMO that is the last thing her family would want to do and I truly believe that none of them will want to do anything other than be left alone to grieve in the normal way - and in private.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on December 24, 2014, 02:36:54 AM
I feel very sorry for her family and friends who no doubt are now being harassed by some sceptics who want them to pursue this matter and so are bombarding them with their hate filled AntiMcCann bile. IMO that is the last thing her family would want to do and I truly believe that none of them will want to do anything other than be left alone to grieve in the normal way - and in private.
I also feel very sad for Brenda's family and friends, who are left with the confusing. circumstances of her death, which will take a long time for them to accept and understand.
I feel that unkind comments directed at her now, will cause even more grief to the family, who have done nothing to deserve it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 08:14:47 AM
I also feel very sad for Brenda's family and friends, who are left with the confusing. circumstances of her death, which will take a long time for them to accept and understand.
I feel that unkind comments directed at her now, will cause even more grief to the family, who have done nothing to deserve it.
Brenda was central to a campaign of unkind comments directed at the McCanns causing grief to them and their family....sometimes the truth is unpleasant but it is still the truth. On a forum where unkind comments towards the McCanns is considered normal.....Brenda's words were "I am entitled to"....I don't see any problem with comments re Brenda
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 08:17:07 AM
Brenda was central to a campaign of unkind comments directed at the McCanns causing grief to them and their family....sometimes the truth is unpleasant but it is still the truth. On a forum where unkind comments towards the McCanns is considered normal.....Brenda's words were "I am entitled to"....I don't see any problem with comments re Brenda
Brenda can no longer be hurt by words. Davel and although I understand what you are saying, at the end of the day, it is her family, who are being punished. Apart from all the above, this is the season of goodwill and the family are still in mourning.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on December 24, 2014, 08:25:16 AM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on December 24, 2014, 08:36:35 AM
I know how the McCann family have been hurt and I feel very sad that the twins are suffering as well, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I would just be so pleased, if hurtful comments were left out of posts, at least until after Christmas. I don't expect it to happen though...................Just hopeful thinking on my part.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 08:40:16 AM
What happened to free speech...were you one of the posters who have tried to blame the McCcanns for Brenda's death...it was Brenda's decision to harass the McCanns...seem's like the family were not particularly close...
here we are a post from Stephen....
If Madeleine hadn't disappeared, would she still be alive dave ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on December 24, 2014, 08:53:05 AM
What happened to free speech...were you one of the posters who have tried to blame the McCcanns for Brenda's death...it was Brenda's decision to harass the McCanns...seem's like the family were not particularly close
I agree Davel, but I do feel sorry for her family - especially her estranged son. If BL deliberately took her own life on his birthday - then IMO that was an incredibly cruel thing for any mother to do to their own son - and one which will probably affect him for the rest of his life.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
I agree Davel, but I do feel sorry for her family - especially her estranged son. If BL deliberately took her own life on his birthday - then IMO that was an incredibly cruel thing for any mother to do to their own son - and one which will probably affect him for the rest of his life.
An extremely cruel thing to do...now why would she do that?...many posters on here have speculated that kate and Gerry were involved in Maddies death...would it therefore be unfair to speculate similarly about Brenda's family
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on December 24, 2014, 10:24:23 AM
Why? I can't believe you really need it spelling out to you. On the one hand we have a woman who, having had her child snatched from her and then finding herself wrongly accused of her child's disappearance, describes how she felt at the time and her understandable frustration at her accusers in her book of the account, and on the other we have a woman who used twitter to make thousands of posts of contempt, disgust and mockery about a couple who she didn't know and who had absolutely no bearing on her life whatsoever. She also accused another twitter user of being a prostitute and made fun of her weight and appearance and why? Because she (mistakenly) believed the woman was one of the witnesseses who made a supportive statement for the McCanns in PdL. She also revelled in the prospect of this woman losing her job. So you think the two women's behaviour is equally vile do you? Well I disagree 100%.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on December 24, 2014, 12:08:03 PM
I feel very sorry for her family and friends who no doubt are now being harassed by some sceptics who want them to pursue this matter and so are bombarding them with their hate filled AntiMcCann bile. IMO that is the last thing her family would want to do and I truly believe that none of them will want to do anything other than be left alone to grieve in the normal way - and in private.
Do you have any evidence anyone is or has harassed her family and/or friends?
I know some are crazy enough to do so but that's not the same as them actually doing it.
Any evidence of it?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 24, 2014, 03:15:06 PM
Brenda Leyland was found dead after she featured in Sky News report about abuse of Madeleine McCann’s parents Brenda Leyland Brenda Leyland was reported to have posted thousands of messages attacking the McCanns. Photograph: Screengrab from Sky News Press Association Thursday 18 December 2014 11.53 GMT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Shares 114 Two Sky News journalists will be called as witnesses at an inquest into the death of an alleged internet troll accused of abusing Madeleine McCann’s parents.
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
Confirming details of a full inquest due to take place next year, Leicester coroner Catherine Mason said she would hear evidence from Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt and its head of newsgathering, Jonathan Levy.
Two police officers, a toxicologist and a doctor are also due to give oral evidence at the one-day hearing on 20 March.
Adjourning the pre-inquest, Mason said she would be presented with written statements from a pathologist and one of Leyland’s sons at the next hearing.
Sky News was represented by counsel at the pre-inquest, which heard that officers from Leicestershire police have completed their inquiries into the 63-year-old’s death.
Mason told Leicester coroner’s court: “I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is no nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken.”
The body of Leyland was discovered at the Marriott Hotel in Enderby, Leicester, in October, two days after a Sky News report exposing internet “trolling” of Kate and Gerry McCann.
Leyland, from Burton Overy, Leicestershire, is reported to have posted thousands of messages on Twitter attacking the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine disappeared in Portugal in 2007.
And remember, sky's lawyers were at the first inquest hearing.
If they have nothing to worry about, why were they there ?
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in A a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on December 24, 2014, 04:51:12 PM
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in A a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
So why were sky news lawyers there ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: jassi on December 24, 2014, 05:30:45 PM
A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in A a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.
That isn't what the coroner said. Bump my post 14:34hrs 18the Dec 2014.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 06:48:19 PM
That isn't what the coroner said. Bump my post 14:34hrs 18the Dec 2014.
So The Leicester Mercury reported: She said: “I understand from my officers that of all of the witnesses to be called to give oral evidence there is nobody who will have any criminal action taken against them.” The Telegraph reported:Mrs Mason told Leicester Coroner's Court: "I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is no nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."
Two posters have highlighted: "no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland". OK lets play spot the difference. Not, you understand, that I am saying anything other than there is enough of a variance to present a quite different picture.
It is interesting that Sky News should choose to be represented by counsel in a coroners court
The commission of any crime requires both of two elements: guilty conduct and guilty intent.
The absence of either element means no crime has been committed.
For Brunt to face criminal charges it would have to be shown that Brunt asked the questions he did with intent to an end result of the termination of Brenda Leyland's life.
Mission impossible, I would say ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 24, 2014, 06:59:47 PM
Not only that but that the police investigation had been concluded.
These "sceptics" believe what they want to believe, fantasists.
As Sam Goldwyn might have said "include me out". I said: Not, you understand, that I am saying anything other than there is enough of a variance to present a quite different picture.
My argument was purely with the failure of some posters to read, comprehend and be able to impart information accurately in their own mother tongue.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on December 24, 2014, 07:47:45 PM
As Sam Goldwyn might have said "include me out". I said: Not, you understand, that I am saying anything other than there is enough of a variance to present a quite different picture.
My argument was purely with the failure of some posters to read, comprehend and be able to impart information accurately in their own mother tongue.
rubbish. The only variance came from "video documentary maker" Sonia Poulton. Hmm.... &%+((£
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 24, 2014, 07:48:58 PM
the coroner said no one would be facing criminal charges...stop trying to pretend she said anything different
God you are in a tizz. The coroner said no one she was calling as witness would be facing criminal charges. Which is not the same as no one. And before you go off on one read my original post properly and try to understands what I did say difficult as it may be for you.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 07:49:33 PM
As Sam Goldwyn might have said "include me out". I said: Not, you understand, that I am saying anything other than there is enough of a variance to present a quite different picture.
My argument was purely with the failure of some posters to read, comprehend and be able to impart information accurately in their own mother tongue.
what you are saying is that you can put your own spin on it to try to pretend it means something else..
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 24, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
the coroner also said... The police have completed their enquiries and all witness statements have been received.....
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on December 25, 2014, 09:15:23 AM
God you are in a tizz. The coroner said no one she was calling as witness would be facing criminal charges. Which is not the same as no one. And before you go off on one read my original post properly and try to understands what I did say difficult as it may be for you.
I know three people who attended the hearing and they all said that the coroner ended her sentence with the phrase, more or less, " but that can change on the day". If the MSM decided to lie by omission and keep that bit of information out, that is their problem and they obviously have an agenda.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on December 26, 2014, 05:34:52 PM
I know three people who attended the hearing and they all said that the coroner ended her sentence with the phrase, more or less, " but that can change on the day". If the MSM decided to lie by omission and keep that bit of information out, that is their problem and they obviously have an agenda.
Lies are being told, right enough ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on January 07, 2015, 11:13:31 AM
What I don't understand is if the rumours are true and this tweeter is behind the dossier why she is not willing to be named ? Is she not proud of her work protecting the McCanns 'and the twins' from the threatening disbelieving hordes ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 07, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
What I don't understand is if the rumours are true and this tweeter is behind the dossier why she is not willing to be named ? Is she not proud of her work protecting the McCanns 'and the twins' from the threatening disbelieving hordes ?
You know why Faith, because not everyone on our 'side' is as rational as we are.
People (not us) are behaving incredibly stupidly over this 'dossier'.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 07, 2015, 11:41:19 AM
What I don't understand is if the rumours are true and this tweeter is behind the dossier why she is not willing to be named ? Is she not proud of her work protecting the McCanns 'and the twins' from the threatening disbelieving hordes ?
Maybe the same reason why you're not willing to be named?
Maybe she or he doesn't relish the prospect of being slagged off mercilessly on the internet, having their children and family targeted, contacted, smeared, his or her place of work contacted by "sceptics" in an attempt to get him or her the sack, or (very most awful prospect of all) having Miss Pointy Poulton turning up on his or her doorstep and jabbing her pointy nails in his or her face?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2015, 10:09:58 PM
Maybe the same reason why you're not willing to be named?
Maybe she or he doesn't relish the prospect of being slagged off mercilessly on the internet, having their children and family targeted, contacted, smeared, his or her place of work contacted by "sceptics" in an attempt to get him or her the sack, or (very most awful prospect of all) having Miss Pointy Poulton turning up on his or her doorstep and jabbing her pointy nails in his or her face?
Or be driven to suicide even? Yes that would be terrible even much, much worse that Brenda I am sure all abductee enthusiasts would concur.
Well there you have it, it is ok for Brenda to suffer but not the snidey,two faced coward who ran to the MEDIA. Karma dear Friends KARMA.
Compassion is amiss with all that is associated with Team Mcs imo.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 07, 2015, 10:21:43 PM
Brenda who tweeted that she hoped the McCanns suffer forever and who abused them and their supporters verbally over thousands of tweets = "sceptic" heroine and soldier of justice
Person who drew the police & media's attention to the appalling behaviour on the McCann twitter hashtag, most of it tweeted by people hiding behind anonymous IDs = "snidey, two-faced coward".
Such is the topsy-turvy world of the McCann "sceptic"
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2015, 10:46:24 PM
Brenda who tweeted that she hoped the McCanns suffer forever and who abused them and their supporters verbally over thousands of tweets = "sceptic" heroine and soldier of justice
Person who drew the police & media's attention to the appalling behaviour on the McCann twitter hashtag, most of it tweeted by people hiding behind anonymous IDs = "snidey, two-faced coward".
Such is the topsy-turvy world of the McCann "sceptic"
Oh you are claiming the Moral high ground I see..
Brenda never killed anyone- she did not deserve to be singled out. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Kate has a nasty streak we have witnessed it, you hold a torch to her, good for you. Watch you don't burn your fingers now!
Your claim 'sceptics' are all evil people who bash the McCanns. People who question, challenge, have every right to do so- what gave you the right to call non fiction readers of abduction 'sceptics'.
ps not every one hates the McCanns- they just feel disgusted at their behavior and their excuses!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 07, 2015, 10:49:35 PM
Brenda never killed anyone- she did not deserve to be singled out. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Kate has a nasty streak we have witnessed it, you hold a torch to her, good for you. Watch you don't burn your fingers now!
Your claim 'sceptics' are all evil people who bash the McCanns. People who question, challenge, have every right to do so- what gave you the right to call non fiction readers of abduction 'sceptics'.
ps not every one hates the McCanns- they just feel disgusted at their behavior and their excuses!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 07, 2015, 11:02:20 PM
It would really make a change if just for once a "sceptic" could respond to one of my posts without resorting to the very boring and predictable strawman arguments we see on here day in, day out.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2015, 11:07:49 PM
It would really make a change if just for once a "sceptic" could respond to one of my posts without resorting to the very boring and predictable strawman arguments we see on here day in, day out.
Where would be the fun in that?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 07, 2015, 11:10:37 PM
It would really make a change if just for once a "sceptic" could respond to one of my posts without resorting to the very boring and predictable strawman arguments we see on here day in, day out.
Well check you out little precious. Are you not enjoying your gloating at Brenda-isn't it fun anymore? is it not boring you yet....
and here we are laughing at you all the while.
Brenda was brutally treated. you think she deserved it. I disagree.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on January 07, 2015, 11:21:47 PM
I believe it was serialised in the Notw so including a bit of sex and violence was probably written into the contract.
Indeed people at work were talking about it saying it was disgusting. but money, money, money.. sex sells and Kate wanted to sell her daughter's story...
You can understand Brenda's frustration at being bombarded with bull like that day in day out!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 08, 2015, 08:21:20 AM
Indeed people at work were talking about it saying it was disgusting. but money, money, money.. sex sells and Kate wanted to sell her daughter's story...
You can understand Brenda's frustration at being bombarded with bull like that day in day out!
You haven't posted for some time...have you been unwell?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on January 08, 2015, 09:33:46 AM
Indeed people at work were talking about it saying it was disgusting. but money, money, money.. sex sells and Kate wanted to sell her daughter's story...
You can understand Brenda's frustration at being bombarded with bull like that day in day out!
Frustration? Well, I suppose that's one way of describing Internet Abuse.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on January 08, 2015, 09:48:21 AM
money, money, money..
How much money did Brenda Leyland make from her abuse, then?
I mean, we have a rough idea how much Amaral made from his ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on January 08, 2015, 10:21:28 AM
How much money did Brenda Leyland make from her abuse, then?
I mean, we have a rough idea how much Amaral made from his ...
What a ridiculous comment! How low can you get. Brenda making money from tweeting!!!
We do know that the McCanns made loads of tosh from their daughter's disappearance. They paid some of their mortgage and now they stay in 5 star hotels as if they were entitled to it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on January 08, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
What a ridiculous comment! How low can you get. Brenda making money from tweeting!!!
snippped
Is it so ridiculous? Wasn't it some of her 'friends' who immediately dumped her after her 'interview' who were quite willing to believe that she was a paid 'plant' and/or a paid actress? It was sceptics not supporters who were making those allegations against her.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on January 08, 2015, 11:51:28 AM
Is it so ridiculous? Wasn't it some of her 'friends' who immediately dumped her after her 'interview' who were quite willing to believe that she was a paid 'plant' and/or a paid actress? It was sceptics not supporters who were making those allegations against her.
Then the sceptics comments were ridiculous too.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on January 08, 2015, 12:11:28 PM
What a ridiculous comment! How low can you get. Brenda making money from tweeting!!!
We do know that the McCanns made loads of tosh from their daughter's disappearance. They paid some of their mortgage and now they stay in 5 star hotels as if they were entitled to it.
Who would you expect to stay in 5* hotels if you disallow such as Heart Consultants?
What silly jealous talk.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 11:57:07 AM
so it looks from twitter that the anti McCann trolls are trying to silence Martin Brunt from reporting from Paris by trolling his twitter page...now that is hypocrisy
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on January 11, 2015, 12:01:36 PM
so it looks from twitter that the anti McCann trolls are trying to silence Martin Brunt from reporting from Paris by trolling his twitter page...now that is hypocrisy
#paristerror The route of the march. Voltaire: "I may disagree w what u say but I defend your right to say it." pic.twitter.com/XbeMHyYx51
Doesn't he include Brenda Leyland in that defense ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2015, 12:02:25 PM
Aw come on Faith play fair....Abu Hamzar and crew didn't state he didn't believe the McCanns story... and what Brenda did was far,far worse than what happened in Paris,You can tell by the posts in here, OR maybe he wanted to door step ISIS but didn't have the address!
Try thinking out of the box!...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 11, 2015, 12:16:11 PM
Aw come on Faith play fair....Abu Hamzar and crew didn't state he didn't believe the McCanns story... and what Brenda did was far,far worse than what happened in Paris,You can tell by the posts in here, OR maybe he wanted to door step ISIS but didn't have the address!
Try thinking out of the box!...
Door stepping ISIS would be a bit iffy them having AK47s and all that. They might have ventilated him, as J.T. Edson, Louis L'Amour and Raymond Chandler might have written. Going off topic a bit but there was a prile of really successful authors.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2015, 12:34:10 PM
Door stepping ISIS would be a bit iffy them having AK47s and all that. They might have ventilated him, as J.T. Edson, Louis L'Amour and Raymond Chandler might have written. Going off topic a bit but there was a prile of really successful authors.
Indeed! So what you're saying is...if Only Brenda was armed and really nasty and evil she could have killed Martin? and all the other people who believed in the 'abduction'. Oh My! What a lucky escape eh!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 01:07:13 PM
#paristerror The route of the march. Voltaire: "I may disagree w what u say but I defend your right to say it." pic.twitter.com/XbeMHyYx51
Doesn't he include Brenda Leyland in that defense ?
If you had any common sense you would realise he gave Brenda Leyland a platform to express her views on national TV...That's what I call defending free speech
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 11, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
If you had any common sense you would realise he gave Brenda Leyland a platform to express her views on national TV...That's what I call defending free speech
Oh well on that note, perhaps he can give ISIS the same platform- I am sure they have a lot to say about a lot of things.
But as Alice pointed out they may kill him. But at least the gesture would be good.
Dear ISIS, Sky news would like to interview you. love and kisses Martin.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 01:17:24 PM
I don't wonder anything about you Davel. not a thing! stick to what you do best... [moderated ]
For others yes you know it was tongue in cheek humour don't you!
For the record...is Davel the same Davel who complained about Brenda relentlessly harassing the McCanns by trolling...if so
Pot calling kettle black?
As I posted..on topic...Martin Brunt gave Brenda a platform to express her views on national television...that is supporting free speech...why did Brenda not take it?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 11, 2015, 01:45:37 PM
What is ironic about that? If you truly believed in everyone's right to say and ask what they liked to whom they liked then why should Martin Brunt not have doorstepped Brenda, in your view, eh?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on January 11, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
What is ironic about that? If you truly believed in everyone's right to say and ask what they liked to whom they liked then why should Martin Brunt not have doorstepped Brenda, in your view, eh?
If you can't see the irony in brunt's use of Voltaire, then you are even more deluded than I thought.
and if you support brunt, then you must support the exposure of mccann supporters as well.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 01:50:46 PM
Voltaire..au contraire...Brunt gave Brenda a platform to express her views.......
Yes - he gave her the opportunity to explain herself on national tv. You don't get a better opportunity to express freedom of speech to as wide an audience as possible than when a Sky microphone is thrust under your nose. Brenda baulked.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on January 11, 2015, 01:58:55 PM
Yes - he gave her the opportunity to explain herself on national tv. You don't get a better opportunity to express freedom of speech to as wide an audience as possible than when a Sky microphone is thrust under your nose. Brenda baulked.
In that case let's see the mccann supporters behind the dossier, and others, given 'AIR TIME'.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 01:59:11 PM
Yes - he gave her the opportunity to explain herself on national tv. You don't get a better opportunity to express freedom of speech to as wide an audience as possible than when a Sky microphone is thrust under your nose. Brenda baulked.
I have a few opinions of my own which I would give my eye teeth to express in the full glare of publicity to the media ... the thought of the opportunity of an interview on Sky News with Martin Brunt or anyone else for that matter is the stuff of dreams. They wouldn't have had a problem getting me to talk ... only in getting me to shut up.
Do you suppose Brenda Leyland's apparent reticence to speak on camera when given the opportunity to do so was because, as an intelligent woman, she was aware that her activities on social media were beyond the pale?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on January 11, 2015, 02:11:42 PM
I support exposure...no anonymous posting on the net...everyone takes personal responsibility for their views
I agree with that 100%.
I think people like Brenda Leyland would be more thoughtful about their on line ramblings if there was any possibility their neighbours and friends could see what they are really thinking.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on January 11, 2015, 02:12:54 PM
Yes - he gave her the opportunity to explain herself on national tv. You don't get a better opportunity to express freedom of speech to as wide an audience as possible than when a Sky microphone is thrust under your nose. Brenda baulked.
Brunt did Voltaire proud
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 11, 2015, 02:21:12 PM
I think people like Brenda Leyland would be more thoughtful about their on line ramblings if there was any possibility their neighbours and friends could see what they are really thinking.
Borrowing from Ian Paisley: Never! Never! Never! Never! &%&£(+
You'd deliver us into totalitarianism with that policy.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 11, 2015, 02:23:56 PM
I have a few opinions of my own which I would give my eye teeth to express in the full glare of publicity to the media ... the thought of the opportunity of an interview on Sky News with Martin Brunt or anyone else for that matter is the stuff of dreams. They wouldn't have had a problem getting me to talk ... only in getting me to shut up.
Do you suppose Brenda Leyland's apparent reticence to speak on camera when given the opportunity to do so was because, as an intelligent woman, she was aware that her activities on social media were beyond the pale?
Well if you recall and were paying attention at the time there were two video clips floating about one with Brenda mit die Leggings und ein anderer ohne die Leggings [or with and without leggings if you prefer]. That suggests two separate occasions and an element of editing. On that basis it will be a wise man/woman who really knows the extent of what occurred.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 11, 2015, 02:30:50 PM
What I find hypocritical is anonymous internet users claiming "Je Suis Charlie". Please don't latch on to the bravery and outspokenness of dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journos to make you feel good about yourself from behind your own safe and cosy cloak of anonymity. And what is even more heinous and vomit-inducing are those doing so as some sort of point-scoring exercise in the online war of words over Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 02:32:08 PM
What I find hypocritical is anonymous internet users claiming "Je Suis Charlie". Please don't latch on to the bravery and outspokenness of dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journos to make you feel good about yourself from behind your own safe and cosy cloak of anonymity. And what is even more heinous and vomit-inducing are those doing so as some sort of point-scoring exercise in the online war of words over Madeleine McCann.
well said
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on January 11, 2015, 02:32:22 PM
What I find hypocritical is anonymous internet users claiming "Je Suis Charlie". Please don't latch on to the bravery and outspokenness of dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journos to make you feel good about yourself from behind your own safe and cosy cloak of anonymity. And what is even more heinous and vomit-inducing are those doing so as some sort of point-scoring exercise in the online war of words over Madeleine McCann.
and that is precisely what you are doing.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 02:37:22 PM
Charlie...elle n'est pas ...would be more appropriate
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 11, 2015, 02:42:08 PM
What I find hypocritical is anonymous internet users claiming "Je Suis Charlie". Please don't latch on to the bravery and outspokenness of dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journos to make you feel good about yourself from behind your own safe and cosy cloak of anonymity. And what is even more heinous and vomit-inducing are those doing so as some sort of point-scoring exercise in the online war of words over Madeleine McCann.
Shouldn't that be Je m'appelle Charlie? P'raps the senior mod will advise ? ?{)(** You clearly have a low nause threshold Alf. Or perhaps your nause threshold is selective ? If they do or don't is San fairy Ann to most I feel.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 11, 2015, 02:50:07 PM
What I find hypocritical is anonymous internet users claiming "Je Suis Charlie". Please don't latch on to the bravery and outspokenness of dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journos to make you feel good about yourself from behind your own safe and cosy cloak of anonymity. And what is even more heinous and vomit-inducing are those doing so as some sort of point-scoring exercise in the online war of words over Madeleine McCann.
Actually pretty nearly everyone crying "Je Suis Charlie", anonymously or not, is being hypocritical. Freedom is the freedom to say that, but the mob attacks those who don't share the majority's current emotional obsessions. Pretty much as davel attacked Sonia Poulton for her views on the Paris events (and me too, in a less hysterical way), and others on forums attacked her too. So you see nearly everyone is hypocritical in their own way.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2015, 02:52:45 PM
Shouldn't that be Je m'appelle Charlie? P'raps the senior mod will advise ? ?{)(** You clearly have a low nause threshold Alf. Or perhaps your nause threshold is selective ? If they do or don't is San fairy Ann to most I feel.
Je Suis Charlie means To Follow. Ca ne fait rien.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 11, 2015, 02:54:52 PM
It's actually surprising that events in Paris are being used in an argument against anonymity, since the creation of the French Republic depended on anonymous campaigning. As did the American, and every other progressive movement.
Removal of anonymity is the best tool any tyrant could ever wish for.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on January 11, 2015, 03:00:57 PM
I think you've exhausted that topic, since nobody feels inclined to be unanonymous right now.
As you know the McCanns could have discovered identities years ago and taken action against ringleaders, but for whatever reason they haven't. There are already remedies available without wishing for drastic action that has repercussions far beyond mere discussion of one subject.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on January 11, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
I think you've exhausted that topic, since nobody feels inclined to be unanonymous right now.
As you know the McCanns could have discovered identities years ago and taken action against ringleaders, but for whatever reason they haven't. There are already remedies available without wishing for drastic action that has repercussions far beyond mere discussion of one subject.
Better things to do, I expect. Why should The McCanns worry about a bunch of Internet Loonies?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: jassi on January 11, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
Why indeed when they have another set of loonies ready and willing to fight their corner for them
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 11, 2015, 03:42:35 PM
if you read my post again you will see that I believe no one should post anonymously...and that if they do and they are exposed...bad luck...I would say Brenda deserved to be outed and so do you and others on here...IMO
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 11, 2015, 07:08:52 PM
if you read my post again you will see that I believe no one should post anonymously...and that if they do and they are exposed...bad luck...I would say Brenda deserved to be outed and so do you and others on here...IMO
Don't be in such a rush to toss away your freedom because once gone it may never be coming back %£&)**#
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 11, 2015, 07:27:19 PM
Back on topic please, without the disruptive posts. Thank you
Off topic posts have been removed.
In the virtual world, threats made by one anonymous user against another anonymous user have little real significance. Huggy Bear threatening Rubix Cube to a showdown at sunset is more amusing than sinister. In reality such behaviour only really attracts some form of censure such as a temporary suspension or even a ban for the poster concerned.
Admin issued a warning to posters yesterday afternoon after continued sniping and goading by a couple of members. This apparently was not heeded and resulted in further disruption of this thread which had to be dealt with by the moderators.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: sadie on January 12, 2015, 04:01:04 PM
In the virtual world, threats made by one anonymous user against another anonymous user have little real significance. Huggy Bear threatening Rubix Cube to a showdown at sunset is more amusing than sinister. In reality such behaviour only really attracts some form of censure such as a temporary suspension or even a ban for the poster concerned.
Admin issued a warning to posters yesterday afternoon after continued sniping and goading by a couple of members. This apparently was not heeded and resulted in further disruption of this thread which had to be dealt with by the moderators.
Sense prevails. Thankyou John
......
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: pinkblossoms on January 19, 2015, 12:53:54 AM
was there any report from the coroner on how Brenda Leyland.s death occurred
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on January 19, 2015, 12:56:52 AM
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent Published 17 February 2015
A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.
Martin Brunt, Sky’s crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October.
Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt’s exposé of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.
Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousands of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the “worst of humankind”.
Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since.
Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering and operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.
Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago.
Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: “I don’t think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It’s a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers.
“As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists.”
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was “always worrying” when a journalist was asked to reveal their source as they should “obviously” remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities in recent years to know journalistic sources, which had previously been “sacrosanct”.
He added: “Its almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that’s a highly dangerous position.”
The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge’s agreement before they can snoop on journalists. It took action after it emerged that phone or email data was accessed to uncover confidential sources on 600 occasions.
Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.
Sky News and Leicestershire police declined to comment.
[ Edited to full article ]
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 17, 2015, 11:26:24 PM
"A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann. The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions."
wow shit is about to hit the fan!!!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 17, 2015, 11:34:28 PM
it means they are investigating the authors of the dossier right?? and are inplying they maybe responsible for brendas death??
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 17, 2015, 11:46:44 PM
it means they are investigating the authors of the dossier right?? and are inplying they maybe responsible for brendas death??
Don't be silly Carly, the police already know who the authors of the dossier are - remember, they gave the dossier to the police in the first place! D'oh!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 17, 2015, 11:50:38 PM
Don't be silly Carly, the police already know who the authors of the dossier are - remember, they gave the dossier to the police in the first place! D'oh!
duhhhh and they are being investigated!!!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: misty on February 17, 2015, 11:50:53 PM
Be rather ironic if Brunt's source was the person behind the upcoming documentary.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 18, 2015, 12:14:49 AM
Don't be silly Carly, the police already know who the authors of the dossier are - remember, they gave the dossier to the police in the first place! D'oh!
But we were lead to believe sometime ago that it was the McCann family who handed the dossier to the police. I presume the source is whoever compiled the dossier for the McCanns....Miss Chunky Legs.
Bernard Hogan-Howe verifies McCann family handed dossier to OG :
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent Published 17 February 2015
A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.
Martin Brunt, Sky’s crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October.
Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt’s exposé of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.
Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousands of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the “worst of humankind”.
Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since.
Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering and operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.
Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago.
Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: “I don’t think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It’s a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers.
“As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists.”
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was “always worrying” when a journalist was asked to reveal their source as they should “obviously” remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities in recent years to know journalistic sources, which had previously been “sacrosanct”.
He added: “Its almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that’s a highly dangerous position.”
The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge’s agreement before they can snoop on journalists. It took action after it emerged that phone or email data was accessed to uncover confidential sources on 600 occasions.
Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.
Sky News and Leicestershire police declined to comment.
[ Edited to full article ]
No surprises there then, Sky News are refusing to disclose their source. It appears journalists really do think that they are above the law these days. March 20th by all accounts is guaranteed to be an interesting day all round.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: misty on February 18, 2015, 01:59:24 AM
Just found this on F/B posted 1hr ago
E Thorne
1 hr · Edited .
I think a very special member of our Admin team here deserves a high five tonight. His dedication and hard work has certainly paid off ..Paul Rees you are a legend! Your dedication to Madeleine is wonderful and this has been proven tonight. For all the members who don't know Paul complied evidence and sent it all to the Coroner of Brenda Leyland, this included proof of all the abusive tweets the pros send on a daily basis. So to the King of our Admin team, Paul Rees we salute you xxx -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little girl missing. A woman who apparently committed suicide. A few others dead in mysterious circumstances. All hail the internet trolls - who will be victorious in the Dossier War? Bloody pathetic.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2015, 02:21:37 AM
Hold on in there Sky and Martin Brunt and stick to your guns. Tell them nothing!!
Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press and the freedom of journalists to protect their sources are fundamental instruments of democracy.
For those who may disagree with that concept may I recommend a relocation to a more suitable environment where the law does not allow Press Freedom ... nor is it too keen on internet bloggers.
Saudi Arabia postpones 1,000 lashes sentence for blogger
Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, has his punishment of 1,000 lashes suspended on medical grounds after international outcry
No surprises there then, Sky News are refusing to disclose their source. It appears journalists really do think that they are above the law these days. March 20th by all accounts is guaranteed to be an interesting day all round.
Strange how villains of Leveson become the upholders of freedom of speech.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 07:25:20 AM
No surprises there then, Sky News are refusing to disclose their source. It appears journalists really do think that they are above the law these days. March 20th by all accounts is guaranteed to be an interesting day all round.
Not above the law at all.....it seems it's the coroner who feels they are above the law....Brunt's sources are protected by law...march 20th will be a damp squib...wait and see. Brenda Leyland had previously suffered mental health problems...she trolled the McCanns...thee only blame should be with those who encouraged her to do it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 18, 2015, 07:41:20 AM
they will be investigating all that trolled brenda imo
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 08:08:04 AM
People need to have a think about how we know about this in the first place. IMO the reason we know about the coroner's request at all is because the Times are always keen to highlight the threats to press freedom, the Times is owned by Murdoch, as is Sky News. The fact that Sky has refused to supply the information and the coroner hasn't responded to Sky's refusal would tend to suggest it's a nonstarter.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 08:09:40 AM
No surprises there then, Sky News are refusing to disclose their source. It appears journalists really do think that they are above the law these days. March 20th by all accounts is guaranteed to be an interesting day all round.
Not above the law John, protected in law - read the article again.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 08:12:55 AM
precisely Alfred...it appears to me that some posters merely read the headline and perhaps the first line of an article
Nope.
All that is clear,is that the cowards who hided behind anonymity in compiling the dossier in tandem with the mccanns, or so they thought at the time, were untouchable.
They aren't.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 08:54:54 AM
People need to have a think about how we know about this in the first place. IMO the reason we know about the coroner's request at all is because the Times are always keen to highlight the threats to press freedom, the Times is owned by Murdoch, as is Sky News. The fact that Sky has refused to supply the information and the coroner hasn't responded to Sky's refusal would tend to suggest it's a nonstarter.
I think you may well have a point there.
Whoever in LP added that to the list of questions wasn't very awake that morning. If they want to know who compiled it... why don't they just ask the Met? It's a compilation of publicly available tweets / posts that anyone could have compiled.
Hardly Snowdengate.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 08:59:22 AM
Whoever in LP added that to the list of questions wasn't very awake that morning. If they want to know who compiled it... why don't they just ask the Met? It's a compilation of publicly available tweets / posts that anyone could have compiled.
Hardly Snowdengate.
We shall see on that one.
It is well known which forum and individuals was involved in compiling the dossier.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 18, 2015, 09:08:26 AM
Whoever in LP added that to the list of questions wasn't very awake that morning. If they want to know who compiled it... why don't they just ask the Met? It's a compilation of publicly available tweets / posts that anyone could have compiled.
Hardly Snowdengate.
Indeed. I've never heard of anyone handing possible evidence of law-breaking to the police being 'investigated' before - especially when the 'evidence' itself is in the public domain and can be easily checked by the police as to it's veracity. What crime is it that some people are claiming the compilers committed?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 18, 2015, 09:44:13 AM
Not above the law at all.....it seems it's the coroner who feels they are above the law....Brunt's sources are protected by law...march 20th will be a damp squib...wait and see. Brenda Leyland had previously suffered mental health problems...she trolled the McCanns...thee only blame should be with those who encouraged her to do it.
The coroner is the Law in this Court. She has the legal right to compel any witness if a death under suspicious circumstances is reported to her. She has quite rightly thrown down the gauntlet to Martin Brunt and Sky News to reveal who provided the dossier to them.
Sky News has a history of inappropriate behaviour towards their targets, they do indeed believe they are above the Law.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 18, 2015, 09:55:28 AM
The coroner is the Law in this Court. She has the legal right to compel any witness if a death under suspicious circumstances is reported to her. She has quite rightly thrown down the gauntlet to Martin Brunt and Sky News to reveal who provided the dossier to them.
Sky News has a history of inappropriate behaviour towards their targets, they do indeed believe they are above the Law.
John - She can ask. But do you think Brunt, in his capacity as a journalist, can be compelled to reveal his sources to the court?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 18, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
Indeed. I've never heard of anyone handing possible evidence of law-breaking to the police being 'investigated' before - especially when the 'evidence' itself is in the public domain and can be easily checked by the police as to it's veracity. What crime is it that some people are claiming the compilers committed?
You will prob find that some of those who compiled that particular dossier were trolls too going by the number who have since gone to ground. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 18, 2015, 10:03:07 AM
Hold on in there Sky and Martin Brunt and stick to your guns. Tell them nothing!!
Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press and the freedom of journalists to protect their sources are fundamental instruments of democracy.
For those who may disagree with that concept may I recommend a relocation to a more suitable environment where the law does not allow Press Freedom ... nor is it too keen on internet bloggers.
Press freedom does not include doorstepping defenceless old ladies but then this isn't the first time Brunt has done this to a pensioner following a tip of.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 18, 2015, 10:15:01 AM
You will prob find that some of those who compiled that particular dossier were trolls too going by the number who have since gone to ground. 8(0(*
So you think people who know they themselves are also trolls - decided to give the police evidence of lawbreaking - which they knew they were also just as guilty of - and which an investigation would reveal?
Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot in that way?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 10:48:30 AM
The coroner is the Law in this Court. She has the legal right to compel any witness if a death under suspicious circumstances is reported to her. She has quite rightly thrown down the gauntlet to Martin Brunt and Sky News to reveal who provided the dossier to them.
Sky News has a history of inappropriate behaviour towards their targets, they do indeed believe they are above the Law.
My understanding was that one cannot refuse to answer a coroners question unless the answer may incriminate ones self. I suppose Brunt could say "dunno ma'am". Why worry about it I am sure the person who handed over the dossier is an honest and upright citizen with nothing to fear having done it all in the public interest.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 18, 2015, 10:50:30 AM
John - She can ask. But do you think Brunt, in his capacity as a journalist, can be compelled to reveal his sources to the court?
Probably not but the compiler's name seems to be known in certain circles anyway so I wouldn't be surprised if it finds it way, via another journalist, into the mainstream media.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 18, 2015, 10:57:08 AM
Probably not but the compiler's name seems to be known in certain circles anyway so I wouldn't be surprised if it finds it way, via another journalist, into the mainstream media.
The coroner will no doubt compel the authors of the dossier to attend Court.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 11:06:39 AM
The coroner will no doubt compel the authors of the dossier to attend Court.
That just will not happen John. It is well recorded on this very forum by well respected (sic) posters that to think that is showing serious signs of delusion.
"A week is a long time in politics" Harold Wilson
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 11:13:53 AM
So you think people who know they themselves are also trolls - decided to give the police evidence of lawbreaking - which they knew they were also just as guilty of - and which an investigation would reveal?
Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot in that way?
Very interesting questions, Benice. You could extend it to Sky News (and the newspapers) who are themselves in many or most people's view supertrolls.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 18, 2015, 11:17:57 AM
Because their actions resulted in the death of a woman they targeted and in which Martin Brunt and Sky News were active participants. I would have thought that much was very obvious?
Actions have consequences!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Because their actions resulted in the death of a woman they targeted and in which Martin Brunt and Sky News were active participants. I would have thought that much was very obvious?
Actions have consequences!
If that were the case, few people would ever report potential crimes to the police - just in case someone on the list ever died.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 11:46:31 AM
The coroner will no doubt compel the authors of the dossier to attend Court.
the coroner has no power to order brunt to reveal his source..its in the article you posted. The one person who is attending is a psychiatrist who has treated Brenda...I think his testimony will be most interesting. Brunt was not the cause of Brendas death....her obsessive trolling behaviour is no doubt a sign of deeper psychiatric problems
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 11:53:27 AM
My understanding was that one cannot refuse to answer a coroners question unless the answer may incriminate ones self. I suppose Brunt could say "dunno ma'am". Why worry about it I am sure the person who handed over the dossier is an honest and upright citizen with nothing to fear having done it all in the public interest.
I suspect you're being a tad sarcastic there.
Reporting potentially serious threats / stalking behaviour / incessant abuse is in the public interest, IMO. If the police / CPS then find that some fall below the threshold, then so be it. But what if some nutter actually carried out any of the threats?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 11:56:47 AM
the coroner has no power to order brunt to reveal his source..its in the article you posted. The one person who is attending is a psychiatrist who has treated Brenda...I think his testimony will be most interesting. Brunt was not the cause of Brendas death....her obsessive trolling behaviour is no doubt a sign of deeper psychiatric problems
It's not as black and white as you pretend, and if you're being honest you know it. Sky News didn't just do a report featuring Brenda, they showed it many times during the day: is that responsible reporting or is it irresponsible bordering on incitement?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 11:59:11 AM
The coroner is the Law in this Court. She has the legal right to compel any witness if a death under suspicious circumstances is reported to her. She has quite rightly thrown down the gauntlet to Martin Brunt and Sky News to reveal who provided the dossier to them.
Sky News has a history of inappropriate behaviour towards their targets, they do indeed believe they are above the Law.
Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since.
there you are John
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 12:03:07 PM
Reporting potentially serious threats / stalking behaviour / incessant abuse is in the public interest, IMO. If the police / CPS then find that some fall below the threshold, then so be it. But what if some nutter actually carried out any of the threats?
That sort of idea, in my opinion, is the thin end of the wedge that if allowed can will be used ultimately to justify anything. It's a road I don't particularly fancy, imperfect though the one I am on, may be. Whilst I admit to an element of sarcasm in my post, the crux remains. If the person is straight up with nothing to fear what is the problem?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 12:12:58 PM
That sort of idea, in my opinion, is the thin end of the wedge that if allowed can will be used ultimately to justify anything. It's a road I don't particularly fancy, imperfect though the one I am on, may be. Whilst I admit to an element of sarcasm in my post, the crux remains. If the person is straight up with nothing to fear what is the problem?
What is the problem? Need you ask?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 12:16:49 PM
It's not as black and white as you pretend, and if you're being honest you know it. Sky News didn't just do a report featuring Brenda, they showed it many times during the day: is that responsible reporting or is it irresponsible bordering on incitement?
Hmmm.
I agree that the rolling Sky coverage on a single person (and who arguably wasn't one of the worst) was excessive, but that was a Sky editorial decision, not Brunt's.
Brunt attempted to interview someone who had been in contact with him and who'd said that his reporting was biased. So he gave her an opportunity to put her views forward. We don't know yet whether she had agreed or not, or changed her mind at the last minute. Brunt didn't name her or her village, and she did tweet and post on FB in her own name with her photo as an avatar until she changed her mind about that.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 12:21:11 PM
That sort of idea, in my opinion, is the thin end of the wedge that if allowed can will be used ultimately to justify anything. It's a road I don't particularly fancy, imperfect though the one I am on, may be. Whilst I admit to an element of sarcasm in my post, the crux remains. If the person is straight up with nothing to fear what is the problem?
Vigilante action by "justiceseekers" of the same nature as the potential crimes being reported?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 12:23:27 PM
I agree that the rolling Sky coverage on a single person (and who arguably wasn't one of the worst) was excessive, but that was a Sky editorial decision, not Brunt's.
Brunt attempted to interview someone who had been in contact with him and who'd said that his reporting was biased. So he gave her an opportunity to put her views forward. We don't know yet whether she had agreed or not, or changed her mind at the last minute. Brunt didn't name her or her village, and she did tweet and post on FB in her own name with her photo as an avatar until she changed her mind about that.
It's pretty clear to me from the video that she wasn't expecting him; she recognised him of course but didn't initially realise he was there to talk to her.
And the footage is edited: how much time elapsed between BL getting into the car and her coming back to let him into the house.
MB already had his footage: why did he then stay there, and for how long?
Police will presumably know the answers to these questions, because they'll have spoken to whoever was in the car BL got into. They'll have more evidence we don't know about as well. They and the coroner may well have very legitimate questions for MB to answer.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 18, 2015, 12:29:56 PM
It's pretty clear to me from the video that she wasn't expecting him; she recognised him of course but didn't initially realise he was there to talk to her.
And the footage is edited: how much time elapsed between BL getting into the car and her coming back to let him into the house.
MB already had his footage: why did he then stay there, and for how long?
No idea. She may have discussed it with whoever was with her in the car and decided to phone / DM him to ask him to wait until she got back to talk to him off-camera.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 12:32:53 PM
No idea. She may have discussed it with whoever was with her in the car and decided to phone / DM him to ask him to wait until she got back to talk to him off-camera.
Or for all we know she may have phoned other people, solicitors maybe or even police, to try to get him to leave her house but he wouldn't go?
It's possible.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 12:44:24 PM
Vigilante action by "justiceseekers" of the same nature as the potential crimes being reported?
Are there past proven* examples of vigilante action by nutters people on either side of the divide that caused actionable Actual Bodily Harm or loss? I was always of the opinion that most of "the nutters" in the debate were pretty ineffectual people who loved to be spiteful behind anonymity. Just my observation.
*proven as in recorded in a court's proceedings rather than what one "nutter" said another "nutter" did reported in a red top.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 18, 2015, 12:44:42 PM
Martin Brunt not only doorstepped her but he was later invited into her home to hear what she had to say. What a lady, many another would have set the dogs on him!
It was very noticeable from the carefully edited snippet which Sky News chose to broadcast that Brenda's response was completely ignored in favour of sensationalism.
Excellent reporting by any standards...Not!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 12:50:47 PM
Martin Brunt not only doorstepped her but he was later invited inside to hear what she had to say. It was very noticeable from the carefully edited feature which Sky News chose to broadcast that Brenda's response was completely binned.
They didn't get a chance though, she did a runner because of the disgust she felt about family and neighbours knowing what a vile troll she was! As she presumably committed suicide the next day, Sky probably wouldn't show the recording. I'm sure the coroner has that information already.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
Martin Brunt not only doorstepped her but he was later invited into her home to hear what she had to say. What a lady, many another would have set the dogs on him!
It was very noticeable from the carefully edited snippet which Sky News chose to broadcast that Brenda's response was completely binned.
Excellent reporting by any standards...Not!
As I posted ages ago there were clearly two video clips one in which Mrs Leyland wore white leggings and one in which she didn't; so what happened there? I guess she got flim flammed in the name of Mammon.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 12:55:13 PM
Press freedom does not include doorstepping defenceless old ladies but then this isn't the first time Brunt has done this to a pensioner following a tip of.
Does it include doorstopping defenceless ladies in their 40s?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 01:06:01 PM
The interesting point about this (in my not so humble opinion of course) is not so much freedom of the press and the rights of "sources" to retain anonymity and who has the biggest calibre lawyer and all that haraz BUT: Why do we think the coroner asked for the identity of this particular person or persons to be revealed to her if other than she thought they could make a significant contribution to her inquest proceedings? We were, not so reliably it would seem, informed on here in the recent past, that this request would never happen.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 01:07:12 PM
Does it include doorstopping defenceless ladies in their 40s?
All we've seen is a photo of her stood outside the house?
But if she did do what she claims, and she puts that footage in her film, it will be counter-productive and you know plenty of people have told her so.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Admin on February 18, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
The interesting point about this (in my not so humble opinion of course) is not so much freedom of the press and the rights of "sources" to retain anonymity and who has the biggest calibre lawyer and all that haraz BUT: Why do we think the coroner asked for the identity of this particular person or persons to be revealed to her if other than she thought they could make a significant contribution to her inquest proceedings? We were, not so reliably it would seem, informed on here in the recent past, that this request would never happen.
Wishful thinking perhaps?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 01:11:25 PM
The interesting point about this (in my not so humble opinion of course) is not so much freedom of the press and the rights of "sources" to retain anonymity and who has the biggest calibre lawyer and all that haraz BUT: Why do we think the coroner asked for the identity of this particular person or persons to be revealed to her if other than she thought they could make a significant contribution to her inquest proceedings? We were, not so reliably it would seem, informed on here in the recent past, that this request would never happen.
Any right-minded thinking person would surely come to the conclusion that the identity of the dossier compiler / Brunt's sources have absolutely nothing to do with Brenda's death and that therefore the Coroner would not be requesting such information - the fact that she has indicates to me only one thing - the world has gone quite mad - IMO of course. 8(>((
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 01:12:48 PM
All we've seen is a photo of her stood outside the house?
But if she did do what she claims, and she puts that footage in her film, it will be counter-productive and you know plenty of people have told her so.
Again, with respect I wasn't asking you but the person who claimed that press freedom does not include doorstepping defenceless old ladies (I'm sure Brenda would have been mortified to be described as such btw).
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 01:16:57 PM
Martin Brunt not only doorstepped her but he was later invited into her home to hear what she had to say. What a lady, many another would have set the dogs on him!
It was very noticeable from the carefully edited snippet which Sky News chose to broadcast that Brenda's response was completely ignored in favour of sensationalism.
Excellent reporting by any standards...Not!
In my view the cause of Brenda's sad demise lies with Brenda herself....lets see if the coroner agrees
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 01:28:07 PM
She would probably still be alive today had Brunt not decided to make her another soft target. Make of that what you will Mr Dave.
She would probably be alive today had she not been conducting a campaign against the parents of a missing child. It cuts both ways, Angelo. By any standards, her behaviour was out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 01:34:51 PM
All we've seen is a photo of her stood outside the house?
But if she did do what she claims, and she puts that footage in her film, it will be counter-productive and you know plenty of people have told her so.
There is or was a video of her unlocking the front door, and inviting Brunt in to her house.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 01:45:09 PM
She would probably be alive today had she not been conducting a campaign against the parents of a missing child. It cuts both ways, Angelo. By any standards, her behaviour was out of the ordinary.
Typical response and totally untrue. Brenda had every right to make her views known just as Sky News and Brunt had the right to broadcast it. Some of her tweets might have crossed the line but that does not give any broadcaster the right to stalk a vulnerable woman living on her own. Their conduct was disgraceful and what's more, they know it!!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 01:46:27 PM
She would probably be alive today had she not been conducting a campaign against the parents of a missing child. It cuts both ways, Angelo. By any standards, her behaviour was out of the ordinary.
True, JP. I'm sure the coroner knows a lot more than we do, as to her health, and family relations. I find it extraordinary she chose to do this on her sons birthday.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 01:47:19 PM
Any right-minded thinking person would surely come to the conclusion that the identity of the dossier compiler / Brunt's sources have absolutely nothing to do with Brenda's death and that therefore the Coroner would not be requesting such information - the fact that she has indicates to me only one thing - the world has gone quite mad - IMO of course. 8(>((
Awww you don't really believe that!; surely not just on the basis that a coroner decided to use her full powers in executing her duty. Which duty in case you had forgotten is not limited to ruling on the cause of death.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 01:53:25 PM
Typical response and totally untrue. Brenda had every right to make her views known just as Sky News and Brunt had the right to broadcast it. Some of her tweets might have crossed the line but that does not give any broadcaster the right to stalk a vulnerable woman living on her own. Their conduct was disgraceful and what's more, they know it!!
It also didn't give her the right to stalk the McCanns, and she should have known it.
If she hadn't kept egging him on on Twitter and emailing (sending him stuff) him, he wouldn't have known anything about her. Would he?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 18, 2015, 02:00:44 PM
It also didn't give her the right to stalk the McCanns, and she should have known it.
If she hadn't kept egging him on on Twitter and emailing (sending him stuff) him, he wouldn't have known anything about her. Would he?
When did she stalk them?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 18, 2015, 02:10:12 PM
I'd a thought that, if this dossier contained evidence that Ms Leyland was stalking the Dr's McCann, then the nice Mr Redwood might have done something about it.
He didn't.
Probably cos she wasn't.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 02:13:06 PM
It also didn't give her the right to stalk the McCanns, and she should have known it.
If she hadn't kept egging him on on Twitter and emailing (sending him stuff) him, he wouldn't have known anything about her. Would he?
Your notion of stalked is sadly misplaced DCI? She didn't physically stalk them and the McCanns don't have a public twitter account but then you know better. And how many times had she tweeted Brunt? Three? Four? More?
No wonder Brunt disappeared for weeks, the guilt of what he did must be hard to bear.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 18, 2015, 02:22:14 PM
. The Sunday Times jails its source 51 comments 11 March 2013 17:31 Nick Cohen Follow @nickcohen4 Image: Getty
In a long piece in the last issue of the Sunday Times (£) Isabel Oakeshott, its political editor, wrote of her relationship with Vicky Pryce. She sobbed and sighed. She was full of sympathy. You can almost hear the tears pitter-patter on her keyboard as she describes how Pryce had become a ‘broken woman’.
The reader has to stare hard at her words to realise that Pryce was Oakeshott’s source, and that Oakeshott and her editor John Witherow had handed her over to the police. The eight-month prison sentence Mr Justice Sweeney gave Pryce today followed. Of course it did. Journalists once knew that if you betrayed a source they could end up on the dole, or in prison or, in the most severe circumstances, dead.
Writing in the Spectator last month, I explained:
‘The requirement to protect your sources was the one moral principle journalists had. Self-interest played its part — confidential sources will not speak to reporters if they suspect they will reveal their identities to the police or their employers. But a reporter’s honour mattered as much. You had made a deal with a source. You had given your promise and shaken hands. Your source could lose his or her job or liberty if you broke your word. You had to keep it.’ That was then. To read Oakeshott’s bluster today you would think that Pryce had stabbed her in the back rather than the other way round. Oakeshott describes how Pryce had had the impertinence to talk to the Mail on Sunday as well as the Sunday Times. ‘She had double-crossed me,’ wails the poor victimised thing. ‘While I was busy protecting her identity, she had been busy revealing all to a rival newspaper…This was an extraordinary betrayal and deeply underhand after everything we had been through together. Our relationship had been based on trust. I had kept my side of the bargain; she had broken hers.’
Oakeshott does not understand that the moral obligations between a journalist and his or her sources flow in one direction only. They are putting their life and liberty in your hands not vice versa. They are free to deny the truth of the stories you print, if that what it takes to keep them in a job or out of prison. They can speak to other journalists; they can do whatever they want. You are in their debt. They are not in yours.
In an couple of paragraphs, which are if anything even more embarrassing, Oakeshott moves on to deal with the tricky question of why the Sunday Times delivered Pryce to the cops. We put up ‘a vigorous fight’ she assures her readers. ‘But eventually we were forced by a judge to give up the correspondence, along with copies of our written agreement with Vicky.’
This is not how the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, described it. In a statement issued on October 3 last year, he said that the CPS had advised the police that they needed the confidential information from Pryce in Oakeshott’s possession if they were to send Pryce and Chris Huhne to the dock. In October 2011, the authorities secured a court order for the ‘newspaper to produce material to the police’. The Sunday Times appealed, as it should have done. But, Starmer continued, Witherow and Oakeshott’s resolution soon faded. They did not fight to protect their source ‘but subsequently consented to producing the material in question just before the appeal was due to be heard, on 20 January this year’.
The emails they handed over were crucial, Starmer implied. They ensured there was ‘sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce for perverting the course of justice’.
Journalists once went to prison rather than reveal a source. Now they can’t even go to an appeal court. Instead, Oakeshott’s source is in jail. I asked friends of Pryce to ask her on my behalf if the Sunday Times had sought her permission before it gave detectives what they needed to turn her into ‘a broken woman’.
‘No, it did not,’ came the reply.
My Guardian colleague Marina Hyde said that the lesson of the Sunday Times’ treatment of Pryce was that no one should talk to journalists. Perhaps that is going too far; at least I hope it is. It is not going too far, however, to say that no one in their right mind should talk to Isabel Oakeshott on grounds of taste as much as anything else.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 18, 2015, 02:25:47 PM
Awww you don't really believe that!; surely not just on the basis that a coroner decided to use her full powers in executing her duty. Which duty in case you had forgotten is not limited to ruling on the cause of death.
So, what's your view on journalists being compelled to divulge their sources? Pro or Anti (oops not allowed to use those terms so, For or Against?)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 02:43:40 PM
Journalism isn't what it once was. In many cases the refusal to declare a source is just an excuse. There never was a source to begin with.
You're not answering the question (which wasn't addressed to you anyway). Do you think in principle a journalist should be compelled to name his / her sources if required to do so by a coroner, or in a court of law? Can you think of any reasons at all why this might not actually be a good idea?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
You're not answering the question (which wasn't addressed to you anyway). Do you think in principle a journalist should be compelled to name his / her sources if required to do so by a coroner, or in a court of law? Can you think of any reasons at all why this might not actually be a good idea?
In certain circumstances yes. Its not the first time a journalist has been jailed for contempt of court
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
In understanding protection of sources and why it is important, not to mention enshrined in law as a right.
What is important is honesty but we get sorry little of that from so called journalists these days. Brunt chose to broadcast a one sided story just to get a reaction so in journalistic terms he is a disgrace.
Sky News reporters are such hypocrites in any event. Just now Kaye Burley is suggesting police arrest the Chelsea supporter who pushed a black guy off a Paris train after he tried to push his way on but forgets her very own Lisa Holland who accosted Brett King in Spain.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 03:12:35 PM
What is important is honesty but we get sorry little of that from so called journalists these days.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. We have some fantastic journalism as well as some rubbish journalism, some highly accurate and informative, some conducted in the most brutal and harsh environments with journalists risking life and limb to deliver it and some which is not fit to be used as toilet paper, so lazy and inaccurate is it. Personally I think Martin Brunt is fairly average, but I don't see how he has been dishonest in this affair.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 03:18:00 PM
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. We have some fantastic journalism as well as some rubbish journalism, some highly accurate and informative, some conducted in the most brutal and harsh environments with journalists risking life and limb to deliver it and some which is not fit to be used as toilet paper, so lazy and inaccurate is it. Personally I think Martin Brunt is fairly average, but I don't see how he has been dishonest in this affair.
He and his producer were very foolish to have broadcast the initial doorstepping. His motive was clear however.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 03:19:32 PM
A spectacular TV news event which spectacularly backfired on them!!!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 03:48:38 PM
Transcript of Bernard Hogan Howe interview on 8 October:
Interviewer: "Tell me about that file that was handed to you re... the McCanns, you know, concerned individuals, and certainly that story has been in the headlines with tragic consequences...yesterday. A file handed to you? Are you looking at it at the minute?"
Bernard Hogan Howe interview...................
BHH - "No what happened, well first of all, you may have seen over the last 10 days we've launched a cyber crime unit, about 500 officers. That's really intended to target people who steal things, not necessarily bullying , I think that's going to be a real challenge to us in the future just in terms of volume.
But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team who are investigating or reviewing the murder of... sorry, reviewing the missing girl err the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liaising with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live..... and as suddenly it turned out possibly the person who was trolling or abusing people may well have been.
So the file was in the process of being considered partly by the Met, partly by Leicestershire but was likely to have been dealt with by Leicestershire police, not by the Met."
Note how BHH inadvertently reveals the truth.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 03:52:20 PM
Transcript of Bernard Hogan Howe interview on 8 October:
Interviewer: "Tell me about that file that was handed to you re... the McCanns, you know, concerned individuals, and certainly that story has been in the headlines with tragic consequences...yesterday. A file handed to you? Are you looking at it at the minute?"
Bernard Hogan Howe interview...................
BHH - "No what happened, well first of all, you may have seen over the last 10 days we've launched a cyber crime unit, about 500 officers. That's really intended to target people who steal things, not necessarily bullying , I think that's going to be a real challenge to us in the future just in terms of volume.
But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team who are investigating or reviewing the murder of... sorry, reviewing the missing girl err the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liaising with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live..... and as suddenly it turned out possibly the person who was trolling or abusing people may well have been.
So the file was in the process of being considered partly by the Met, partly by Leicestershire but was likely to have been dealt with by Leicestershire police, not by the Met."
Note how inadvertently BHH reveals the truth.
So, if this is true then why have Leicestershire Police written to Sky for details of the dossier compilers? Is it a case of the left long arm of the law not knowing what the right long arm of the law is doing?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 04:02:27 PM
So, if this is true then why have Leicestershire Police written to Sky for details of the dossier compilers? Is it a case of the left long arm of the law not knowing what the right long arm of the law is doing?
It wouldn't be the first time.
As reported a few months ago, it was stated certain forces weren't cooperating with each other.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on February 18, 2015, 04:09:05 PM
Where does all this stuff about 'doorstepping' come from?
Martin Brunt was there because BL invited him
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 04:13:10 PM
So, what's your view on journalists being compelled to divulge their sources? Pro or Anti (oops not allowed to use those terms so, For or Against?)
It depends on the circumstances. If the source is providing reliable information which will potentially lead to the conviction of someone who is guilty of a major crime and the source is in real actual danger if their name is released then anonymity should be allowed. If one is talking about what is essentially a soap opera where, for the most part I suspect, a few geriatrics are making spiteful remarks to each other, being scurrilous and possibly wasting police time then I don't see the harm in releasing their names. Especially in the light of a coroner having a duty to determine the circumstances surrounding a persons death in what were not natural circumstances and as a result may call whomsoever she please rather than who may please us. Some may disagree and make a wingding on spurious grounds but that's life. My unsolicited advice on matters like this is simple "If you ain't prepared to go the full trip don't bother boarding the bleedin' bus but 'tis your choice"
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
It depends on the circumstances. If the source is providing reliable information which will potentially lead to the conviction of someone who is guilty of a major crime and the source is in real actual danger if their name is released then anonymity should be allowed. If one is talking about what is essentially a soap opera where, for the most part I suspect, a few geriatrics are making spiteful remarks to each other, being scurrilous and possibly wasting police time then I don't see the harm in releasing their names. Especially in the light of a coroner having a duty to determine the circumstances surrounding a persons death in what were not natural circumstances and as a result may call whomsoever she please rather than who may please us. Some may disagree and make a wingding on spurious grounds but that's life. My unsolicited advice on matters like this is simple "If you ain't prepared to go the full trip don't bother boarding the bleedin' bus but 'tis your choice"
You may favour a flexible approach to the protection of sources but I would say that was a very slippery slope indeed - who is to determine when it should and should not be applied? Considering that many believe Brenda Leyland was driven to commit suicide by media attention, I'm surprised you would condone the outing of Brunt's source - who knows what sort of shit-storm that could result in or whether or not the source has the strength of character not to buckle as Brenda did when held up to the scrutiny of the baying mob? Still, let's not have any haughty disapproval from you if and when Sky releases the real names of more McCann bashing trolls, now that we know you see no harm in the practice.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 05:37:20 PM
Now, here's a question - say the Coroner compels Sky to reveal the name of the source and then the source is held up to intense media scrutiny and as a result of the ensuing shit-storm commits suicide will it be the Coroner's fault?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 05:40:21 PM
When is it going to become a crime to report a crime?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 05:46:54 PM
It's intriguing that some of the same people who have been wishing for online anonymity to end are now championing the anonymity of sources.
&%+((£ Confusion here.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 05:47:14 PM
Now, here's a question - say the Coroner compels Sky to reveal the name of the source and then the source is held up to intense media scrutiny and as a result of the ensuing shit-storm commits suicide will it be the Coroner's fault?
Hoist on their own petard, I would say.
and quite frankly having 'observed' some of their behaviour, the phrase just desserts springs to mind,
as they are now trying to hide away.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 05:51:13 PM
It's intriguing that some of the same people who have been wishing for online anonymity to end are now championing the anonymity of sources.
&%+((£ Confusion here.
I have never championed the end on online anonymity. I do however believe that people who break the law online whilst hiding behind an anonymous ID should be brought to account. Do you not agree with this?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 05:52:44 PM
That has not been determined - her actions, together with the actions of many others however were obviously considered by the dossier compiler(s) to be worthy of bringing to the attention of the police. Whether these actions were in fact criminal is a matter for the police and the courts to decide.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 05:57:17 PM
That has not been determined - her actions, together with the actions of many others however were obviously considered by the dossier compiler(s) to be worthy of bringing to the attention of the police. Whether these actions were in fact criminal is a matter for the police and the courts to decide.
Alfred, the police weren't investigating her, and quite frankly I have seen far worse from supporters and opponents of the mccanns.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 05:59:41 PM
I have never championed the end on online anonymity. I do however believe that people who break the law online whilst hiding behind an anonymous ID should be brought to account. Do you not agree with this?
I do of course but do you not agree this is a job for police, not a TV channel?
They didn't need to doorstep anyone to run their piece on trolls, though of course it wouldn't then have been as sensational. They turned up at BL's house for cheap sensationalism, not journalism.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 06:00:08 PM
The Dossier Compiler appears to have committed a Crime in reporting a Crime, according to some.
There is no Law that requires that someone reporting a Crime should give their name. Nor is there any Law that can force Sky News to reveal their sources, especially since The Police already know who compiled The Dossier.
Sources can only be demanded under extreme circumstances, and even the there is no Law that can enforce this. Unless you are thinking of Torture.
This is not anything like Extreme Circumstances. And Martin Brunt is only a reporter employed by Sky News.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 06:01:38 PM
Well, after hearing all the bull from certain mccann supporters, i.e. the compilers, no one forced forced them to compile the dossier.
They took the law into their own hands and then tried to hide.
Are you trying to excuse their behaviour, or is judgement and ethics merely one sided ?
Good question Stephen - is judgment and ethics merely one-sided? In your case it would certainly seem so. You deplore the outing of Brenda and the media shit-storm that drove her to her death but you seem quite buoyed up by the prospect of this happening to the dossier compiler(s).
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 06:03:16 PM
Look at The Telecommunications Act. Malicious Communications are already against The Law.
Courts decide what those are, not a TV channel &%&£(+
They could have still done their item on trolls with Brunt, Gamble and S&S, without assuming they know better than police what malicious communications are.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 18, 2015, 06:07:48 PM
Look at The Telecommunications Act. Malicious Communications are already against The Law.
Technically, it is an offence only if the intended recipient receives said communication. And since Brenda was not aware of the recipients private twitter account...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 06:09:16 PM
Technically, it is an offence only if the intended recipient receives said communication. And since Brenda was not aware of the recipients private twitter account...
Not necessarily. A Malicious Communication is such. Especially if others can see them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:12:25 PM
Good question Stephen - is judgment and ethics merely one-sided? In your case it would certainly seem so. You deplore the outing of Brenda and the media shit-storm that drove her to her death but you seem quite buoyed up by the prospect of this happening to the dossier compiler(s).
Actually, what I'm doing is observing mccann supporters reactions , such as yourself, as regards the dossier compilers potentially getting a taste of their own medicine.
it is interesting to say to say the least.
Corporal Jones favourite phrase springs to mind.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 06:12:28 PM
Technically, it is an offence only if the intended recipient receives said communication. And since Brenda was not aware of the recipients private twitter account...
Actually, I don't think that is true. If she posted them thinking or hoping even that the McCanns were reading them (and some of her tweets indicated that she did indeed believe they were) then that is enough.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:13:47 PM
Technically, it is an offence only if the intended recipient receives said communication. And since Brenda was not aware of the recipients private twitter account...
sorry John...check out your source
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 06:18:34 PM
Just a reminder:
Brenda actually believed the McCanns and / or their family were reading her tweets. She wrote her horrible messages hoping they would be read by the McCanns. She intended to cause them distress. She also targeted another twitter user believing her to be one of the witnesses in the case and, together with her (Sweepyface's posse of fellow abusers), threatened and abused and bullied this other twitter user.
Now, none of that may technically be illegal but let us not lose sight of the kind of behaviour that prompted the actions of the dossier compiler(s) in the first place. They did NOTHING wrong.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:19:46 PM
Yes you are enjoying the prospect of someone suffering in the same way that Brenda did - that not only makes you a hypocrite but something rather more unpleasant as well, a sadist perhaps?
Really ???
Even now you don't get it, do you.
Try reading my posts again, then you might.
Why haven't you condemned the dossier compilers ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:21:33 PM
Brenda actually believed the McCanns and / or their family were reading her tweets. She wrote her horrible messages hoping they would be read by the McCanns. She intended to cause them distress. She also targeted another twitter user believing her to be one of the witnesses in the case and, together with her (Sweepyface's posse of fellow abusers), threatened and abused and bullied this other twitter user.
Now, none of that may technically be illegal but let us not lose sight of the kind of behaviour that prompted the actions of the dossier compiler(s) in the first place. They did NOTHING wrong.
You forget, the dossier compilers 'posts' are visible to read on certain forums.
However, it is no surprise you defend them.
Such is the nature of the 1-dimensional mccann supporter.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 06:27:46 PM
Actually, what I'm doing is observing mccann supporters reactions , such as yourself, as regards the dossier compilers potentially getting a taste of their own medicine.
it is interesting to say to say the least.
Corporal Jones favourite phrase springs to mind.
I would have helped to compile that Dossier if I had known about it. And I would have admitted to doing it. But then a bunch of anonymous, Tweeting cowards don't scare me. I have never been ashamed of anything that I have said on any Forum.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
Courts decide what those are, not a TV channel &%&£(+
They could have still done their item on trolls with Brunt, Gamble and S&S, without assuming they know better than police what malicious communications are.
Or even better, they could have consulted Sonia Poulton to see if she could recommend someone to be set up to talk about getting a buzz from trolling.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 06:30:57 PM
Brenda actually believed the McCanns and / or their family were reading her tweets. She wrote her horrible messages hoping they would be read by the McCanns. She intended to cause them distress. She also targeted another twitter user believing her to be one of the witnesses in the case and, together with her (Sweepyface's posse of fellow abusers), threatened and abused and bullied this other twitter user.
Now, none of that may technically be illegal but let us not lose sight of the kind of behaviour that prompted the actions of the dossier compiler(s) in the first place. They did NOTHING wrong.
Well perhaps not legally but if they did send the information to news organisations it does seem that they are in some way responsible for what occurred.
But I don't think they should be exposed (that is hypocrisy) - personally I couldn't care less who they are. Just leave them to their consciences (but they haven't helped themselves by not even having the honesty/empathy to condemn Sky News for their cheap sensationalism).
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 06:32:04 PM
I have re-read your posts and it is clear you are looking forward to vengeance and retribution on behalf of Brenda Leyland, having happily discarded all your lofty principles in the process. I do not condemn the dossier compilers as in my opinion they did what they believed was the right thing and broke no laws in doing so.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2015, 06:34:19 PM
Well perhaps not legally but if they did send the information to news organisations it does seem that they are in some way responsible for what occurred.
But I don't think they should be exposed (that is hypocrisy) - personally I couldn't care less who they are. Just leave them to their consciences (but they haven't helped themselves by not even having the honesty/empathy to condemn Sky News for their cheap sensationalism).
It is ridiculous to say that the dossier compilers are responsible for Brenda's death. They did not target Brenda, Sky did. If you really have to blame someone then blame Sky. And wishing to remain anonymous the dossier compilers are in no position to b making public statements of condemnation are they?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:37:05 PM
What on earth are you on about? You tell me what the Dossier Compiler(s) did that was so very wrong then.
How would you like it if a person from your own family was put on national TV in the same way she was, and called the names she was by SKY and national newspapers ?
and please don't bother saying mccann supporters don't troll, because they bloody well do.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 06:37:18 PM
I have re-read your posts and it is clear you are looking forward to vengeance and retribution on behalf of Brenda Leyland, having happily discarded all your lofty principles in the process. I do not condemn the dossier compilers as in my opinion they did what they believed was the right thing and broke no laws in doing so.
Brenda had broken no laws.
It didn't stop the dossier compilers, DID IT ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 06:49:45 PM
It is ridiculous to say that the dossier compilers are responsible for Brenda's death. They did not target Brenda, Sky did. If you really have to blame someone then blame Sky. And wishing to remain anonymous the dossier compilers are in no position to b making public statements of condemnation are they?
Some people have had the honesty to agree that in no way could Brenda be considered a ringleader, so I'd question why someone feeling the urge to do something included her in the first place. I'd agree it does seem likely that Sky News were the ones to single her out, though we can't be sure of that can we since we haven't seen the 'dossier', and we don't know just how much involvement the 'dossier' compilers had in preparation of the programme do we.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 06:55:25 PM
How would you like it if a person from your own family was put on national TV in the same way she was, and called the names she was by SKY and national newspapers ?
and please don't bother saying mccann supporters don't troll, because they bloody well do.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Dossier Compilers did that was wrong.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 06:55:49 PM
You may favour a flexible approach to the protection of sources but I would say that was a very slippery slope indeed - who is to determine when it should and should not be applied? Considering that many believe Brenda Leyland was driven to commit suicide by media attention, I'm surprised you would condone the outing of Brunt's source - who knows what sort of shit-storm that could result in or whether or not the source has the strength of character not to buckle as Brenda did when held up to the scrutiny of the baying mob? Still, let's not have any haughty disapproval from you if and when Sky releases the real names of more McCann bashing trolls, now that we know you see no harm in the practice.
I think the whole issue of either side of the McCann debate lobbing insults at each other. the McCanns and The PJ and outing each other or not as the case may be, pretending it has some far reaching legal consequences for the world at large is laughable. It's about on a par with presenting The Sound of Music as an authoritative political commentary on the rise of Naziism in Austria. Just imo of course I think it laughable also that purportedly grown adults should have a benny at the idea of a court official attempting to use all the tools at her disposal in executing her duty. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Some people have had the honesty to agree that in no way could Brenda be considered a ringleader, so I'd question why someone feeling the urge to do something included her in the first place. I'd agree it does seem likely that Sky News were the ones to single her out, though we can't be sure of that can we since we haven't seen the 'dossier', and we don't know just how much involvement the 'dossier' compilers had in preparation of the programme do we.
There is no defence in law that others are worse offenders.....Brenda appears to have broken the law...it was her choice to tweet 60 times a day...no one to blame but Brenda... I don't see the coroner putting the blame on anyone else
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 18, 2015, 06:57:39 PM
I would have helped to compile that Dossier if I had known about it. And I would have admitted to doing it. But then a bunch of anonymous, Tweeting cowards don't scare me. I have never been ashamed of anything that I have said on any Forum.
And you'd have sent it to Sky News?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 06:57:45 PM
Some people have had the honesty to agree that in no way could Brenda be considered a ringleader, so I'd question why someone feeling the urge to do something included her in the first place. I'd agree it does seem likely that Sky News were the ones to single her out, though we can't be sure of that can we since we haven't seen the 'dossier', and we don't know just how much involvement the 'dossier' compilers had in preparation of the programme do we.
As I understand it the dossier was a compilation of several regular tweeters' tweets, including Brenda's which, whilst not the worst were still not very pleasant, particularly not her hounding of someone she believed to be one of the nannies at the OC at the time of Madeleine's disappearance - she libelled and insulted her several times and seemed to greatly enjoy doing so. She may not have been a ringleader but she did want attention and she wanted to be heard. She was probably the easiest one on the list for Sky to track down as she had previously tweeted under her real name. I have no idea how much involvement the dossier compilers had in preparing the Sky report, no doubt we will know more in a few weeks time.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 07:06:27 PM
I support the dossier compilers...online anonymous abuse needs to be stopped....Brenda died because she had psychiatric problems.....seems like her family had deserted her...perhaps that's where the blame lies
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 07:08:00 PM
There is no defence in law that others are worse offenders.....Brenda appears to have broken the law...it was her choice to tweet 60 times a day...no one to blame but Brenda... I don't see the coroner putting the blame on anyone else
Appears being the operative word but working as everyone insists we must on "innocent until proven guilty".......guess what? and ever she will remain so, whatever rantings go on wherever.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2015, 07:08:40 PM
I support the dossier compilers...online anonymous abuse needs to be stopped....Brenda died because she had psychiatric problems.....seems like her family had deserted her...perhaps that's where the blame lies
Brenda would still be alive dave, if not for the dossier compilers.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 07:09:19 PM
I think the whole issue of either side of the McCann debate lobbing insults at each other. the McCanns and The PJ and outing each other or not as the case may be, pretending it has some far reaching legal consequences for the world at large is laughable. It's about on a par with presenting The Sound of Music as an authoritative political commentary on the rise of Naziism in Austria. Just imo of course I think it laughable also that purportedly grown adults should have a benny at the idea of a court official attempting to use all the tools at her disposal in executing her duty. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
You may think it's all very laughable but a woman has died. This is actually a serious matter despite your attempt at belittling it, as is the protection of police sources, whether about information gathered on the subject on online trolling or corruption in Parliament - it is a principle which IMO should be upheld regardless of the magnitude of the issue being reported on. You clearly disagree and think it's a principle that only matters when YOU think it matters but it doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 07:09:44 PM
You have absolutely no proof that The Compiler did that.. But actually, No, I wouldn't have done. The Police would have been good enough for me. But even if The Compiler did, it still wouldn't have been against the law.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 07:12:51 PM
You have absolutely no proof that The Compiler did that.. But actually, No, I wouldn't have done. The Police would have been good enough for me. But even if The Compiler did, it still wouldn't have been against the law.
Somebody appeared for Brunt to interview so that does imply cooperation doesn't it?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Somebody appeared for Brunt to interview so that does imply cooperation doesn't it?
So what. It's not against the law. Rosalind Hutton cooperated with The Sun Newspaper. No one is suggesting that she broke the law. Or are you going to blame The Sun if she has a breakdown?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on February 18, 2015, 07:32:44 PM
Why do you say that? Her son certainly didn't turn his back on her.
which son was that...the one who lived 6000 miles away...or the other from whom she was estranged...then there was her husband from whom she was divorced...sounds like a pretty lonely existence to me...but then I have a large, close, loving family
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 18, 2015, 07:47:39 PM
I happen to believe it was a very selfish act for Brenda to commit suicide on her son's birthday...there has to be a connection ... IMO
Or it was coincidence considering Sky News turned up on her doorstep 4 or 5 days earlier, she was on TV 2 days earlier and in the newspapers 1 day earlier and also the same day.
It's not rocket science mate.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 08:36:08 PM
Or it was coincidence considering Sky News turned up on her doorstep 4 or 5 days earlier, she was on TV 2 days earlier and in the newspapers 1 day earlier and also the same day.
It's not rocket science mate.
she knew it was her estranged son's birthday...she knew every subsequent birthday would be the anniversary of her death...she could have waited one day..she didn't....
It's not rocket science
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 18, 2015, 08:50:47 PM
I happen to believe it was a very selfish act for Brenda to commit suicide on her son's birthday...there has to be a connection ... IMO
Has her cause of death been determined?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 18, 2015, 09:04:05 PM
I do not want to discuss her death, but if it was not suicide, then she could not have chosen the date, so it is a bit premature to be blaming her for such a cruel deed.
This thread is about Brenda Leyland's coroners court hearing.
Please stay on topic
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 09:07:38 PM
I do not want to discuss her death, but if it was not suicide, then she could not have chosen the date, so it is a bit premature to be blaming her for such a cruel deed.
This thread is about Brenda Leyland's coroners court hearing.
Please stay on topic
to answer your post...if it was suicide...a toxicologist and psychiatrist are being called as witnesses....it was a cruel deed
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2015, 09:11:33 PM
I do not want to discuss her death, but if it was not suicide, then she could not have chosen the date, so it is a bit premature to be blaming her for such a cruel deed.
This thread is about Brenda Leyland's coroners court hearing.
Please stay on topic
If it was not suicide then why are we having all these posts blaming Brunt...from moderators
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2015, 10:11:01 PM
You may think it's all very laughable but a woman has died. This is actually a serious matter despite your attempt at belittling it, as is the protection of police sources, whether about information gathered on the subject on online trolling or corruption in Parliament - it is a principle which IMO should be upheld regardless of the magnitude of the issue being reported on. You clearly disagree and think it's a principle that only matters when YOU think it matters but it doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way.
The issue as far as I am concerned is whether the coroner should be allowed to do her duty and use all her powers to do so. If those powers include being able to name someone who for their own convenience wishes to remain anonymous then tough. I can understand that some may be having severe bouts of ring twitter about it and it doesn't matter to me which side they are on, they got on the bus and are presumably all over 18. Carry the can back for your own actions...that's how it should work. nuff said
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 18, 2015, 10:36:14 PM
The issue as far as I am concerned is whether the coroner should be allowed to do her duty and use all her powers to do so. If those powers include being able to name someone who for their own convenience wishes to remain anonymous then tough. I can understand that some may be having severe bouts of ring twitter about it and it doesn't matter to me which side they are on, they got on the bus and are presumably all over 18. Carry the can back for your own actions...that's how it should work. nuff said
Hmm...well I don't think she does have those powers, but we shall see shan't we...
Quote
Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: “I don’t think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It’s a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers.
“As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists.”
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2015, 10:39:25 PM
Brenda would still be alive dave, if not for the dossier compilers.
Why would Brenda still be alive if it wasn't for the dossier compilers...are you claiming she committed suicide...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2015, 08:26:40 AM
You seem to have forgotten that if it was not for BL's vindictive on-line campaign against the McCanns she would not have been included in any dossier. It was her own choice - and she obviously thoroughly enjoyed doing it - especially when she thought someone had been outed - and was laughing at the thought of how scared that person must be.
IMO the people who are most likely to have had a depressing affect on BL are those 'friends' who viciously turned on her and accused her of letting them down, being a plant/actor etc. etc. That must have been a terrible blow. You seem to have forgotten that too.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on February 19, 2015, 08:48:07 AM
You seem to have forgotten that if it was not for BL's vindictive on-line campaign against the McCanns she would not have been included in any dossier. It was her own choice - and she obviously thoroughly enjoyed doing it - especially when she thought someone had been outed - and was laughing at the thought of how scared that person must be.
IMO the people who are most likely to have had a depressing affect on BL are those 'friends' who viciously turned on her and accused her of letting them down, being a plant/actor etc. etc. That must have been a terrible blow. You seem to have forgotten that too.
AFAIK, this dossier was handed over to the police early September. We are now in the middle of February, 5 and half months later and has anyone seen the police acting on this information? Any prosecutions?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2015, 08:54:24 AM
AFAIK, this dossier was handed over to the police early September. We are now in the middle of February, 5 and half months later and has anyone seen the police acting on this information? Any prosecutions?
Personally I would not expect anything to happen until after the Inquest.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2015, 08:59:10 AM
So if you are not intending to 'bury' the points I made in my post - why don't you discuss them?
Do you think BL would have been extremely distressed to be insulted and vilified by people she previously thought were her friends or not?
The floor is yours.
This has been discussed before.
She has broke NO LAWS.
I and others have seen far worse from mccann supporters, yet you don't criticize what they do.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Still avoiding answering the question then?
Here it is again in case you change your mind.
''Do you think BL would have been extremely distressed to be insulted and vilified by people she previously thought were her friends or not?''
IMO that would have had far more of a detrimental impact on her than any p.r.o. comment. Realising that the same people who previously agreed with every word she said - and patted her on the back for her 'contributions' - were now viciously turning on her must have been very hard to deal with. Especially if her on-line friends were very important to her - which imo they were.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
''Do you think BL would have been extremely distressed to be insulted and vilified by people she previously thought were her friends or not?''
IMO that would have had far more of a detrimental impact on her than any p.r.o. comment. Realising that the same people who previously agreed with every word she said - and patted her on the back for her 'contributions' - were now viciously turning on her must have been very hard to deal with. Especially if her on-line friends were very important to her - which imo they were.
It is you avoiding the questions, as per usual.
Would Brenda Leyland still be alive today,l if not for the dossier compilers, brunt, sky news ?
YES or NO will do.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 19, 2015, 10:34:02 AM
''Do you think BL would have been extremely distressed to be insulted and vilified by people she previously thought were her friends or not?''
IMO that would have had far more of a detrimental impact on her than any p.r.o. comment. Realising that the same people who previously agreed with every word she said - and patted her on the back for her 'contributions' - were now viciously turning on her must have been very hard to deal with. Especially if her on-line friends were very important to her - which imo they were.
But the truth Benice is that it was to dossier compiler handing the information over to Sky news that lead to everything that happened next, wasn't it ?
If the dossier had simply been handed over to OG and they had been left to deal with any illegal activity Brenda would, more than likely, still be here today.
Instead it seems a month after the dossier was initially handed in, and at a point when it seemed no action would be taken, the compiler, in a fit of what can only be called pique, decided to take the law into their own hands. That is what happened and of course you can say that BL shouldn't have tweeted those messages but she did not break any law, the police's inaction testifys to that, and therefore that is where it should be ended. Everything that happened afterwards was as a direct result of the compiler's lack of objectivity as is you and your friends denial of her part in this tragedy.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 19, 2015, 10:50:54 AM
An excellent question from a contributor to the Amazon discussion.
'If the dossier was compiled for the reasons apparently stated, and if everything was above board, why doesn't the Sky source simply inform the coroner? '
Any idea ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2015, 10:58:08 AM
Would Brenda Leyland still be alive today,l if not for the dossier compilers, brunt, sky news ?
YES or NO will do.
This is about BL and her demise. If you want to take the argument back in a series of steps then do it in the correct context - starting with the reason why BL was included in a dossier. If you remember - that was because she willingly and prolifically engaged in an online vindictive campaign against an innocent family which some people regarded as law-breaking. That is the starting point IMO. The fact that some people want to pretend it isn't and skip her own very large part in this is not my problem.
To claim that her choices/on-line behaviour are the McCanns fault is risible.
(awaits the next smokescreen).
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 19, 2015, 10:58:32 AM
An excellent question from a contributor to the Amazon discussion.
'If the dossier was compiled for the reasons apparently stated, and if everything was above board, why doesn't the Sky source simply inform the coroner? '
Any idea ?
Why should they? if the person/people responsible for the dossier want to remain anonymous why should name/names be given?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 19, 2015, 01:02:22 PM
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
Why don't you include the entire reference?
Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person...
www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm
Posting general comments on twitter or Facebook about someone comes under defamation Law. In simplistic terms, posting an abusive letter to someone's house is one thing but nailing it to a tree in the centre of the common is something else. No wonder the police didn't take any further action.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 01:13:09 PM
Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person...
www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm
Posting general comments on twitter or Facebook about someone comes under defamation Law. In simplistic terms, posting an abusive letter to someone's house is one thing but nailing it to a tree in the centre of the common is something else. No wonder the police didn't take any further action.
Not necessarily John.
Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 it is the sending, delivering or transmitting that creates the offence. There is no requirement for the "target" to receive the comunication.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 19, 2015, 01:20:54 PM
Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 it is the sending, delivering or transmitting that creates the offence. There is no requirement for the "target" to receive the communication.
A recipient has to receive it for the act to be complete. In every case of abusive tweets since prosecuted, the offending tweet was received by the complainant in their name into their own account. Miss Piggy sending Rupert Bear an abusive tweet doesn't count since the recipient is anonymous.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 01:29:02 PM
A recipient has to receive it for the act to be complete. In every case of abusive tweets yet prosecuted, the tweet was received by the complainant in their own account.
I bow to your superior knowledge, John.
I am sure the CPS will welcome your expertise, and will hasten to correct their guidance in respect of the act:
_____________
Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
"The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).
A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 19, 2015, 01:47:09 PM
So answer this simple question then, to whom did Brenda send the offending tweets?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 02:01:33 PM
So answer this simple question then, to whom did Brenda send the offending tweets?
I gather most of her tweets were sent to various people under the hashtag #McCann.
Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and also section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the recipient of the communication is irrelevant.
The CPS guidance says:
"If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. "
The acts are quite clear on the fact that a communication does not have to be sent to the "target", or indeed even be received, for an offence to be committed.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2015, 02:04:31 PM
I gather most of her tweets were sent to various people under the hashtag #McCann.
Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and also section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the recipient of the communication is irrelevant.
The CPS guidance says:
"If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. "
The acts are quite clear on the fact that a communication does not have to be sent to the "target", or indeed even be received, for an offence to be committed.
Now JP, do you accept tweets made by mccann supporters fall under the same auspices as those of Brenda Leyland ?
Or are you 1-directional as well ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 02:11:44 PM
In the interest of the justice that they claim to hold in such high regard ? If they have done nothing wrong surely they have nothing to fear ?
Nothing but having their name blackened, their family photos commented on, their reputations trashed on the internet by dozens of "sceptics" - and then there is the real prospect of having Sonia Poulton turning up on your doorstep - nothing to fear? Hmm...I'd rather not have that sort of attention if it were me.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 03:27:06 PM
Nothing but having their name blackened, their family photos commented on, their reputations trashed on the internet by dozens of "sceptics" - and then there is the real prospect of having Sonia Poulton turning up on your doorstep - nothing to fear? Hmm...I'd rather not have that sort of attention if it were me.
Like BL ?
Anyway who is to say the coroner will not keep the source's name confidential ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 03:51:40 PM
Then if you would like to discuss this particular aspect then some examples of the tweets concerned would be very helpful. Can you furnish some specific examples?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 19, 2015, 03:53:49 PM
Anyway who is to say the coroner will not keep the source's name confidential ?
Unlike BL I didn't draw attention to myself on Twitter by posting nasty comments about the parents of a missing child or trying to out individuals I believed to be connected to the case, and call them prostitutes and rejoicing in the prospect of them getting the sack, etc. Nor did I get myself followed by Martin Brunt and get all excited at the prospect of communicating with him. So, no - not like BL.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 19, 2015, 03:57:56 PM
Unlike BL I didn't draw attention to myself on Twitter by posting nasty comments about the parents of a missing child or trying to out individuals I believed to be connected to the case, and call them prostitutes and rejoicing in the prospect of them getting the sack, etc. Nor did I get myself followed by Martin Brunt and get all excited at the prospect of communicating with him. So, no - not like BL.
So an eye for an eye, is that your philosophy ?
And the answer to the second part of my post ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2015, 04:04:18 PM
Then if you would like to discuss this particular aspect then some examples of the tweets concerned would be very helpful. Can you furnish some specific examples?
How many times do youneed to be told, I and others have done these links before to the trolls who support the McCann's ?
You appear like your fellows in a state of denial.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 04:05:28 PM
Well it seems someone is suffering from memory problems and it certainly isn't me! ?{)(**
Look it really isn't a problem Stephen. Don't beat yourself up over it.
You have made an allegation that McCann supporters have "trolled" Brenda Leyland. But apparently cannot produce any evidence of this.
It happens. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 19, 2015, 04:36:03 PM
Like one or two others on this forum, I don't "do" twitter, although I have seen 'tweets' quoted in other places. These are usually accompanied with screen grabs although some are just an account of a sentence from a name and #, both of which appear to be acceptable corroboration.
I think it might be appropriate if the forum used a recognisable form of provenance each time something of this nature is quoted; I don't think it lends anything to the debate for posters to refuse to give a cite on the grounds they have already given one.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 19, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
An eye for an eye? How do you work that one out? That seems to be very much the philosophy of the "sceptic" community who want vengeance for Brenda. The second part of your post was surely rhetorical - what if? who's to know what the intentions of the coroner are, I certainly don't so how do you expect me to answer?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 19, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
Well if the person/persons have asked to remain anonymous they must fear something, maybe reprisals from trolls on the internet?
IMO that is the only reason Lace.
I wonder if those people who are demanding to know the compiler's private details would be as keen to make their own details available to the public?
I certainly wouldn't - that's for sure. Since starting to read Twitter occasionally - it seems to me that there are some seriously nasty people out there.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 19, 2015, 05:16:09 PM
I wonder if those people who are demanding to know the compiler's private details would be as keen to make their own details available to the public?
I certainly wouldn't - that's for sure. Since starting to read Twitter occasionally - it seems to me that there are some seriously nasty people out there.
I doubt very much if they would want their private details out in public Benice, the dossier was of tweets made by anonymous people, so why should the compiler/s of the dossier have their details made public?
The only reason these people would like that to happen is so that they can hound and threaten IMO.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2015, 07:12:28 PM
Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person...
www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm
Posting general comments on twitter or Facebook about someone comes under defamation Law. In simplistic terms, posting an abusive letter to someone's house is one thing but nailing it to a tree in the centre of the common is something else. No wonder the police didn't take any further action.
Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
My source is the cps website.....http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an13
Yours seems to be from some blogger...mines correct..
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 19, 2015, 08:18:34 PM
Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.
My source is the cps website.....http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an13
Yours seems to be from some blogger...mines correct..
You're about ten years out of date with that reference old chum. @)(++(*
The operative word being 'another' as in another person who is in receipt of said communication. Did the McCanns receive any communication dircetly from BL? Is that a NO??
As previously pointed out earlier on this thread before Stephen got all hot and bothered about our lovely Elie, every case where someone has been prosecuted under the Act requires a confirmed sender and a receiver. Tweets sent out into cyberspace and not to an indivdual are referred to as chaff!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 08:23:47 PM
You're about ten years out of date with that reference old chum. @)(++(*
The operative word being 'another' as in another person who is in receipt of said communication. Did the McCanns receive any communication dircetly from BL? Is that a NO??
Really? Any chance of cite to the relevant legislation and the guidance, Angelo?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 19, 2015, 08:29:54 PM
You're about ten years out of date with that reference old chum. @)(++(*
The operative word being 'another' as in another person who is in receipt of said communication. Did the McCanns receive any communication dircetly from BL? Is that a NO??
As previously pointed out earlier on this thread before Stephen got all hot and bothered about our lovely Elie, every case where someone has been prosecuted under the Act requires a confirmed sender and a receiver. Tweets sent out into cyberspace and not to an indivdual are referred to as chaff!
The guy who tweeted about blowing up the airport and who was prosecuted - who was his tweet sent to?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 08:33:28 PM
The Communications Act 2003 section 127, see Stones 8.30110B, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).
If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Art 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.
A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.
It is more appropriate to charge bomb hoaxes under section 51 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. See Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin) , and Public Order Offences, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.
Section 127 can be used as an alternative offence to such crimes for example as hate crime (including race, religion, disability, homophobic, sexual orientation, and transphobic crime), hacking offences, cyber bullying, cyber stalking, amongst others.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 19, 2015, 08:34:17 PM
So we're agreed then - in the words of the late great Phil Collins "No Recipient Required".
So it would appear under more recent legislation which has been framed to take account of social media developments. The watermark appears to be one of 'grossly abusive' as against one which is merely 'abusive'. That in itself is problematic for the CPS.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2015, 09:02:32 PM
The Communications Act 2003 section 127, see Stones 8.30110B, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails.Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).
Quite fascinating. My experience of laws, contract documents and such is that usually somewhere in the beginning there will be a section of definitions to be used in the context of the document. Can anyone one confirm that a tw..ter twit is defined as a phone call or emails within the context of this law? You know by posting the actual section on definitions. Frankly I am not bothered but it might be a quick way to sort it.
Note to Admin. How about a section on here for definitions? then when I log in there will not be the "same old shoot 'em up and the same old rodeo" about people not understanding what evidence is and all that old haraz.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2015, 09:04:13 PM
Wasn't Sally Bercow found guilt of libelling Lord MacAlpine(?) in a tweet?
IIRC the tweet was about him - not to him.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 09:06:32 PM
The actual narrative of section 127 is:
Prospective.
127Improper use of public electronic communications network.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— .
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or .
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. .
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— .
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, .
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or .
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. .
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. .
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 09:19:27 PM
The Communications Act 2003 section 127, see Stones 8.30110B, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails.Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).
Quite fascinating. My experience of laws, contract documents and such is that usually somewhere in the beginning there will be a section of definitions to be used in the context of the document. Can anyone one confirm that a tw..ter twit is defined as a phone call or emails within the context of this law? You know by posting the actual section on definitions. Frankly I am not bothered but it might be a quick way to sort it.
Note to Admin. How about a section on here for definitions? then when I log in there will not be the "same old shoot 'em up and the same old rodeo" about people not understanding what evidence is and all that old haraz.
I dont think communication by twitter can be excluded because twitter is not specially mentioned in the context of the act. Maybe one day we will see a "twit act" but not yet.
The 2003 act covers communications and it is reasonable to suggest that communication covers email, factbook blogs and twitter as well as other forms of communications yet to be invented.
Here is the link to the act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 19, 2015, 09:30:17 PM
I dont think communication by twitter can be excluded because twitter is not specially mentioned in the context of the act. Maybe one day we will see a "twit act" but not yet.
The 2003 act covers communications and it is reasonable to suggest that communication covers email, factbook blogs and twitter as well as other forms of communications yet to be invented.
Here is the link to the act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21
4) Communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false
31. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a "public electronic communications network" a message or other matter that is "grossly offensive" or of an "indecent, obscene or menacing character". The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". The defendant must be shown to have intended or be aware that the message was grossly offensive, indecent or menacing, which can be inferred from the terms of the message or from the defendant's knowledge of the likely recipient. The offence is committed by sending the message. There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it.33.Every day many millions of communications are sent via social media and the application of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to such comments creates the potential that a very large number of cases could be prosecuted before the courts. Taking together, for example, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, there are likely to be hundreds of millions of communications every month.
You're about ten years out of date with that reference old chum. @)(++(*
The operative word being 'another' as in another person who is in receipt of said communication. Did the McCanns receive any communication dircetly from BL? Is that a NO??
As previously pointed out earlier on this thread before Stephen got all hot and bothered about our lovely Elie, every case where someone has been prosecuted under the Act requires a confirmed sender and a receiver. Tweets sent out into cyberspace and not to an indivdual are referred to as chaff!
My quote is taken from the up to date CPS website...the communication does not have to be received
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2015, 09:33:14 PM
I dont think communication by twitter can be excluded because twitter is not specially mentioned in the context of the act. Maybe one day we will see a "twit act" but not yet.
The 2003 act covers communications and it is reasonable to suggest that communication covers email, factbook blogs and twitter as well as other forms of communications yet to be invented.
Here is the link to the act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21
Cheers. My point was that if phone calls and emails are mentioned specifically but the act remains silent on other methods of electronic communication, with particular respect to abuse as listed in posts above, then it cannot be stated with certainty that the section of the act referenced covers tw..ter. Sort of "back on yer 'eads" and wait for it to be tested in court. Which may go part way to explaining why old bill did sweet Felicity Arkwright with the "dodgy dossier" dontcha think?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 09:44:34 PM
The relevant section of the act refers to "
"127Improper use of public electronic communications network."
The malicious comminications act 1988, which is also relevant covers: " The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered."
Where would twitter come in this? Thankfully not my problem but I suggest "writing of all descriptions". or "electonic communications". What do you think?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 19, 2015, 09:45:11 PM
Cheers. My point was that if phone calls and emails are mentioned specifically but the act remains silent on other methods of electronic communication, with particular respect to abuse as listed in posts above, then it cannot be stated with certainty that the section of the act referenced covers tw..ter. Sort of "back on yer 'eads" and wait for it to be tested in court. Which may go part way to explaining why old bill did sweet Felicity Arkwright with the "dodgy dossier" dontcha think?
Social media is specifically mentioned in this http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on February 19, 2015, 09:57:52 PM
Social media is specifically mentioned in this http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
Thank you Alfred. It is posisble that some of the tweets by BL may have fallen under that guidance and therefore potentially exposed her to prosecution.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2015, 10:33:28 PM
It would appear then that this issue is not as clearly defined at law as some would like to portray as a definitive answer is noticeable by its absence. We remain at "if this and if that and this section says but we don't really know". Were it as clear cut as has been suggested it would not be unreasonable to assume that the police and CPS would have taken action having been in receipt of the "dodgy dossier" in September 2014. So if the law is somewhat indistinct in this respect, to portray the compilers of the dossier as guardians of good seeking to report law breaking is a trifle fanciful. Join up the dots.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 19, 2015, 10:39:43 PM
It would appear then that this issue is not as clearly defined at law as some would like to portray as a definitive answer is noticeable by its absence. We remain at "if this and if that and this section says but we don't really know". Were it as clear cut as has been suggested it would not be unreasonable to assume that the police and CPS would have taken action having been in receipt of the "dodgy dossier" in September 2014. So if the law is somewhat indistinct in this respect, to portray the compilers of the dossier as guardians of good seeking to report law breaking is a trifle fanciful. Join up the dots.
Grayling was trying to change the previous legislation in this area, and his Criminal Justice and Courts Act became law last Thursday. I haven't read it but he may have got his way.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 19, 2015, 10:44:43 PM
It would appear then that this issue is not as clearly defined at law as some would like to portray as a definitive answer is noticeable by its absence. We remain at "if this and if that and this section says but we don't really know". Were it as clear cut as has been suggested it would not be unreasonable to assume that the police and CPS would have taken action having been in receipt of the "dodgy dossier" in September 2014. So if the law is somewhat indistinct in this respect, to portray the compilers of the dossier as guardians of good seeking to report law breaking is a trifle fanciful. Join up the dots.
What do you find unclear about the following Alice?
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a "public electronic communications network" a message or other matter that is "grossly offensive" or of an "indecent, obscene or menacing character". The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". The defendant must be shown to have intended or be aware that the message was grossly offensive, indecent or menacing, which can be inferred from the terms of the message or from the defendant's knowledge of the likely recipient. The offence is committed by sending the message. There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 19, 2015, 10:47:04 PM
Man jailed for offensive Ann Maguire tweets http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/08/man-jailed-offensive-ann-maguire-tweets (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/08/man-jailed-offensive-ann-maguire-tweets)
He got 8 weeks but Grayling wanted the new Act to set a maximum sentence of two years. If they want to make examples of people they will do.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2015, 11:10:48 PM
What do you find unclear about the following Alice?
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a "public electronic communications network" a message or other matter that is "grossly offensive" or of an "indecent, obscene or menacing character". The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". The defendant must be shown to have intended or be aware that the message was grossly offensive, indecent or menacing, which can be inferred from the terms of the message or from the defendant's knowledge of the likely recipient. The offence is committed by sending the message. There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it.
Simples. The same thing I said for a kicker. Definitions: There ain't none.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 19, 2015, 11:15:02 PM
It would appear then that this issue is not as clearly defined at law as some would like to portray as a definitive answer is noticeable by its absence. We remain at "if this and if that and this section says but we don't really know". Were it as clear cut as has been suggested it would not be unreasonable to assume that the police and CPS would have taken action having been in receipt of the "dodgy dossier" in September 2014. So if the law is somewhat indistinct in this respect, to portray the compilers of the dossier as guardians of good seeking to report law breaking is a trifle fanciful. Join up the dots.
This thread is very instructive. For a start, anyone expecting definitive answers or black and white examples in any aspect of the law is deluded and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the law. Every case is different and this is reason why we have judges and advoctes, CPS and police and the whole legal apparatus - to try to find a reasonable solution to unique and messy cases.
The law itself is quite clear. The guidance for courts and poice is quite clear. The legal framework is quite clear, and it is also clear that it is the sending of an offending tweet communication which makes the offence - it does not have to be received. What constitues an offensive message is ultimately for the courts to decide. And indeed they have decided on a few cases.
Alice - are you really arguing that because nobody has been banged up as a result of the dossier nobody will be in the future - you are giving far too much credit to the speed of the poiice courts, CPS and courts.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2015, 11:45:28 PM
This thread is very instructive. For a start, anyone expecting definitive answers or black and white examples in any aspect of the law is deluded and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the law. Every case is different and this is reason why we have judges and advoctes, CPS and police and the whole legal apparatus - to try to find a reasonable solution to unique and messy cases.
The law itself is quite clear. The guidance for courts and poice is quite clear. The legal framework is quite clear, and it is also clear that it is the sending of an offending tweet communication which makes the offence - it does not have to be received. What constitues an offensive message is ultimately for the courts to decide. And indeed they have decided on a few cases.
Alice - are you really arguing that because nobody has been banged up as a result of the dossier nobody will be in the future - you are giving far too much credit to the speed of the poiice courts, CPS and courts.
Yeah whatever Ace. But at last you admit it is up to the courts to decide what an offensive message is and not a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law. It's been like pulling teeth but we got there in the end.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 20, 2015, 03:58:16 AM
The Dossier didn't decide. It was merely offered as examples.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 07:26:17 AM
Yeah whatever Ace. But at last you admit it is up to the courts to decide what an offensive message is and not a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law. It's been like pulling teeth but we got there in the end.
Of course its up to the courts...however it seem posters on here have acted like self appointed guardians of the law and found the McCanns guilty of neglect. Having said that there is nothing wrong with a group of citizens collecting evidence and reporting a suspected crime.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 08:03:47 AM
Yeah whatever Ace. But at last you admit it is up to the courts to decide what an offensive message is and not a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law. It's been like pulling teeth but we got there in the end.
So, as far as your concerned private citizens shouldn't report suspected crimes in case it turns out that the courts decide no crime was committed, is that the nub of your argument?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 20, 2015, 08:14:35 AM
So, as far as your concerned private citizens shouldn't report suspected crimes in case it turns out that the courts decide no crime was committed, is that the nub of your argument?
Report to the police is fine.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 08:15:57 AM
Yeah whatever Ace. But at last you admit it is up to the courts to decide what an offensive message is and not a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law. It's been like pulling teeth but we got there in the end.
It's because of a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law....blogging and tweeting relentlessly....that Brenda met her sad fate. Unfortunately she was one of them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 08:17:07 AM
Yeah whatever Ace. But at last you admit it is up to the courts to decide what an offensive message is and not a bunch of self appointed guardians of the law. It's been like pulling teeth but we got there in the end.
When have I ever claimed otherwise?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 08:25:54 AM
This thread is very instructive. For a start, anyone expecting definitive answers or black and white examples in any aspect of the law is deluded and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the law. Every case is different and this is reason why we have judges and advoctes, CPS and police and the whole legal apparatus - to try to find a reasonable solution to unique and messy cases.
The law itself is quite clear. The guidance for courts and poice is quite clear. The legal framework is quite clear, and it is also clear that it is the sending of an offending tweet communication which makes the offence - it does not have to be received. What constitues an offensive message is ultimately for the courts to decide. And indeed they have decided on a few cases.
Alice - are you really arguing that because nobody has been banged up as a result of the dossier nobody will be in the future - you are giving far too much credit to the speed of the poiice courts, CPS and courts.
An excellent summation JP. The fact that it is the act of 'sending' an offensive tweet which is the crime - and that it makes no difference whether it is 'received' or not by the victim needed to be clarified.
IMO people confining themselves to hurling abuse at oneanother on the internet would not qualify as criminal activity IMO. It is when it is taken into 'real life' and/or there is a sustained attack against one person or one group of people that it takes on a different complexion IMO.
As you say - every case is different. IMO this in itself would mean it is a very time consuming operation for the police who - in the case of the dossier for example, would have to firstly examine every tweet by every person named - to decide whether they have broken the law or not.
Whether the police have the will or the resources to tackle this problem properly is questionable IMO.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 20, 2015, 09:26:12 AM
Was it ever divulged who passed evidence of wrongdoing re MPs expenses to the Press? Was anyone outraged about that - or bothered about who gave them the info?
Quote snipped .........., a full uncensored copy of the expenses records and documentation was leaked to The Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details in daily instalments from 8 May 2009. These disclosures dominated the British media for weeks, with the findings being considered to show flagrant and sometimes gross misuse of the expenses system for personal gain by many MPs (including Government and shadow cabinet ministers) across all parties. End quote
I suspect the present 'criticism' from some quarters of press involvement - is the usual knee jerk a.n.t.i. reaction - to anything McCann related.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on February 20, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
What I don't follow is this.
Martin Brunt was there because BL invited him. So no one can accuse him of intruding on her privacy.
But if there was an intention of prosecuting BL (had events taken a different course and she had lived) would not Brunt have risked prejudicing her trial with the publicity?
A further complication, of course, is that it was not Brunt who identified BL to the public.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 09:38:37 AM
Can anyone explain to me why, if the dossier compilers believed the tweets collected were in contravention of any law, the didn't leave it with the police to deal with ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 20, 2015, 09:56:02 AM
Martin Brunt was there because BL invited him. So no one can accuse him of intruding on her privacy.
But if there was an intention of prosecuting BL (had events taken a different course and she had lived) would not Brunt have risked prejudicing her trial with the publicity?
A further complication, of course, is that it was not Brunt who identified BL to the public.
Is doorstepping someone out of the blue with a news team in tow generally seen as an invitation ? Do you appreciate how intimidating and scary that would have been for the poor woman ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: ferryman on February 20, 2015, 10:22:14 AM
Is doorstepping someone out of the blue with a news team in tow generally seen as an invitation ? Do you appreciate how intimidating and scary that would have been for the poor woman ?
Brenda Leyland invited Martin Brunt.
That is not door-stepping ...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 10:25:35 AM
BL was doorstepped initially then, being the polite person that she was, invited MB into her home. That she gave him a minute of her time testifies to her character.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:28:29 AM
There is a big difference between social media and the MSM.
So - it's OK to be part of an online campaign to highlight alleged crimes by way of expending every effort to spread your accusations as far and wide as is humanly possible, but not OK to take your concerns about alleged crimes to the MSM - can you explain your reasoning here please?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 20, 2015, 10:28:43 AM
His initial contact was doorstepping a woman on her own. Pretty revolting behaviour if I might say so whether it be Brenda Leyland, Kate McCann or any other woman at home alone for that matter. Had Brunt been a true professional he would have contacted her and arranged a meeting as she earlier suggested in a tweet to him.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:30:10 AM
BL was doorstepped initially then, being the polite person that she was, invited MB into her home. That she gave him a minute of her time testifies to her character.
Is it polite to mock someone's weight problem, accuse them of being a prostitute and hope that they get the sack for the crime of being a McCann supporter?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 20, 2015, 10:32:36 AM
Can anyone explain to me why, if the dossier compilers believed the tweets collected were in contravention of any law, the didn't leave it with the police to deal with ?
Why should anyone be criticised for going to the media if they think it may help their cause? The media are not obliged to use any information given to them. It's up to them.
IMO sceptics are only too eager to use the media when it suits them - hence the organised 'trips' to the comments sections of newspapers - where all kinds of accusations are repeatedly made. If those people think they have evidence of lawbreaking why don't they simply contact the police with their evidence and leave it to them to deal with? Why go to the press - what are they hoping to achieve? Could it be that it's because they think it will help their cause?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 10:33:12 AM
So - it's OK to be part of an online campaign to highlight alleged crimes by way of expending every effort to spread your accusations as far and wide as is humanly possible, but not OK to take your concerns about alleged crimes to the MSM - can you explain your reasoning here please?
Not if you believe, as the dossier compiler seems to have done, that those concerns are part of an on-going investigation.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:36:49 AM
Not if you believe, as the dossier compiler seems to have done, that those concerns are part of an on-going investigation.
Aren't your concerns part of an on-going investigation? Why is it OK for you to "fight for justice" using social media but not MSM? Is Goncalo Amaral wrong to use the media in PT every time he opens his mouth then, in your view?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 20, 2015, 10:37:07 AM
Why should anyone be criticised for going to the media if they think it may help their cause? The media are not obliged to use any information given to them. It's up to them.
IMO sceptics are only too eager to use the media when it suits them - hence the organised 'trips' to the comments sections of newspapers - where all kinds of accusations are repeatedly made. If those people think they have evidence of lawbreaking why don't they simply contact the police with their evidence and leave it to them to deal with? Why go to the press - what are they hoping to achieve? Could it be that it's because they think it will help their cause?
I agree as breaches of the law should be left to the police to deal with but whoever sent out this dossier was hellbent on publicity as well.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 10:39:02 AM
Brenda is not a victim. She engaged in a campaign of hatred against a couple she did not know. It will be interesting to see what the coroner has to say.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 20, 2015, 10:41:58 AM
Is it polite to mock someone's weight problem, accuse them of being a prostitute and hope that they get the sack for the crime of being a McCann supporter?
It's not polite but if you are at the sharp end of a campaign to out you as BL was it becomes understandable. One of your ilk threatened to contact my employer. Unfortunately the protagonist icontacted some poor physiotherapist's employer instead.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 20, 2015, 10:45:38 AM
Brenda is not a victim. She engaged in a campaign of hatred against a couple she did not know. It will be interesting to see what the coroner has to say.
Your choice of words is interesting. Does a few dozen tweets aimed at the McCanns constitute a campaign?
I agree with Benice, if the complaint had been properly handled and left to the police Brenda would most probably still be alive today.
The compilers of the dossier wanted to reek vengeance upon those people named within it but it backfired spectacularly. It is now time for the compilers to face the same public scrutiny.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 10:46:20 AM
Aren't your concerns part of an on-going investigation? Why is it OK for you to "fight for justice" using social media but not MSM? Is Goncalo Amaral wrong to use the media in PT every time he opens his mouth then, in your view?
If the police were dealing with it why would the compiler feel the need to also pass the details to the MSM ? What purpose did it serve ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 10:48:45 AM
Why should anyone be criticised for going to the media if they think it may help their cause? The media are not obliged to use any information given to them. It's up to them.
IMO sceptics are only too eager to use the media when it suits them - hence the organised 'trips' to the comments sections of newspapers - where all kinds of accusations are repeatedly made. If those people think they have evidence of lawbreaking why don't they simply contact the police with their evidence and leave it to them to deal with? Why go to the press - what are they hoping to achieve? Could it be that it's because they think it will help their cause?
If you can't see the difference between leaving a comment on a COMMENTS section of a news report and passing information to the MSM that are part of an ongoing police investigation then I really can't help you Benice.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:52:48 AM
If the police were dealing with it why would the compiler feel the need to also pass the details to the MSM ? What purpose did it serve ?
You would have to ask them that, if indeed that is what happened, I can't speak for them and have no interest in playing guessing games. Perhaps you could answer my question now. Every time Amaral opens his mouth about the current investigation, or about his own libel case to the MSM, is he wrong to do so, in your view?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:54:15 AM
It's not polite but if you are at the sharp end of a campaign to out you as BL was it becomes understandable. One of your ilk threatened to contact my employer. Unfortunately the protagonist icontacted some poor physiotherapist's employer instead.
Eh? You are not BL! Where is the evidence that the person targeted by BL was in turn trying to out her (which wouldn't have been that difficult as she had already outed herself!)?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:54:50 AM
Your choice of words is interesting. Does a few dozen tweets aimed at the McCanns constitute a campaign?
I agree with Benice, if the complaint had been properly handled and left to the police Brenda would most probably still be alive today.
The compilers of the dossier wanted to reek vengeance upon those people named within it but it backfired spectacularly. It is now time for the compilers to face the same public scrutiny.
Interesting maths.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 20, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Your choice of words is interesting. Does a few dozen tweets aimed at the McCanns constitute a campaign?
I agree with Benice, if the complaint had been properly handled and left to the police Brenda would most probably still be alive today.
The compilers of the dossier wanted to reek vengeance upon those people named within it but it backfired spectacularly. It is now time for the compilers to face the same public scrutiny.
I have never said that Angelo. If you think I have - then either I haven't phrased a post correctly or you have misread it.
I don't think 'revenge' comes into it. Decent people are appalled at a hate campaign against an innocent family - and have every right to expect the law to do something about it if it involves lawbreaking. And that is the whole - and only object of the exercise IMO.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 11:02:14 AM
If you can't see the difference between leaving a comment on a COMMENTS section of a news report and passing information to the MSM that are part of an ongoing police investigation then I really can't help you Benice.
I don't understand your point.
Would it have been any different if the dossier had been a compilation of posts in the comments section of the media as opposed to any other form of social media?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 11:02:36 AM
I just read a piece about the dossier in The Guardian this is part of it -
The Guardian understands the story was looked at closely by Sky’s lawyers before it was broadcast and 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.”
So they lawyers had looked at the story before Brunt interviewed Brenda Leyland. Sounds as though it was all above board.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
You would have to ask them that, if indeed that is what happened, I can't speak for them and have no interest in playing guessing games. Perhaps you could answer my question now. Every time Amaral opens his mouth about the current investigation, or about his own libel case to the MSM, is he wrong to do so, in your view?
I think that as the libel case is a civil matter between himself, the other defendants and the McCanns he has every right to discuss it with whomever he likes. As to the current investigation as long as he isn't devulging details that are unknown to the public then I really can't see what difference it would make. The compiler supplied details that should not have been made public until the investigation had been concluded, that is the top and bottom of it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 20, 2015, 11:07:02 AM
If you can't see the difference between leaving a comment on a COMMENTS section of a news report and passing information to the MSM that are part of an ongoing police investigation then I really can't help you Benice.
If you can't see that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - then I can't help you either Faith.
I'm not sure what you mean Faith - are you saying that the contents of the dossier referring to a hate campaign on the internet are part of an ongoing police investigation?
(Will have to wait for your reply - must go - duty calls)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 11:10:33 AM
I think that as the libel case is a civil matter between himself, the other defendants and the McCanns he has every right to discuss it with whomever he likes. As to the current investigation as long as he isn't devulging details that are unknown to the public then I really can't see what difference it would make. The compiler supplied details that should not have been made public until the investigation had been concluded, that is the top and bottom of it.
I'm confused. If the dossier was indeed simply a compilation of public comments of a potentially criminal nature, what was supplied was already in the public domain. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 11:13:59 AM
Would it have been any different if the dossier had been a compilation of posts in the comments section of the media as opposed to any other form of social media?
Why do you think Carana it is frowned upon for witnesses in an ongoing investigation to take their stories to the press before the completion of the case ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 11:16:24 AM
Why do you think Carana it is frowned upon for witnesses in an ongoing investigation to take their stories to the press before the completion of the case ?
Which "investigation" are you referring to? Until that's clarified, I don't know which "witnesses" you're referring to...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 11:18:26 AM
Why do you think Carana it is frowned upon for witnesses in an ongoing investigation to take their stories to the press before the completion of the case ?
Amaral wrote about the case in his book.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 20, 2015, 11:20:55 AM
The sort of abuse Brenda received on twitter after Brunts visit was appalling. Let's hope the police pursued this particularly offensive idiot. I bet the Saudis would know how to deal with this sort of abuse!
WARNING
The following image contains abusive and sexually explicit comments.
http://i.imgur.com/z3oqzDi.jpg?1
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 20, 2015, 11:25:12 AM
I just read a piece about the dossier in The Guardian this is part of it -
The Guardian understands the story was looked at closely by Sky’s lawyers before it was broadcast and 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.”
So they lawyers had looked at the story before Brunt interviewed Brenda Leyland. Sounds as though it was all above board.
Sky's lawyers only looked at it after the piece was broadcast.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 11:27:41 AM
I think that as the libel case is a civil matter between himself, the other defendants and the McCanns he has every right to discuss it with whomever he likes. As to the current investigation as long as he isn't devulging details that are unknown to the public then I really can't see what difference it would make. The compiler supplied details that should not have been made public until the investigation had been concluded, that is the top and bottom of it.
What details were not public? Are tweets not public?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 20, 2015, 11:34:55 AM
The sort of abuse Brenda received on twitter after Brunts visit was appalling. Let's hope the police pursued this particularly offensive idiot. I bet the Saudis would know how to deal with this sort of abuse!
Brenda never posted anything even bordering on that vicious venomous diatribe.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 11:49:03 AM
The sort of abuse Brenda received on twitter after Brunts visit was appalling. Let's hope the police pursued this particularly offensive idiot. I bet the Saudis would know how to deal with this sort of abuse!
http://i.imgur.com/z3oqzDi.jpg?1
That was indeed foul, not unlike some of the those worst "sceptics".
A difference is that this person had only ever tweeted once before about the Madeleine case, many months prior to that.
Her profile said something to the effect that Twitter was her way of letting off steam - and she did so based on anything that caught her eye in the press. Nearly all were foul-mouthed racist / homophobic (and for some reason, anti-Mormon) rants.
Interestingly, I've been told that several McCann supporters reported her disgusting rant to Twitter and her account was closed down. I've no idea whether it was closed voluntarily, or because of her thousands of other tweets which would certainly have been illegal in the UK, and quite possibly in the US, where she was supposedly based.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 12:21:27 PM
That article says the lawyers looked at it BEFORE it was broadcast John.
Yes, I know. Pity they don't share the same concerns over the actions of their other reporters, Holland, Burley and Brazier whose caught-on-camera conduct has been questioned lately.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 12:25:34 PM
I don't believe the article for a minute. Their lawyers jumped in immediately the public protests started calling for Brunt to be sacked. Good old Sky News, protecting their ass as per usual.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 12:43:22 PM
I don't believe the article for a minute. Their lawyers jumped in immediately the public protests started calling for Brunt to be sacked. Good old Sky News, protecting their ass as per usual.
Well if that's the case they would have to explain why they thought it ok to broadcast wouldn't they?
edited to add
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on February 20, 2015, 12:56:44 PM
Well if that's the case they would have to explain why they thought it ok to broadcast wouldn't they?
edited to add
If Sky lawyers looked at the piece before it was aired they obviously had concerns to begin with and were well aware of what they were doing and more importantly the risks tat came with it. No real wonder then that the coroner wants to see Brunt and his manager.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 01:05:04 PM
So, as far as your concerned private citizens shouldn't report suspected crimes in case it turns out that the courts decide no crime was committed, is that the nub of your argument?
No! as you are well aware. If one suspects a crime one should report to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with it. Anything else leads to anarchy but those who like that idea usually fall at the first hurdle when it is explained to them properly.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 01:13:35 PM
Of course its up to the courts...however it seem posters on here have acted like self appointed guardians of the law and found the McCanns guilty of neglect. Having said that there is nothing wrong with a group of citizens collecting evidence and reporting a suspected crime.
It is what they do with it afterwards that is at issue.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 01:18:57 PM
No! as you are well aware. If one suspects a crime one should report to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with it. Anything else leads to anarchy but those who like that idea usually fall at the first hurdle when it is explained to them properly.
Interesting that you mention anarchy. It seems to have been the right to total freedom of expression (and the potential vigilante consequences of that) that the dossier compilers were worried about in the first place...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 01:23:15 PM
If Sky lawyers looked at the piece before it was aired they obviously had concerns to begin with and were well aware of what they were doing and more importantly the risks tat came with it. No real wonder then that the coroner wants to see Brunt and his manager.
I really don't know what you are talking about when you say 'well aware of what they were doing and more importantly the risks that came with it'.
Martin Brunt as far as I can see was just doing his job. As the article in the Guardian said where BL lived was not revealed, her real name was not revealed and her cars registration number could not be read.
Are you saying that Martin Brunt knew that BL was in the state of mind to take her own life?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 20, 2015, 01:28:48 PM
It is what they do with it afterwards that is at issue.
Nope, I still don't get it in this case.
If top-secret information potentially compromisng national security, or even an individual's personal confidential data had been leaked and published, I'd agree with you.
However, this doesn't appear to be the case. As far as I can gather, it was a compilation of comments that various people had themselves posted... and which anyone's half-blind pet hamster could have collated.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 20, 2015, 01:35:47 PM
If Sky lawyers looked at the piece before it was aired they obviously had concerns to begin with and were well aware of what they were doing and more importantly the risks tat came with it. No real wonder then that the coroner wants to see Brunt and his manager.
Ms Leyland is on record as having addressed emails to Martin Brunt ... in the light of a developing news story why on earth would he not follow through on her initiative?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
I really don't know what you are talking about when you say 'well aware of what they were doing and more importantly the risks that came with it'.
Martin Brunt as far as I can see was just doing his job. As the article in the Guardian said where BL lived was not revealed, her real name was not revealed and her cars registration number could not be read.
Are you saying that Martin Brunt knew that BL was in the state of mind to take her own life?
They could easily have done the item on trolls without going out to meet anyone.
But that wasn't enough for Sky TV clearly. Getting a reaction on camera - which Brunt was clearly trying to provoke with talk of CPS and police - was obviously the icing on their cake. They thought: you can't witch-hunt without finding viewers a witch can you. I doubt it being a woman was coincidence.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 20, 2015, 03:18:38 PM
Ms Leyland is on record as having addressed emails to Martin Brunt ... in the light of a developing news story why on earth would he not follow through on her initiative?
Yes and asking him "why Martin don't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality". Also asking him what thoughts he had on the connection between Amy Tierney and someone called Basil. Calling someone named Mod, a F***tard. She actually tweeted "I'm not suffering, the stalking and threats have been most useful, cannot thank the perps enough".
Loads of her tweets included Brunt tag.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 03:21:29 PM
They could easily have done the item on trolls without going out to meet anyone.
But that wasn't enough for Sky TV clearly. Getting a reaction on camera - which Brunt was clearly trying to provoke with talk of CPS and police - was obviously the icing on their cake. They thought: you can't witch-hunt without finding viewers a witch can you. I doubt it being a woman was coincidence.
Well obviously they wanted a story.
BL however conversed with Martin Brunt on twitter. It was a good way for her to get her point across wasn't it?
After all most of the anti's say that the majority of people are against the McCann's.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 03:25:51 PM
Yes and asking him "why Martin don't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality". Also asking him what thoughts he had on the connection between Amy Tierney and someone called Basil. Calling someone named Mod, a F***tard. She actually tweeted "I'm not suffering, the stalking and threats have been most useful, cannot thank the perps enough".
Loads of her tweets included Brunt tag.
I heard the hounding of the person she thought was Amy Tierney was horrendous.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 03:35:16 PM
I don't know why you're defending him, it is possible to both be supporting the McCanns and be anti-Sky News you know.
Brunt saw her reaction when he mentioned police. He saw he'd upset her but that wasn't enough for him, so he went for more by mentioning the CPS.
There's really no doubt about what he went there for, and it wasn't to give her an opportunity to get any point across.
As I said, all I saw was a man doing his job, journalists are trained on how to get a story aren't they?
If it had been a pro McCann instead of BL how would you feel about it then? What if it had been that poor girl that BL had helped to hound off twitter?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 20, 2015, 03:49:05 PM
As I said, all I saw was a man doing his job, journalists are trained on how to get a story aren't they?
If it had been a pro McCann instead of BL how would you feel about it then? What if it had been that poor girl that BL had helped to hound off twitter?
Or Poulton's visit could have had the same affect on Kate McCann. Would that have been ok?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 03:53:51 PM
I don't know why you're defending him, it is possible to both be supporting the McCanns and be anti-Sky News you know.
Brunt saw her reaction when he mentioned police. He saw he'd upset her but that wasn't enough for him, so he went for more by mentioning the CPS.
There's really no doubt about what he went there for, and it wasn't to give her an opportunity to get any point across.
I think what the faithful are finding hard to comprehend is that by initiating any kind of contact via social media you are not implicitly giving your contact permission to come to your house uninvited and to put the resulting doorstepping on worldwide TV. TBH if I'd been Brenda I would have set the dogs on him.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 03:56:21 PM
Interesting that you mention anarchy. It seems to have been the right to total freedom of expression (and the potential vigilante consequences of that) that the dossier compilers were worried about in the first place...
It really is simple to grasp. The law applies to everyone to be administered by those who are appointed to administer it, in the appropriate place in the appropriate manner. All this hooha about who did what with which and to whom is not relevant to the rule of law. The dossier compilers had done all they reasonably should have done when they handed it to the police. Some one handed it to the press; do you think the police did that?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 03:59:06 PM
I think what the faithful are finding hard to comprehend is that by initiating any kind of contact via social media you are not implicitly giving your contact permission to come to your house uninvited and to put the resulting doorstepping on worldwide TV. TBH if I'd been Brenda I would have set the dogs on him.
We don't know how much communication BL had with Brunt do we?
What do you think of Sonia Poulton doorstepping Kate McCann?
Please don't call me 'the faithful' I find it very childish and annoying.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 03:59:21 PM
As I said, all I saw was a man doing his job, journalists are trained on how to get a story aren't they?
If it had been a pro McCann instead of BL how would you feel about it then? What if it had been that poor girl that BL had helped to hound off twitter?
I tweeted on the day it was shown that he was only doing his job, but that doesn't mean there's any reduction in his share of the responsibility: when an international news organisation turns up to speak to/provoke someone like that - and that report is shown again and again and again (not just once like Watchdog or Cook report) - they know they're taking a risk. And in this case it was a risk they really didn't need to take, because they already had more than enough for their 'trolls' piece.
I don't know about what went on with that tweeter/'witness' specifically, but I'd never defend most of what goes on on twitter (then or now). It's mostly - on both sides - bored people who just enjoy being outrageous.
The Sky News item mentioned the 'cartoons' and photoshopped images, and I couldn't agree more about that. Some of the ones I saw were sick and it wouldn't have bothered me one bit if Brunt had turned up on the doorstep of the people making those images.
But they mentioned the images but instead turned up at the house of someone who had nothing to do with making them?
What for? Just to get a cheap bit of film of someone (anyone) being confronted. And for that superfluous minute of video they took a risk - why?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 04:03:01 PM
I think what the faithful are finding hard to comprehend is that by initiating any kind of contact via social media you are not implicitly giving your contact permission to come to your house uninvited and to put the resulting doorstepping on worldwide TV. TBH if I'd been Brenda I would have set the dogs on him.
it's purely a matter of opinion....I happen to believe Brenda deserved being doorstepped
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
Or Poulton's visit could have had the same affect on Kate McCann. Would that have been ok?
No it would not! That is the whole point sir/madam as the case may be. The law applies to both sides not just your mates but some have great difficulty in comprehending that simple fact, judging by the number of primary school playground attitude "he did it first Miss" posts on here. Mercy!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 04:05:55 PM
As Lyall has just posted "bored and boring people who just like to be outrageous"
you can think what you like..as I have said before I have been a victim of some pretty disgusting online trolling and feel perpetrators deserve all they get....I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if some of the extreme trolls I have encountered decided to kill themselves
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 04:29:37 PM
I tweeted on the day it was shown that he was only doing his job, but that doesn't mean there's any reduction in his share of the responsibility: when an international news organisation turns up to speak to/provoke someone like that - and that report is shown again and again and again (not just once like Watchdog or Cook report) - they know they're taking a risk. And in this case it was a risk they really didn't need to take, because they already had more than enough for their 'trolls' piece.
I don't know about what went on with that tweeter/'witness' specifically, but I'd never defend most of what goes on on twitter (then or now). It's mostly - on both sides - bored people who just enjoy being outrageous.
The Sky News item mentioned the 'cartoons' and photoshopped images, and I couldn't agree more about that. Some of the ones I saw were sick and it wouldn't have bothered me one bit if Brunt had turned up on the doorstep of the people making those images.
But they mentioned the images but instead turned up at the house of someone who had nothing to do with making them?
What for? Just to get a cheap bit of film of someone (anyone) being confronted. And for that superfluous minute of video they took a risk - why?
You are then against ALL unsolicited media intrusion I take it?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
You are then against ALL unsolicited media intrusion I take it?
They already had their programme. They didn't need the confrontation footage. He may have hoped it wouldn't be a confrontation, but when he saw she wasn't saying anything he provoked her by mentioning police.
He provoked her again by mentioning the CPS.
That's clear from the video. I don't know why you're defending him and the channel.
She drove off and he may have hung around outside her house anyway. Possibly more provocation.
They could have done the item by blanking all names of tweeters and have taken no risk.
But then they wouldn't have had their witch would they.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 04:48:03 PM
They already had their programme. They didn't need the confrontation footage. He may have hoped it wouldn't be a confrontation, but when he saw she wasn't saying anything he provoked her by mentioning police.
He provoked her again by mentioning the CPS.
That's clear from the video. I don't know why you're defending him and the channel.
She drove off and he may have hung around outside her house anyway. Possibly more provocation.
They could have done the item by blanking all names of tweeters and have taken no risk.
But then they wouldn't have had their witch would they.
You portray Brenda as a victim.....she wasn't
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lace on February 20, 2015, 04:49:29 PM
I tweeted on the day it was shown that he was only doing his job, but that doesn't mean there's any reduction in his share of the responsibility: when an international news organisation turns up to speak to/provoke someone like that - and that report is shown again and again and again (not just once like Watchdog or Cook report) - they know they're taking a risk. And in this case it was a risk they really didn't need to take, because they already had more than enough for their 'trolls' piece.
I don't know about what went on with that tweeter/'witness' specifically, but I'd never defend most of what goes on on twitter (then or now). It's mostly - on both sides - bored people who just enjoy being outrageous.
The Sky News item mentioned the 'cartoons' and photoshopped images, and I couldn't agree more about that. Some of the ones I saw were sick and it wouldn't have bothered me one bit if Brunt had turned up on the doorstep of the people making those images.
But they mentioned the images but instead turned up at the house of someone who had nothing to do with making them?
What for? Just to get a cheap bit of film of someone (anyone) being confronted. And for that superfluous minute of video they took a risk - why?
Which leads me to believe there is more to this than meets the eye. Did BL get in contact with Brunt?
All will be revealed next month.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 04:49:59 PM
They already had their programme. They didn't need the confrontation footage. He may have hoped it wouldn't be a confrontation, but when he saw she wasn't saying anything he provoked her by mentioning police.
He provoked her again by mentioning the CPS.
That's clear from the video. I don't know why you're defending him and the channel.
She drove off and he may have hung around outside her house anyway. Possibly more provocation.
They could have done the item by blanking all names of tweeters and have taken no risk.
But then they wouldn't have had their witch would they.
There is currently great public interest in trolls, so to have a real live one on the programme would have been desirable from the programme maker's point of view. Journalists are there to challenge, to provoke a response, they are not trained to be thoughtful and kind and to spare feelings and blushes. Brenda gave no indication that she was a fragile little flower, in fact she seemed smugly defiant when first challenged. And to be fair to Sky and Brunt they didn't identify Brenda, the Mail did that I believe.
IMO either you are for press freedom of this kind, or you are against it, there really is no wishy-washy middle ground on this issue as far as I can see....
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 04:51:40 PM
you can think what you like..as I have said before I have been a victim of some pretty disgusting online trolling and feel perpetrators deserve all they get....I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if some of the extreme trolls I have encountered decided to kill themselves
Well maybe you have maybe you haven't ; were it me I wouldn't boast/complain about it on an anonymous site. As for the last comment well may be you would maybe you wouldn't. I doubt anyone really cares anyway. It is back to Lyall's quote again really
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 04:54:51 PM
There is currently great public interest in trolls, so to have a real live one on the programme would have been desirable from the programme maker's point of view. Journalists are there to challenge, to provoke a response, they are not trained to be thoughtful and kind and to spare feelings and blushes. Brenda gave no indication that she was a fragile little flower, in fact she seemed smugly defiant when first challenged. And to be fair to Sky and Brunt they didn't identify Brenda, the Mail did that I believe.
IMO either you are for press freedom of this kind, or you are against it, there really is no wishy-washy middle ground on this issue as far as I can see....
Against it %£&)**#
Journalists are there to challenge, to provoke a response
So you agree they took a risk?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 04:56:44 PM
There is currently great public interest in trolls, so to have a real live one on the programme would have been desirable from the programme maker's point of view. Journalists are there to challenge, to provoke a response, they are not trained to be thoughtful and kind and to spare feelings and blushes. Brenda gave no indication that she was a fragile little flower, in fact she seemed smugly defiant when first challenged. And to be fair to Sky and Brunt they didn't identify Brenda, the Mail did that I believe.
IMO either you are for press freedom of this kind, or you are against it, there really is no wishy-washy middle ground on this issue as far as I can see....
So you must approve of the doorstepping of Kate by Sonia Poulton then ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 05:01:26 PM
Well maybe you have maybe you haven't ; were it me I wouldn't boast/complain about it on an anonymous site. As for the last comment well may be you would maybe you wouldn't. I doubt anyone really cares anyway. It is back to Lyall's quote again really
well it isn't you and I am neither boasting nor complaining... I am explaining why I hold my views.....it's basically mob rule on the net .....youngsters are being bullied by trolls and committing suicide...I have zero sympathy for the likes of Brenda
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 05:06:15 PM
well it isn't you and I am neither boasting nor complaining... I am explaining why I hold my views.....it's basically mob rule on the net .....youngsters are being bullied by trolls and committing suicide...I have zero sympathy for the likes of Brenda
*IRONY KLAXON*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 05:12:48 PM
well it isn't you and I am neither boasting nor complaining... I am explaining why I hold my views.....it's basically mob rule on the net .....youngsters are being bullied by trolls and committing suicide...I have zero sympathy for the likes of Brenda
Off topic Well I share your view but to a greater degree probably. An individual is responsible for their own actions and the consequences thereof. No fuss no muss no bleedin' weak kneed excuses along the lines of "well I didn't expect that to happen". The trouble these days is too many feel one way or another they are a victim which is then a reason to excuse all their bad behaviour.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 20, 2015, 05:17:03 PM
well it isn't you and I am neither boasting nor complaining... I am explaining why I hold my views.....it's basically mob rule on the net .....youngsters are being bullied by trolls and committing suicide...I have zero sympathy for the likes of Brenda
So ask the police why they didn't take any action (assuming action could have been taken)?
Exactly what Sky News should have done - Brunt should have doorstepped them, not randomly single out one person.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 05:35:18 PM
So - it's OK to be part of an online campaign to highlight alleged crimes by way of expending every effort to spread your accusations as far and wide as is humanly possible, but not OK to take your concerns about alleged crimes to the MSM - can you explain your reasoning here please?
Most social media and the Internet in general is full of conspiracy theorists and other assorted nut jobs who make claims with no evidence and as such their spoutings are treated with the scepticism they deserve. The MSM is generally considered todo more research and so their utterances are treated more seriously.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 06:18:10 PM
Depends what the shonky( &%+((£) builder has done.
Why aren't the first 2 defenceless? What if the MP is being doorstepped for making a racist tweet? What if the banker is doorstepped because he had an affair with the MP's wife? If the builder has been seen repeatedly fly-tipping and is being doorstepped by a media team investigating the issue, should that not be allowed?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 06:19:57 PM
Most social media and the Internet in general is full of conspiracy theorists and other assorted nut jobs who make claims with no evidence and as such their spoutings are treated with the scepticism they deserve. The MSM is generally considered todo more research and so their utterances are treated more seriously.
LOL - I almost feel like singing Hallelujah at this post, perhaps I will use it as my signature from now on!
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 20, 2015, 09:06:50 PM
Well Monsieur Jim gamble has just come out saying he doesn't agree with publicly naming and shaming people, Radio 4 'Any Questions'.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 09:18:24 PM
Why aren't the first 2 defenceless? What if the MP is being doorstepped for making a racist tweet? What if the banker is doorstepped because he had an affair with the MP's wife? If the builder has been seen repeatedly fly-tipping and is being doorstepped by a media team investigating the issue, should that not be allowed?
The MP and banker have allies and money and solicitors etc. So it's not so cataclysmic for them.
I doubt they'd show the confrontation again and again and again either during the day either.
Or have other contributors to the programme bursting to tell the world what bad eggs we all are.
(The builder case is trickier.)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 09:34:31 PM
The banker and the mp have arguably much more to lose, and I don't see why any scoop concerning one of them wouldn't be featured on rolling news.
True they have more to lose potentially, but I can only go on how I'm certain I would have felt had Brunt turned up at my place. It's a huge shock for ordinary folks like us don't you think? We didn't need Brenda to tell us herself it was for her, you can see it in the videos.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 09:52:48 PM
True they have more to lose potentially, but I can only go on how I'm certain I would have felt had Brunt turned up at my place. It's a huge shock for ordinary folks like us don't you think? We didn't need Brenda to tell us herself it was for her, you can see it in the videos.
At least some may realise that if they continue to post abusively there is a chance of them being found out and shamed...Brenda was abusive
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2015, 10:11:16 PM
Well I suppose Brunty had it cushy really. I mean there's not much chance of copping a 20mm cannon shell in Burton Overy like there would be if he was a real reporter reporting important stuff n that. 8(>(( Christ I have never even heard of him reporting from Moss Side or Lozells, any one got a cite for him having done that?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 20, 2015, 10:23:29 PM
Well I suppose Brunty had it cushy really. I mean there's not much chance of copping a 20mm cannon shell in Burton Overy like there would be if he was a real reporter reporting important stuff n that. 8(>(( Christ I have never even heard of him reporting from Moss Side or Lozells, any one got a cite for him having done that?
You do talk absolute BS...Anthony summers reported from Vietnam and the Middle East...what respect did that earn him on this forum...I used to walk through Lozells every day on my way to school
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 10:28:15 PM
You do talk absolute BS...Anthony summers reported from Vietnam and the Middle East...what respect did that earn him on this forum...I used to walk through Lozells every day on my way to school
Brunt reported on the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War but i don't suppose that counts for anything now...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 20, 2015, 11:19:54 PM
You do talk absolute BS...Anthony summers reported from Vietnam and the Middle East...what respect did that earn him on this forum...I used to walk through Lozells every day on my way to school
I know but it had the desired effect ?>)()< Me? I would have used the buzz.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2015, 11:25:57 PM
BTW, do you think Brenda would have agreed with your Wilde quotation?
No I mean the ones AFTER they lawyered up.
As Voltaire so succinctly put it “'That is indisputable,' was the answer, 'but in this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.'
As to your question with regard to Brenda, don't know I never even met the gal !
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 21, 2015, 08:35:08 AM
As Voltaire so succinctly put it “'That is indisputable,' was the answer, 'but in this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.'
As to your question with regard to Brenda, don't know I never even met the gal !
Who needs "Quote Of The Day" with you around?! I swoon at your scholarly references. 8**8:/: Personally though I think it likely that Brenda wasn't at all happy about being talked about and that was at least one of the factors in her decision to end her life. Of course, I may be completely mistaken, but we shall see.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 21, 2015, 11:08:53 AM
As Voltaire so succinctly put it “'That is indisputable,' was the answer, 'but in this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.'
As to your question with regard to Brenda, don't know I never even met the gal !
Are you saying that as a result of the Press paying out large sums of money for printing massive lies about the MCanns - they (the press) have now decided to become 'message carriers' for the McCanns instead?
The fact that they have recently had to pay another £55,000 to the McCanns does seem to contradict the idea of such a cosy relationship IMO.
Or do you think it's just Brunt who has apparently decided to become a 'bagman' for the McCanns? Could you explain why he would do that?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 21, 2015, 12:14:24 PM
Seems even the McCann's staunch supporter Jim Gamble has changed his mind about the outing of BL
"I don't agree with publicly naming and shaming people..."
Seems he has changed his tune since last October when he tweeted this.
'Gr8 work @skymartinbrunt those who hide behind what they think is the anonymity of the net 2harass victims must face the #consequences'
I feel a distancing coming on.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 21, 2015, 12:20:03 PM
Who needs "Quote Of The Day" with you around?! I swoon at your scholarly references. 8**8:/: Personally though I think it likely that Brenda wasn't at all happy about being talked about and that was at least one of the factors in her decision to end her life. Of course, I may be completely mistaken, but we shall see.
I would suspect you are right. Which probably goes part way to explaining why some are metaphorically yelling "freedom of the press", "sources must be protected","what about my human rights" when really what it's about is they are sh*****g blue lights at the thought of their neighbours finding out about their nasty sides. IMO and in the nicest possible way of course.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 21, 2015, 12:45:17 PM
Seems even the McCann's staunch supporter Jim Gamble has changed his mind about the outing of BL
"I don't agree with publicly naming and shaming people..."
Seems he has changed his tune since last October when he tweeted this.
'Gr8 work @skymartinbrunt those who hide behind what they think is the anonymity of the net 2harass victims must face the #consequences'
I feel a distancing coming on.
I believe his first remark was made specifically in the context of paedaphiles being publically named. His argument being that the result of that was that they would 'go underground' thus making it more difficult for them to be monitored. It was his opinion that this was not in the best interests of the protection of children.
His remark about internet trolls who hide behind anonymity facing the consequences of their actions is a completely different subject matter. Anyone trying to link one with the other is ignoring the different contexts.
There is no comparison IMO.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 21, 2015, 01:04:45 PM
I believe his first remark was made specifically in the context of paedaphiles being publically named. His argument being that the result of that was that they would 'go underground' thus making it more difficult for them to be monitored. It was his opinion that this was not in the best interests of the protection of children.
His remark about internet trolls who hide behind anonymity facing the consequences of their actions is a completely different subject matter. Anyone trying to link one with the other is ignoring the different contexts.
There is no comparison IMO.
It don't think it's as clear cut as you imply.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052mjzl
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 21, 2015, 01:21:34 PM
I listened to this discussion which was initially about paedophiles on Social media sites. However while this discussion was in process, he did say “ I don’t believe in Naming and shaming people” Whether he was referring to paedophiles(which the discussion was about) or people in general, is unclear. Therefore we should not be saying it was either one or the other, as fact. IMO
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052mjzl Discussion start about 25.00 Comment about 28.00
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on February 22, 2015, 06:53:06 PM
Isabelle McFadden and why the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland a private citizen was wrong according to Reuters guidelines.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 22, 2015, 07:05:18 PM
The Times reports on the inquest into the death of Brenda Leyland, 63, the woman accused of being obsessed with the McCanns, posting thousands of tweets about the missing child’s parents. In one, she called them the “worst of humankind”. Other tweets might be libellous.
You might not have noticed Leyland had it not been for Sky News’ decision to doorstep her on the telly. Sky said Leyland had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann. But what did Sky do? Was it any better? Worse?
While @sleepface (Leyland’s twitter handle) tweeted to a handful of of followers, Sky brodcast to the masses.
And if we get to see her squirm, why do we not also get to see the journalists and editors who libelled the McCanns and Robert Murat on the rack?
How many of the people who absued the McCanns and Murat in the mainstream media can you name? Were any of them doorstepped?
And it makes us wonder if Brenda Leyland a useful fool, a soft target to make the media look tough on so-called trolls people who says nasty things?
It’s not as if the media is hot on all trolls. The police and the maisntream media only protect the trolls who stray off-message. Did you nark to the police on the trolls who wanted ‘racist tram lady’ Emma West raped and murdered, her child left motherless? What about the tweeters who wanted Jose Cunningham, a kind of tabloid Aunt Sally, killed and her children placed in State care?
And, remember, that what you say on Twitter can earn you a prison sentence and a police raid. Well, only if the police and Twitter mob need you to make themselves look morally sound, that is.
It’s clear that after being exposed, Brenda Leyland was fair game for so-called trolls who monstered her. She became international news. She became the pivot for a debate on free speech. And very soon she was dead. She was buried in the Press and in the ground.
Brenda Leyland was monstered on twitter and billed as a “twisted, fecked up bitch” by a Mirror columnist. We yet to read a description so strong for any woman joining ISIS. Leyland really was that bad.
The question we asked ran: was Brenda Leyland driven to her death by the mob?
And who tipped Sky News off? Who told the police about this woman with her fixation?
The coroner wants to know.
A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.
Martin Brunt, who doorstepped Leyland should, of course, not reveal who tipped him off.
Martin Brunt, Sky’s crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October.
Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt’s exposé of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007…
Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since.
Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering and operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.
They will, of course, not reveal their sources. They must not. The problem is that just as the barriers between public and private discourse have changed, so too has the law.
The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge’s agreement before they can snoop on journalists. It took action after it emerged that phone or email data was accessed to uncover confidential sources on 600 occasions.
Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.
RIPA is the law of the totalitarian police state. RIPA is the law that makes all of us suspects. If you hated hacking, you should hate RIPA.
The Press Gazette reports:
Some 82 journalists have had their communications data obtained by police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in three years, the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office has found.
It’s an outrage. It’s phone hacking. And it’s legal
Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.
RIPA is the law of the totalitarian police state. RIPA is the law that makes all of us suspects. If you hated hacking, you should hate RIPA.
The Press Gazette reports:
Some 82 journalists have had their communications data obtained by police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in three years, the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office has found.
It’s an outrage. It’s phone hacking. And it’s legal
...sauce for the goose and all that.
The Press got a taste of their own medicine which I for one wholeheartedly cheer! @)(++(*
Are you in favour of the protection of whistleblowers on corruption / other illegal practices or not?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 22, 2015, 11:43:40 PM
It seems the blog mentioned in this news report is back on line but it appears to have been edited to remove the names and details of prominent sceptics.
Are you in favour of the protection of whistleblowers on corruption / other illegal practices or not?
Newspaper hacks are renowned for their invention. It is good to see them get a little taste of their own medicine just like Coulson and a few others at the Sun/News of the World did.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2015, 04:42:38 PM
From the McCann supporter Randomleigh1 just before BL wass doorstepped.
@JustClareE perhaps Brenda would like us to post her address aling with accompanying YouTube vid of her house? #McCann ‐Mon Sep 29 08:50:01 +0000 2014
I only hope the coroner has this information.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 25, 2015, 05:18:36 PM
Thanks ,So it wasn't in response to being interrogated or accused, then?
No, she was calling another tweeter a f**ktard, a McCann supporter who as far as I can see wasn't even involved in any discussion with her at the time. I'm not sure what heinous crime he committed to incur such anger, maybe Faithlilly knows.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2015, 07:36:13 PM
Thanks ,So it wasn't in response to being interrogated or accused, then?
Do you think Anna it may have been supporters threats to reveal to the world where she lived ? Lest we forget no matter what the content of her tweets Brenda was a woman on the wrong side of sixty who lived alone. Imagine it was you or your mum, wouldn't it make you angry too ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 25, 2015, 07:40:10 PM
Do you know what it was that made, Brenda angry enough, to use such language DCI?
Well as I recall when Hugh Grant, in a well known movie, repeated the word "f**k" over and over again at the beginning it was considered to be art. To get to the point however, I have called people far worse than "f***tard" for dropping a shackle from a height. I mean it is kind of cute and not a real swear word. You all seem to be mightily hung up on swearing. If people were hunted down for swearing and being obnoxious most posters on here me included would have been strung up long ago.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 25, 2015, 07:41:59 PM
Do you think Anna it may have been supporters threats to reveal to the world where she lived ? Lest we forget no matter what the content of her tweets Brenda was a woman on the wrong side of sixty who lived alone. Imagine it was you or your mum, wouldn't it make you angry too ?
I'm afraid that I do not rely on guesses, Faith. If you have evidence as to why she uttered that word however, I would be grateful to see it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 25, 2015, 07:44:13 PM
Well as I recall when Hugh Grant, in a well known movie, repeated the word "f**k" over and over again at the beginning it was considered to be art. To get to the point however, I have called people far worse than "f***tard" for dropping a shackle from a height. I mean it is kind of cute and not a real swear word. You all seem to be mightily hung up on swearing. If people were hunted down for swearing and being obnoxious most posters on here me included would have been strung up long ago.
I am not hung up about swearing, Alice, as long as there is reason.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2015, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: Anna on Today at 07:14:30 PM Do you know what it was that made, Brenda angry enough, to use such language DCI?
DCI replies Reading her tweets it seems like just showing off to other twits, Anna.
The reference to swearing was compared on this thread, to the swearing in Kate’s book. There was some provocation in that instance, but it is still criticised on here. I only wanted to know what provoked Brenda to use that language…….It’s that simple.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2015, 08:25:54 PM
The reference to swearing was compared on this thread, to the swearing in Kate’s book. There was some provocation in that instance, but it is still criticised on here. I only wanted to know what provoked Brenda to use that language…….It’s that simple.
I gave you a reason which you didn't accept because it was a guess yet accepted DCI's guess.
Them's the facts Anna.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 25, 2015, 09:32:14 PM
I am not hung up about swearing, Alice, as long as there is reason.
In this country it can be an offence under the Public Order Act reason or not. I am still laughing at f***tard; I can think of more cutting insults or epithets without using swear words. Speaking as someone with a vocabulary like a pirates parrot I do wish that if people are going to swear they would learn how to do it properly. F***tard; n Large flying bird thought to be of similar genus to The Great Bustard of Central European plains. 8(>((
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 25, 2015, 09:37:20 PM
support or criticism of Brenda seems to follow strict party political lines...now there's a surprise
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 25, 2015, 09:49:57 PM
From the McCann supporter Randomleigh1 just before BL wass doorstepped.
@JustClareE perhaps Brenda would like us to post her address aling with accompanying YouTube vid of her house? #McCann ‐Mon Sep 29 08:50:01 +0000 2014
I only hope the coroner has this information.
One tweet can give the wrong impression unless you know what it is in reponse to.. Maybe the tweeter was responding to BL's delight at the thought of someone else's private details being discovered. It seems a strange thing to say just out of the blue and for no reason.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 25, 2015, 11:25:04 PM
Brenda tweeted "Mod is a F**ktard, I despise him", in response to another sceptic tweeter who was apparently speaking up for him. Mod is a McCann supporter who was despised by Brenda for not being more vocal in his condemnation of what she perceived to be bad behaviour by McCann supporters, not because he was personally threatening her.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 25, 2015, 11:30:46 PM
Brenda tweeted "Mod is a F**ktard, I despise him", in response to another sceptic tweeter who was apparently speaking up for him. Mod is a McCann supporter who was despised by Brenda for not being more vocal in his condemnation of what she perceived to be bad behaviour by McCann supporters, not because he was personally threatening her.
'Perceived behaviour' such as revealing where she lived ? I don't blame her for being angry. Anyone who remains silent while a pensioner who lives by herself is threatened in that way is exactly what Brenda called them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 25, 2015, 11:44:53 PM
'Perceived behaviour' such as revealing where she lived ? I don't blame her for being angry. Anyone who remains silent while a pensioner who lives by herself is threatened in that way is exactly what Brenda called them.
But it was okay for her to threaten to expose people and try to get them the sack after calling them prostitutes?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 25, 2015, 11:53:07 PM
'Perceived behaviour' such as revealing where she lived ? I don't blame her for being angry. Anyone who remains silent while a pensioner who lives by herself is threatened in that way is exactly what Brenda called them.
Did "Mod" (who would presumably have witnessed Brenda's own vile outing attempts and insults directed to another twitter user) know a) she was a pensioner and b) that she lived by herself? Presumably you can understand why McCann supporters get angry when people they support and they themselves are threatened and intimidated too then, (which is just about all of them, from what I've seen).
That #McCann tag is ALL about threats and insults, I think you'd struggle to name anyone who posts on there regularly who hasn't been threatened, abused, called a paedo, been outed, received threats, and I'm talking about both sides here - it really is shitter on Twitter and why anyone puts themselves through that on a daily basis beats me. They obviously enjoy the abuse - both giving and receiving.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2015, 11:53:38 PM
'Perceived behaviour' such as revealing where she lived ? I don't blame her for being angry. Anyone who remains silent while a pensioner who lives by herself is threatened in that way is exactly what Brenda called them.
Is this the same poor old pensioner who accused someone of being a prostitute - ony in much cruder terms - IIRC her actual words were 'sells her arse' - and laughed at the idea of that same person being scared?
Sorry but the idea that BL was some frail old dear is risible. She seemed to know exactly what she was doing and even said it was her right to do it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 25, 2015, 11:55:01 PM
Is this the same poor old pensioner who accused someone of being a prostitute - ony in much cruder terms - IIRC her actual words were 'sells her arse' - and laughed at the idea of that same person being scared?
Sorry but the idea that BL was some frail old dear is risible. She seemed to know exactly what she was doing and even said it was her right to do it.
BL described the same person as "fat, plain and bitter", and said it was no wonder they had to tout for sex. She truly believed that the RL person she was insulting was the person on twitter she was tweeting to. Anyone who seeks to excuse her behaviour on the basis that it was an anonymous tweeter she was insulting, or on the basis that Brenda was a poor ickle old lady is simply an apologist for twitter bullying.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 12:01:15 AM
Is this the same poor old pensioner who accused someone of being a prostitute - ony in much cruder terms - IIRC her actual words were 'sells her arse' - and laughed at the idea of that same person being scared?
Sorry but the idea that BL was some frail old dear is risible. She seemed to know exactly what she was doing and even said it was her right to do it.
I didn't say Brenda was a frail old dear, I said she was a pensioner who lived by herself and therefore was much more vulnerable than most of us, despite her online bravado. Imagine it was your mum Benice ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 12:10:41 AM
BL described the same person as "fat, plain and bitter", and said it was no wonder they had to tout for sex. She truly believed that the RL person she was insulting was the person on twitter she was tweeting to. Anyone who seeks to excuse her behaviour on the basis that it was an anonymous tweeter she was insulting, or on the basis that Brenda was a poor ickle old lady is simply an apologist for twitter bullying.
So you in no way support the bullying of Brenda then. Glad to hear it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 12:16:44 AM
I didn't say Brenda was a frail old dear, I said she was a pensioner who lived by herself and therefore was much more vulnerable than most of us, despite her online bravado. Imagine it was your mum Benice ?
There is no way my mother would have behaved like BL and she would have been disgusted with me if I had behaved like BL.
Why anyone would try to present BL's on-line behaviour as 'normal' and 'acceptable' is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 26, 2015, 12:17:58 AM
Much worse than anything else, I would have thought.
Worse than being threatened constantly with having your home address revealed publicly ? Worse than being ambushed and humiliated on worldwide television ? I doubt it even came close.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 26, 2015, 12:38:05 AM
Worse than being threatened constantly with having your home address revealed publicly ? Worse than being ambushed and humiliated on worldwide television ? I doubt it even came close.
No one forced her to tweet those vile things. 5,000 of them. That's a lot of tweets.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 12:41:44 AM
Worse than being threatened constantly with having your home address revealed publicly ? Worse than being ambushed and humiliated on worldwide television ? I doubt it even came close.
It was her choice. No-one forced her to join Twitter - she could have left at any time.
G'night Faith. & G'night Eleanor.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 26, 2015, 12:46:37 AM
It was her choice. No-one forced her to join Twitter - she could have left at any time.
G'night Faith. & G'night Eleanor.
Good night all.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 12:59:38 AM
Night night.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: colombosstogey on February 26, 2015, 06:11:54 AM
Isnt it time people let Brenda Leyland rest in peace?
As far as I can see there is bullying all over the Internet with regards to the McCann case so she or he who cast the first stone and all that.
No one is going to win this argument, a WOMEN DIED over this lets not forget it. Where is the COMPASSION on this forum for her. I have never in my life seen such hatred towards people who question the McCanns.
NO ONE not ANYONE, knows what happened to the child. It is a mystery and justice has not been served for this child no way....
But for me, all this argey bargey about BL is becoming distasteful. Yeh i know then dont read it, but I want to ask people to just be respectful for a women who died, because of her belief right or wrong. I have seen worse and nastier musings against people who think the McCanns are guilty then the other way round, the Internet is full of them.
RIP Brenda, you died in vane sadly, you ended up just more fodder to feed the trolls. xxxxx 8(8-))
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 07:36:49 AM
Isnt it time people let Brenda Leyland rest in peace?
As far as I can see there is bullying all over the Internet with regards to the McCann case so she or he who cast the first stone and all that.
No one is going to win this argument, a WOMEN DIED over this lets not forget it. Where is the COMPASSION on this forum for her. I have never in my life seen such hatred towards people who question the McCanns.
NO ONE not ANYONE, knows what happened to the child. It is a mystery and justice has not been served for this child no way....
But for me, all this argey bargey about BL is becoming distasteful. Yeh i know then dont read it, but I want to ask people to just be respectful for a women who died, because of her belief right or wrong. I have seen worse and nastier musings against people who think the McCanns are guilty then the other way round, the Internet is full of them.
RIP Brenda, you died in vane sadly, you ended up just more fodder to feed the trolls. xxxxx 8(8-))
The simple answer is why don't people leave the McCanns in peace...if they did then Brenda may well still be alive.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 26, 2015, 07:42:03 AM
So are you saying Brenda's on-line behaviour was unacceptable but the behaviour towards her was ?
what are you saying Faithlilly? That Brenda's behaviour was acceptable but those challenging her were not? You seem awfully supportive of Brenda - why is that?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 08:44:01 AM
In endeavouring to publicise Madeleine's case they by default promote interest in the case and as such people will have their own opinions.
There is a vast difference between having/voicing an opinion about the McCann case and publicly conducting a fanatical h.a.t.e campaign against the McCann family imo.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 26, 2015, 08:50:45 AM
There is a vast difference between having/voicing an opinion about the McCann case and publicly conducting a fanatical h.a.t.e campaign against the McCann family imo.
The 'hate campaign' as you call it, is very evident from some mccann supporters to those who don'r believe the mccanns.
Or are you blinded/blinkered by your support for the mccanns, that you won't accept, the 'hate' goes in both directions.
Which Blacksmith has so adequately analysed and demonstrated on many occasions.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 26, 2015, 08:56:33 AM
There is a vast difference between having/voicing an opinion about the McCann case and publicly conducting a fanatical h.a.t.e campaign against the McCann family imo.
I agree, as long as you accept that doubting or being suspicious of the McCanns is not hate.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 09:01:21 AM
The 'hate campaign' as you call it, is very evident from some mccann supporters to those who don'r believe the mccanns.
Or are you blinded/blinkered by your support for the mccanns, that you won't accept, the 'hate' goes in both directions.
Which Blacksmith has so adequately analysed and demonstrated on many occasions.
I presume you are talking about a hate campaign between sceptics and supporters. People hurling abuse at one another on twitter is completely different to one family being solely targetted by one group of people.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 26, 2015, 09:27:41 AM
I presume you are talking about a hate campaign between sceptics and supporters. People hurling abuse at one another on twitter is completely different to one family being solely targetted by one group of people.
You may have been able to say it was different before BL's death, but not now. The two will forever now be linked.
You had one group of angry people batting another group of equally angry people, and then a third group of angry people showed up. Neither of the first two groups has any power, but the third one does and they use it.
They didn't use much common sense though - just what were they hoping to achieve by randomly selecting one woman and humiliating her?
How was that ever going to make the situation better?
There's no way it could have but they didn't care, they were angry themselves. This was vigil[ censored word]m, by a TV channel.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 09:29:05 AM
I agree, as long as you accept that doubting or being suspicious of the McCanns is not hate.
I have no problem at all with people who have doubts. Some post on this forum - and the vast majority of them are genuinely interested in discussing the different aspects of the case - and their differing opinions on them. There is no comparison between those posters and a group of people who have no real interest in the case, but only want to screech their 'h.a.t.r.e.d' of the McCann family on Twitter/FB on a daily basis.
Attempting to lump them all together under the same umbrella of 'doubters' is not possible IMO. They are poles apart.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 26, 2015, 09:36:32 AM
I have no problem at all with people who have doubts. Some post on this forum - and the vast majority of them are genuinely interested in discussing the different aspects of the case - and their differing opinions on them. There is no comparison between those posters and a group of people who have no real interest in the case, but only want to screech their 'h.a.t.r.e.d' of the McCann family on Twitter/FB on a daily basis.
Attempting to lump them all together under the same umbrella of 'doubters' is not possible IMO. They are poles apart.
Very true. Unfortunately it was the rational people who disappeared after what Sky News did.
The irrational as you know are now stronger than ever.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 26, 2015, 10:02:26 AM
I presume you are talking about a hate campaign between sceptics and supporters. People hurling abuse at one another on twitter is completely different to one family being solely targetted by one group of people.
I would say the perception is that it has all become tied together.
With no quarter given it seems on either side anymore.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 10:22:52 AM
what are you saying Faithlilly? That Brenda's behaviour was acceptable but those challenging her were not? You seem awfully supportive of Brenda - why is that?
So you believe threatening to reveal where she lives is 'challenging' her ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Benice on February 26, 2015, 10:38:21 AM
I have no problem at all with people who have doubts. Some post on this forum - and the vast majority of them are genuinely interested in discussing the different aspects of the case - and their differing opinions on them. There is no comparison between those posters and a group of people who have no real interest in the case, but only want to screech their 'h.a.t.r.e.d' of the McCann family on Twitter/FB on a daily basis.
Attempting to lump them all together under the same umbrella of 'doubters' is not possible IMO. They are poles apart.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 01:56:44 PM
Just answer me this - never mind what anyone else on twitter was doing, we're discussing Brenda's actions here - when Brenda was slagging off someone on the basis of their looks, revelling in the prospect of them being sacked, claiming that they were a prostitute, wishing the McCanns everlasting misery etc - was that acceptable behaviour in your view?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 26, 2015, 06:13:18 PM
Unless we know the context in which the tweet you refer to was made - it isn't possible to have an informed opinion on it IMO.
I'm presuming it was posted as part of an exchange.
If so - it is possible it was one of those... 'how would you like the same thing done to you'.... posts.
Who can say - with only the one tweet being posted.
Tweets re Mod. Seems he wasn't exchanging with them.
516698410926080000|Mon Sep 29 21:17:55 +0000 2014|#mccann Remember Mod, when Hutton was getting abused and you were asked to moderate ? never said " careful people will get hurt " then
516696005669289984|Mon Sep 29 21:08:22 +0000 2014|#mccann @skymartinbrunt Martin, any thoughts on the connection between Amy Tierney, the witness and Basil ? how does that work ?
516694945034698752|Mon Sep 29 21:04:09 +0000 2014|@siamesey Mod is a total F***tard, I despise him
516694464455528448|Mon Sep 29 21:02:14 +0000 2014|#mccann Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?
516693830012510208|Mon Sep 29 20:59:43 +0000 2014|@siamesey I have always believed that, never fallen for the " benign, gentle " crap that others do
516692353130967040|Mon Sep 29 20:53:51 +0000 2014|#mccann Mod says " Stop, people will get hurt " He never ONCE said that when Shills were busy threatening, outing and stalking others
516684035075366913|Mon Sep 29 20:20:48 +0000 2014|#mccann basil " offers " to have a Skype chat with Mod, that will be a lot of good, Mod is as biased as they come, hahaha
516683051930517504|Mon Sep 29 20:16:53 +0000 2014|#mccann To " out " for spite is wrong, however if it is relevant, important and has a bearing on invest, different matter entirely
The tweets re Amy T, are vile, just one example!
516342284955418624|Sun Sep 28 21:42:48 +0000 2014|@StoppsJason @PORTUGALONLINE @RothleyPillow @alfibab3 #mccann Well she will be bloody scared now everyone knows where she works, haha
Found it funny when someone wanting supporters to commit suicide.
515242647058120704|Thu Sep 25 20:53:14 +0000 2014|@umweltbuerger @siamesey #mccann Some one said, made me laugh, wish Shills would do a Jonestown
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 06:14:40 PM
Just answer me this - never mind what anyone else on twitter was doing, we're discussing Brenda's actions here - when Brenda was slagging off someone on the basis of their looks, revelling in the prospect of them being sacked, claiming that they were a prostitute, wishing the McCanns everlasting misery etc - was that acceptable behaviour in your view?
Of course not but as Benice says you have to know the context of the comments. Had she already been targetted by the person she was insulting ? Why did Brenda think the recepient of her tweets was going to be sacked ? Surely not for supporting the McCanns ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 06:58:19 PM
Of course not but as Benice says you have to know the context of the comments. Had she already been targetted by the person she was insulting ? Why did Brenda think the recepient of her tweets was going to be sacked ? Surely not for supporting the McCanns ?
So in your view Brenda's actions would be justifiable if she hadn't been the one to start it?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 07:10:21 PM
516698410926080000|Mon Sep 29 21:17:55 +0000 2014|#mccann Remember Mod, when Hutton was getting abused and you were asked to moderate ? never said " careful people will get hurt " then
516696005669289984|Mon Sep 29 21:08:22 +0000 2014|#mccann @skymartinbrunt Martin, any thoughts on the connection between Amy Tierney, the witness and Basil ? how does that work ?
516694945034698752|Mon Sep 29 21:04:09 +0000 2014|@siamesey Mod is a total F***tard, I despise him
516694464455528448|Mon Sep 29 21:02:14 +0000 2014|#mccann Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?
516693830012510208|Mon Sep 29 20:59:43 +0000 2014|@siamesey I have always believed that, never fallen for the " benign, gentle " crap that others do
516692353130967040|Mon Sep 29 20:53:51 +0000 2014|#mccann Mod says " Stop, people will get hurt " He never ONCE said that when Shills were busy threatening, outing and stalking others
516684035075366913|Mon Sep 29 20:20:48 +0000 2014|#mccann basil " offers " to have a Skype chat with Mod, that will be a lot of good, Mod is as biased as they come, hahaha
516683051930517504|Mon Sep 29 20:16:53 +0000 2014|#mccann To " out " for spite is wrong, however if it is relevant, important and has a bearing on invest, different matter entirely
The tweets re Amy T, are vile, just one example!
516342284955418624|Sun Sep 28 21:42:48 +0000 2014|@StoppsJason @PORTUGALONLINE @RothleyPillow @alfibab3 #mccann Well she will be bloody scared now everyone knows where she works, haha
Found it funny when someone wanting supporters to commit suicide.
515242647058120704|Thu Sep 25 20:53:14 +0000 2014|@umweltbuerger @siamesey #mccann Some one said, made me laugh, wish Shills would do a Jonestown
Having read many of Brenda's tweets she never seems to have been greatly upset or scared herself. She seemed well supported by her "sceptic" twitter gang (who greatly outnumbered the McCann supporters) and looked on the whole to be having a whale of a time on there. Where are the tweets showing her being outed and attacked by evil Pr0s? I'm not saying they don't exist but I would like evidence of this alleged bullying of Brenda (particularly by the tweeter whom she thought was the nanny) prior to her exposure on Sky.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 07:26:31 PM
I am posting all tweets in the month leading up to BL's death to Sweepyface from the account the "sceptics" were accusing of being the nanny here:
516691856835764224|Mon Sep 29 20:51:53 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @1matthewwright1 so isabelle got annoyed that I put her comments about capital punishment out there. #McCann 516691413040660480|Mon Sep 29 20:50:07 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @1matthewwright1 You know what angered isabelle? me retweeting this #McCann http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByuoGYNIYAAwO66.png 516691211458187264|Mon Sep 29 20:49:19 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @1matthewwright1 Me never said anything bout hutton. Isabelle? you need to check ur facts but ur anti, not in ur nature #mccann 514111927279431681|Mon Sep 22 18:00:09 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @justice4maddie @BigPhiIIyStyle yet not 1 of u produce any proof & not 1 of us have had visit from the. Odd that.. #mccann 514111561213169664|Mon Sep 22 17:58:42 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @justice4maddie @BigPhiIIyStyle Show me threats. Ive heard so many [ censored word] say they have had death threats #McCann 1/2 513601447309877248|Sun Sep 21 08:11:41 +0000 2014|@sweepyface How are you Tigger? ; ) #McCann 508182329630920704|Sat Sep 06 09:18:03 +0000 2014|@sweepyface @kathleenhammet1 nothing like a fact to get in the way of your lies. #mccann but carrying on even though police say innocent.
Can anyone see any reason why BL would feel threatened by this tweeter?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 26, 2015, 07:28:45 PM
Having read many of Brenda's tweets she never seems to have been greatly upset or scared herself. She seemed well supported by her "sceptic" twitter gang (who greatly outnumbered the McCann supporters) and looked on the whole to be having a whale of a time on there. Where are the tweets showing her being outed and attacked by evil Pr0s? I'm not saying they don't exist but I would like evidence of this alleged bullying of Brenda (particularly by the tweeter whom she thought was the nanny) prior to her exposure on Sky.
There doesn't appear to be any bullying threats by A T, or , as I can find. If there was it seems she didn't care a jot,
"She tweeted "I'm not suffering, the stalking and threats have been most useful, cannot thank the perps enough".
What was done to that young girl ought to have been reported to the police. Calling her real vile names and threatening to go to her place of work.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 07:31:38 PM
Brenda made some pretty abusive tweets and seemed to enjoy dishing out the insults...now thwre is anattempt to make her out as a victim...she wasn't
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 07:37:54 PM
so who started the provocation...secondly Brenda made abusive tweets towards the McCanns...
Looks like it was Brenda doing the bullying and threatening of Amy.
516514405392322560|Mon Sep 29 09:06:45 +0000 2014|@martin_liz @StoppsJason @AmyEllenTierney #mccann Amy, I would have a word with other Shills and advise them to desist, for your sake
516512882016927747|Mon Sep 29 09:00:42 +0000 2014|#mccann IMO, Deterrent, if one single Shill attempts dirty tactics, Amy should be outed, Shills will then have created THAT situation
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
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
Looks like it was Brenda doing the bullying and threatening of Amy.
516514405392322560|Mon Sep 29 09:06:45 +0000 2014|@martin_liz @StoppsJason @AmyEllenTierney #mccann Amy, I would have a word with other Shills and advise them to desist, for your sake
516512882016927747|Mon Sep 29 09:00:42 +0000 2014|#mccann IMO, Deterrent, if one single Shill attempts dirty tactics, Amy should be outed, Shills will then have created THAT situation
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
what a lovely lady Brenda was...no wonder some of the similar lovely ladies on here have so much sympathy with her
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 26, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
Faggandell this is getting boring. I am having a Kaiser Chiefs moment so pick the bones out of this: 8(>((
Once upon a time there were some spiteful little girls who liked to bully the little fat girls and redheaded girls in their school. As they grew older they skipped down life’s highways and byways picking a petal off a flower here and crushing a bug there until 50 years later as embittered sixty year olds they all arrived at a place called Maddy’s Forks, named after an unfortunate little girl who had mysteriously vanished. Being undecided the ladies, if that is the right word, split into two groups the one taking the left fork which unbeknown to them led to Chirp the other group taking the right fork unaware it lead to File. Arriving at their destinations the group in Chirp chirruped unseemly messages, about the little girl’s parents, into the ether quite unremarked by most of the population except those few who had arrived at File, who collected the messages filed them and gave them to the police who said “so what?”. The Filers being incensed by this rebuttal gave the messages to a little man called a reporter who then put one of the Chirrupers on telly and embarrassed her with extreme prejudice. Some of the Filers then hid, scared by what might happen to them after the Chirruper on telly had killed herself. As time went on the little girl was confirmed alive and well/dead [delete as appropriate depending on the sort of ending you like]. This fact went right over the heads of those in Chirp and File who carried on being nasty to each other for about a year after. Whereupon having awoken to what was going on they immediately found something else to be nasty to each other about. But Miss, said a little girl to the teacher who was recounting the tale, the Chirrupers and the Filers were really all the same little girls who had been nasty to fat girls and redheaded girls who had never learned how not to be nasty when they grew older. Yes said the teacher that is right, do you think there is a lesson we can learn from this Abigail?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 08:19:17 PM
Looks like it was Brenda doing the bullying and threatening of Amy.
516514405392322560|Mon Sep 29 09:06:45 +0000 2014|@martin_liz @StoppsJason @AmyEllenTierney #mccann Amy, I would have a word with other Shills and advise them to desist, for your sake
516512882016927747|Mon Sep 29 09:00:42 +0000 2014|#mccann IMO, Deterrent, if one single Shill attempts dirty tactics, Amy should be outed, Shills will then have created THAT situation
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
are you verifying the tweeter was Amy Tierney ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 08:26:19 PM
Faggandell this is getting boring. I am having a Kaiser Chiefs moment so pick the bones out of this: 8(>((
Once upon a time there were some spiteful little girls who liked to bully the little fat girls and redheaded girls in their school. As they grew older they skipped down life’s highways and byways picking a petal off a flower here and crushing a bug there until 50 years later as embittered sixty year olds they all arrived at a place called Maddy’s Forks, named after an unfortunate little girl who had mysteriously vanished. Being undecided the ladies, if that is the right word, split into two groups the one taking the left fork which unbeknown to them led to Chirp the other group taking the right fork unaware it lead to File. Arriving at their destinations the group in Chirp chirruped unseemly messages, about the little girl’s parents, into the ether quite unremarked by most of the population except those few who had arrived at File, who collected the messages filed them and gave them to the police who said “so what?”. The Filers being incensed by this rebuttal gave the messages to a little man called a reporter who then put one of the Chirrupers on telly and embarrassed her with extreme prejudice. Some of the Filers then hid, scared by what might happen to them after the Chirruper on telly had killed herself. As time went on the little girl was confirmed alive and well/dead [delete as appropriate depending on the sort of ending you like]. This fact went right over the heads of those in Chirp and File who carried on being nasty to each other for about a year after. Whereupon having awoken to what was going on they immediately found something else to be nasty to each other about. But Miss, said a little girl to the teacher who was recounting the tale, the Chirrupers and the Filers were really all the same little girls who had been nasty to fat girls and redheaded girls who had never learned how not to be nasty when they grew older. Yes said the teacher that is right, do you think there is a lesson we can learn from this Abigail?
do you really think anyone will read your post
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 08:27:42 PM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 08:29:04 PM
Brenda was an active and willing participant in twitter wars....having said that I believe her suicide, as that is what it appears to be, was caused by her own personal problems and not Brunt...I'm sure the coroner will agree
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 08:30:11 PM
I can see no evidence at all of BL having been provoked by the tweeter she thought was the nanny, and who she was bullying on twitter.
So in the month leading up to BL's death the tweeter quoted made no tweets to her fellow supporters ? Tweeting threats towards sceptics to each other is one way the faithful avoid the sceptics name appearing on their timeline as does adding a space between @ and the sceptics name so we may never know how far frightening the threats towards BL were from the tweeter quoted of indeed any of her fellow supporters.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 10:27:49 PM
So in the month leading up to BL's death the tweeter quoted made no tweets to her fellow supporters ? Tweeting threats towards sceptics to each other is one way the faithful avoid the sceptics name appearing on their timeline as does adding a space between @ and the sceptics name so we may never know how far frightening the threats towards BL were from the tweeter quoted of indeed any of her fellow supporters.
I suggest that before you make such assumptions about the tweeter in question you take a look at their tweets - a large part of them are tweeted directly to "sceptics" . I cannot find any tweets from this tweeter threating BL, nor any tweets made by BL complaining about threats from this tweeter. Can you?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 26, 2015, 10:43:12 PM
I suggest that before you make such assumptions about the tweeter in question you take a look at their tweets - a large part of them are tweeted directly to "sceptics" . I cannot find any tweets from this tweeter threating BL, nor any tweets made by BL complaining about threats from this tweeter. Can you?
Where are you looking?
A huge number of tweets were deleted in October by many people, along with some accounts.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 26, 2015, 10:43:57 PM
I suggest that before you make such assumptions about the tweeter in question you take a look at their tweets - a large part of them are tweeted directly to "sceptics" . I cannot find any tweets from this tweeter threating BL, nor any tweets made by BL complaining about threats from this tweeter. Can you?
I made no assumptions about the tweeter in question i merely suggested that we may not be able to see the whole picture. You still haven't answered me why the tweeter quoted was facing the sack ? What could a sceptic possibly do that would force her employer to sack her ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2015, 10:51:23 PM
I think the most relevant witness will be Brendas psychiatrist.......all will be revealed
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 26, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
I made no assumptions about the tweeter in question i merely suggested that we may not be able to see the whole picture. You still haven't answered me why the tweeter quoted was facing the sack ? What could a sceptic possibly do that would force her employer to sack her ?
For some reason people like BL thought that if a witness in the case like Amy Tierney was tweeting about the case then this would be illegal and therefore a sackable offence. That seems to be the gist of it.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 26, 2015, 11:10:06 PM
I made no assumptions about the tweeter in question i merely suggested that we may not be able to see the whole picture. You still haven't answered me why the tweeter quoted was facing the sack ? What could a sceptic possibly do that would force her employer to sack her ?
Give it a good try by these tweets!
516509832254619648|Mon Sep 29 08:48:34 +0000 2014|@1matthewwright1 #mccann Amazing how they whimper and call " foul play " why shd Amy receive indemnity after she has caused harm
516507442218549248|Mon Sep 29 08:39:05 +0000 2014|#mccann For benefit of thick Shills, danger is not voicing opinion, it is contacting work and family to create havoc
516506964487335936|Mon Sep 29 08:37:11 +0000 2014|#mccann I would not agree with naming unless the perp was actually a danger, Amy has proved to B so
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2015, 11:32:57 PM
516509832254619648|Mon Sep 29 08:48:34 +0000 2014|@1matthewwright1 #mccann Amazing how they whimper and call " foul play " why shd Amy receive indemnity after she has caused harm
516507442218549248|Mon Sep 29 08:39:05 +0000 2014|#mccann For benefit of thick Shills, danger is not voicing opinion, it is contacting work and family to create havoc
516506964487335936|Mon Sep 29 08:37:11 +0000 2014|#mccann I would not agree with naming unless the perp was actually a danger, Amy has proved to B so
So are you saying that no one actually contacted her employer, which would have been rather pointless anyway if she wasn't Amy Tierney, nor actually threatened to do so ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 27, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
Could we not accept that Brenda wasn't as tough as she wanted to appear to be, although she does seem to have given that impression. I don't know why she did this. I don't know why she tweeted such horrible things, or why she then appears to have committed suicide. I only know that it is really very sad.
This Thread would not even be here if it was anything to do with me. But needs must if the devil drives.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 27, 2015, 06:19:02 PM
This thread has a long way to go yet. It will be double in length by the end of next month.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 27, 2015, 06:26:58 PM
Could we not accept that Brenda wasn't as tough as she wanted to appear to be, although she does seem to have given that impression. I don't know why she did this. I don't know why she tweeted such horrible things, or why she then appears to have committed suicide. I only know that it is really very sad.
This Thread would not even be here if it was anything to do with me. But needs must if the devil drives.
Interesting. Why wouldn't it be here?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 27, 2015, 06:28:53 PM
Because I don't like the slagging off of dead people. Some ancient thought within my soul. But then neither do I like some idiot telling me that what she did was really okay, because it wasn't.
Best not talked about at all. But do carry on. I have no say in the matter.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 27, 2015, 06:41:13 PM
I made no assumptions about the tweeter in question i merely suggested that we may not be able to see the whole picture. You still haven't answered me why the tweeter quoted was facing the sack ? What could a sceptic possibly do that would force her employer to sack her ?
That is the $64k question but I don't think the type of problem is restricted to the "sides" in the McCann case. Putting it in simple terms whatever "the tweeter" reported "the tweetee" had done would have to be construed as gross misconduct by "the "tweetee's" employers if the thing were to have any legs. One can only ever speak for oneself but any one like that contacting me trying to cause problems for one of my staff would have received a resounding round of f***s that made their ears ring and the employee would have been advised to stay off such sites and topics; job jobbed. I think possibly there are those with over inflated senses of their own abilities, a sad lack of understanding of where things are really at, coupled with people who are embarrassed by their actions and scared of their own shadows. Nice mantra: don't just stand there boasting about it do it. 8(>((
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 27, 2015, 06:50:16 PM
That Alf is the $64k question but I don't think the type of problem is restricted to the "sides" in the McCann case. Putting it in simple terms whatever "the tweeter" reported "the tweetee" had done would have to be construed as gross misconduct by "the "tweetee's" employers if the thing were to have any legs. One can only ever speak for oneself but any one like that contacting me trying to cause problems for one of my staff would have received a resounding round of f***s that made their ears ring and the employee would have been advised to stay off such sites and topics; job jobbed. I think possibly there are those with over inflated senses of their own abilities, a sad lack of understanding of where things are really at, coupled with people who are embarrassed by their actions and scared of their own shadows. Nice mantra: don't just stand there boasting about it do it. 8(>((
Who exactly are you replying to?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 27, 2015, 07:07:15 PM
Because I don't like the slagging off of dead people. Some ancient thought within my soul. But then neither do I like some idiot telling me that what she did was really okay, because it wasn't.
Best not talked about at all. But do carry on. I have no say in the matter.
People are going to mention her anyway, and also Sky News, S&S etc. if there's a thread or there isn't. A thread makes sense if only for that reason.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on February 27, 2015, 07:52:51 PM
People are going to mention her anyway, and also Sky News, S&S etc. if there's a thread or there isn't. A thread makes sense if only for that reason.
Admin obviously knows you all better than I do. And I haven't exactly been quiet on the matter anyway. I just think that it is all dreadfully sad, no matter who she was or what were her reasons.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 27, 2015, 08:49:09 PM
A bit of punctuation might help. And the odd sentence and paragraph. But that's just me.
I only do technical and a very specific branch of legal me. Eloquence is not my long suit and I wouldn't recognise an adjectival clause if it bit me in the you know where 8(0(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 28, 2015, 01:48:26 PM
Apparently the Star is reporting that Brenda Leyland's death was due to a helium overdose.
You can buy helium at Argos for party balloons so obviously fairly easy to access
Gosh.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 28, 2015, 02:17:46 PM
Apparently it is a recreational drug of choice for some people ... I thought it just gave you a squeaky voice.
Perhaps we are misjudging Brenda Leyland insofar as there was no intent to take her own life. No doubt the police will have checked her browsing history to determine what sites she may have visited and when.
I am sure the Coroner will be in possession of the facts.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 28, 2015, 02:22:42 PM
Apparently it is a recreational drug of choice for some people ... I thought it just gave you a squeaky voice.
Perhaps we are misjudging Brenda Leyland insofar as there was no intent to take her own life. No doubt the police will have checked her browsing history to determine what sites she may have visited and when.
I am sure the Coroner will be in possession of the facts.
She'll know masses more than we do, which isn't difficult since we know next to nowt about her final days.
You're right it could be an accidental death, or an open verdict.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 02:27:12 PM
I think its pretty obvious its suicide
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 28, 2015, 02:32:22 PM
Leicester Coroners Court recorded the "nature of the case" as helium overdose in its list of hearings.
I would imagine the listings must be available. The only person to have been entitled to the official death certificate, would be her son from America, I would think. Plus the fact you don't have to wait for a death certificate till after the inquest, they are usually given as soon as possible after autopsy.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 28, 2015, 02:33:51 PM
Anything's possible, I suppose, but The Star is hardly best known for its accuracy.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 28, 2015, 02:43:28 PM
I thought so too, davel, now I'm not so sure. I don't think she would have gone out to purchase drugs and maybe she thought something so easily obtainable was worth a try. She could have had a bad reaction.
I've seen an internet instruction ... complete with illustration ... and I don't think she would have had enough with her to try to do this intentionally.
I hope for the family that she killed herself accidentally ... but all will be revealed in a few days time.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Lyall on February 28, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
Leicester Coroners Court recorded the "nature of the case" as helium overdose in its list of hearings.
I would imagine the listings must be available. The only person to have been entitled to the official death certificate, would be her son from America, I would think. Plus the fact you don't have to wait for a death certificate till after the inquest, they are usually given as soon as possible after autopsy.
Only if the cause of death is known. Anyone can get a copy of one if it exists so I presume there isn't one in this case.
(actually if there's an inquest the death can't be registered - therefore there is no death certificate.)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 02:48:16 PM
suicide 100%...just look at the evidence
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 03:03:09 PM
Only if the cause of death is known. Anyone can get a copy of one if it exists so I presume there isn't one in this case.
(actually if there's an inquest the death can't be registered - therefore there is no death certificate.)
Yes it can, and death certificate given. I know this from losing a nephew. The inquest was nearly a year after his death, and his funeral had taken place 2 weeks after he died.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on February 28, 2015, 03:09:12 PM
You might asphyxiate on it in certain circumstances, but no more.
The deadly rise of 'hippy crack': For celebrities, it's the party drug du jour. Now inhaling laughing gas - is spreading to middle-class living rooms Coronation Street actress Michelle Keegan has been spotted taking the drug Even Prince Harry was seen indulging in nitrous oxide two years ago Effects can cause strokes, hallucinations, seizures, blackouts, incontinence, stress on the heart Such is the ease of availability that it has even infiltrated middle-class living rooms
You might asphyxiate on it in certain circumstances, but no more.
Is this what you are referring too, Stephen?
According to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in humans, “breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths. The exposed person has no warning and cannot sense that the oxygen level is too low.” In the US, at least 80 persons died due to accidental nitrogen asphyxiation between 1992 and 2002.[2] Hazards with inert gases and the risks of asphyxiation are well-established.[3]
Yes it can, and death certificate given. I know this from losing a nephew. The inquest was nearly a year after his death, and his funeral had taken place 2 weeks after he died.
They can give families an interim certificate, but that's not registered and not available to the public. Are you confusing the two certificates?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 28, 2015, 03:16:27 PM
The deadly rise of 'hippy crack': For celebrities, it's the party drug du jour. Now inhaling laughing gas - is spreading to middle-class living rooms Coronation Street actress Michelle Keegan has been spotted taking the drug Even Prince Harry was seen indulging in nitrous oxide two years ago Effects can cause strokes, hallucinations, seizures, blackouts, incontinence, stress on the heart Such is the ease of availability that it has even infiltrated middle-class living rooms
Helium isn't the same thing as nitrous oxide ("laughing gas"), though.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 28, 2015, 03:25:21 PM
Leicester Coroners Court recorded the "nature of the case" as helium overdose in its list of hearings.
Hmmm. Is there a different listing to this one?
Home > Current Inquests . Case No: 2686/14 Name of Deceased: LEYLAND, Brenda Kathryn Gabrielle Gender Female Date of Birth:09/06/1951 Age: 63yrs Town Burton Overy, Leicestershire Medical Cause of Death To be ascertained Circumstances Found deceased in a hotel Inquest Status Open and adjourned Date Inquest Open08/10/2014 Hearing Date20/03/2015 Hearing Time 10.00 Type of Hearing Final ( HMC Mrs C.E.Mason ). http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/current-inquests/?entryid78=582748&char=L
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on February 28, 2015, 03:44:34 PM
Leicester Coroners Court recorded the "nature of the case" as helium overdose in its list of hearings.
Hmmm. Is there a different listing to this one?
Home > Current Inquests . Case No: 2686/14 Name of Deceased: LEYLAND, Brenda Kathryn Gabrielle Gender Female Date of Birth:09/06/1951 Age: 63yrs Town Burton Overy, Leicestershire Medical Cause of Death To be ascertained Circumstances Found deceased in a hotel Inquest Status Open and adjourned Date Inquest Open08/10/2014 Hearing Date20/03/2015 Hearing Time 10.00 Type of Hearing Final ( HMC Mrs C.E.Mason ). http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/current-inquests/?entryid78=582748&char=L
The quote seems to emanate from the Star ... so might not be entirely accurate?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 28, 2015, 04:12:10 PM
Link to authoritative documents on asphyxiation. https://www.eiga.eu/index.php?id=173 The BCGA probably publish something similar. Anything else is likely to be incomplete, misleading, inaccurate or all three In simplistic terms three breaths of an asphyxiant gas and you are brown bread with no warning. Try it out if you don't believe me! I will just love to see this split down "party lines" *&*%£
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 04:14:47 PM
Leicester Coroners Court recorded the "nature of the case" as helium overdose in its list of hearings.
I would imagine the listings must be available. The only person to have been entitled to the official death certificate, would be her son from America, I would think. Plus the fact you don't have to wait for a death certificate till after the inquest, they are usually given as soon as possible after autopsy.
You get a document to allow burial or cremation before the inquest produces the death certificate.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Carana on February 28, 2015, 04:51:59 PM
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 28, 2015, 06:17:20 PM
I've only just seen this article - it's primarily concerned with Ched Evans but comments on the baying online mob, and highlights the case of BL - some interesting points raised I thought:
Quote
The tipping point for horrid little @sweepyface came on Saturday, October 4, when she killed herself. The mob was noisily at work that day, too, although not so much when news of her death leaked out. The mob isn’t big on personal responsibility. Not their own, anyway.
Leyland was a 63-year-old divorced mother living in the Leicestershire village of Burton Overy
She was a university graduate and churchgoer, with a well-hidden and rather nasty alter ego, existing behind an alias on social media, where she obsessively posted spiteful and unfounded allegations about Gerry and Kate McCann.
Sky News identified Leyland, although not by name, in a story about internet trolls. Its reporter, Martin Brunt, confronted her in the street and said her tweets were now being studied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Sweepyface was suddenly the subject of widespread online vitriol. Taking her own medicine badly, she fled her home and hid at the Marriott hotel in Leicester. Three days later she committed suicide.
You’d think the mob would have been made happy by this turn of events — after all, some of them had as good as wished for it — but no.
It turned on Brunt instead, demanding his resignation and calling for Sky News to be prosecuted.
A new round of blame shaming began. And what if Brunt had become depressed at this development and taken his life, too? Would a new mob have turned on that old mob, hounding its most vocal members to death, social media’s own strange circle of natural selection?
Survival of the mouthiest.
Leyland wasn’t a troll, anyway. That’s the irony. She was a nutter. An old-fashioned, green ink, one-note conspiracy theorist, fixated on the case of Madeleine McCann.
She rarely posted on any other topic and could spend three hours or more in any one sitting, debating, questioning, flooding the internet with her obsession.
Trolls aren’t committed like that. Trolls drop little spite-filled bombs on all manner of topics, seeking reaction. Katie Hopkins is a troll: a failed reality show contestant of weak intellect with an unhealthy influence on public debate.
In any other age, she would be nobody; now she is courted by television companies and print media, too obsessed with faux-controversy to care about the content. She waded in on the Evans controversy on Tuesday with a statement too facile for words.
Some of what Leyland said about the McCanns was truly vile. Yet in death she became a sympathetic, almost pitiful, figure. She was bad, it was decided, but the mob was worse. And that is where we may end up with Evans eventually, unless our better nature prevails.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2899404/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Ched-Evans-victim-mobs-going.html#ixzz3T44rDztG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 06:21:25 PM
Whilst on most "sceptic" fora they are busy jumping to conclusions that Brenda was murdered on the orders of you-know-who <<<insert roll eyes smiley
Knights Templar;Freemasons;The Government (of any country);Illuminati; Inquisition (Spanish or Portuguese);The Klan; The CIA; The Cubans; Mossad; Delete as applicable according to your theory.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 28, 2015, 06:47:00 PM
Knights Templar;Freemasons;The Government (of any country);Illuminati; Inquisition (Spanish or Portuguese);The Klan; The CIA; The Cubans; Mossad; Delete as applicable according to your theory.
Nope, none of them.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 06:48:33 PM
Pretty much everything is blamed on them so I am running out of ideas except for: The Romans; The Normans; Oliver Cromwell; William of Orange; N.U.M; after that I give up.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 28, 2015, 06:59:20 PM
Pretty much everything is blamed on them so I am running out of ideas except for: The Romans; The Normans; Oliver Cromwell; William of Orange; N.U.M; after that I give up.
If only.... 8(0(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 07:13:38 PM
Nitrous Oxide is not under discussion, it's Helium.
yes I know...quite a lot more than you....you raised the question of nitrous oxide..intimated that I may get the two confused...so I asked you what is the important difference between the two re asphyxiation.. and you don't know
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 07:30:53 PM
By the way dave, Nitrous Oxide was used in anesthesia, before it was banned
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:33:23 PM
The use of it in dentists and hospitals has resulted in deaths dave.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 28, 2015, 07:41:43 PM
I am enjoying watching this. Waiting for someone to define the two sub categories of asphyxiant gases. It's almost as exciting as waiting for the verb in a German sentence. Go on the EIGA site; I posted a link to it earlier. "Well laddie you can say "floccinaucinihilipilification" as though you know what it means" *&*%£
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:42:57 PM
The use of it in dentists and hospitals has resulted in deaths dave.
it is used everywhere in the UK...you really are making a bit of a charlie of yourself..Penicillin has also resulted in deaths...as have salted peanuts...none of them banned
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:45:20 PM
I am enjoying watching this. Waiting for someone to define the two sub categories of asphyxiant gases. It's almost as exciting as waiting for the verb in a German sentence. Go on the EIGA site; I posted a link to it earlier. "Well laddie you can say "floccinaucinihilipilification" as though you know what it means" *&*%£
glad you are enjoying this...I would say you almost certainly know the difference between N2O and He re asphyxiation as you have no doubt experienced the former
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 07:46:34 PM
I am enjoying watching this. Waiting for someone to define the two sub categories of asphyxiant gases. It's almost as exciting as waiting for the verb in a German sentence. Go on the EIGA site; I posted a link to it earlier. "Well laddie you can say "floccinaucinihilipilification" as though you know what it means" *&*%£
I believe a certain person who claims to have worked in casualty, has been using too many balloons. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:48:00 PM
I've worked as an anaesthetist too...that's how I know about N2O ...which you mistakenly think is banned
So you are on the Medical Register as an Anesthetist ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:52:06 PM
I would say that many on here have experienced asphyxiation with nitrous oxide....nitrous oxide is a very weak anaesthetic...takes ages to put kids to sleep with it...best way is to turn the oxygen right down and the child loses consciousness through asphyxiation...very unpleasant as I'm sure many on here remember
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 07:52:50 PM
it's not banned....almost every drug has caused death..paracetamol for instance...major problem with N20 is to midwives of childbearing age being exposed everyday to it..
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 08:30:39 PM
it's not banned....almost every drug has caused death..paracetamol for instance...major problem with N20 is to midwives of childbearing age being exposed everyday to it..
Try reading the article dave.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 08:37:03 PM
Now Dave has been claiming suicide as a recorded fact.
That has yet to be determined by the coroner.
Do you see my point Anna ?
What do you mean, Stephen, by "recorded fact" Is this not what was reported by the press, Something to the effect, that she was driven to suicide by being doorstepped?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 28, 2015, 09:31:44 PM
What do you mean, Stephen, by "recorded fact" Is this not what was reported by the press, Something to the effect, that she was driven to suicide by being doorstepped?
Your playing with words.
Where is the coroners verdict, saying suicide ?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 09:34:26 PM
The verdict is indeed unknown, but many(as the press) have assumed that it was suicide, since there was no evidence of foul play. I however am happy to wait for the verdict.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 28, 2015, 10:36:51 PM
I find it rather sad if Brenda really did lug a cylinder of heligas into a room in a Marriott to asphyxiate herself. Had she done that which is far from certain it would have been quick apart from the preparation.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 28, 2015, 10:53:09 PM
I find it rather sad if Brenda really did lug a cylinder of heligas into a room in a Marriott to asphyxiate herself. Had she done that which is far from certain it would have been quick apart from the preparation.
it's the harassment of the McCanns which is driving all this.. Brenda was an active part of that........as that is not likely to stop the side issues will continue to be discussed
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 28, 2015, 11:15:57 PM
it's the harassment of the McCanns which is driving all this.. Brenda was an active part of that........as that is not likely to stop the side issues will continue to be discussed
why are the mcanns lives more inportant then brendas??
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on February 28, 2015, 11:19:49 PM
What visitors did Brenda Leyland have to her room ?
A toxicologist in the case of Helium would be irrelevant, as it would not be absorbed by the body. It might cause drying of mucus membranes.
Now as to her mental state, well without the 'visit' and her 'appearances' in the national media, she would still be alive.
Now perhaps you should appear on TV, with all the claims you have made about yourself and watch people laugh out loud.
Why...how did the visit and her appearance on TV contribute to her death...unless of course it made her commit suicide...is that what you are saying...Brenda committed suicide due to Brunt
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2015, 07:45:54 AM
Why...how did the visit and her appearance on TV contribute to her death...unless of course it made her commit suicide...is that what you are saying...Brenda committed suicide due to Brunt
Would she still be alive, if not for been having plastered as a troll on sky tv, newspapers, etc. ?
and let's face it, she was hated by some mccann supporters. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on March 01, 2015, 07:52:14 AM
You are confirming Brenda committed suicide....yet last night you criticised me for saying the same..it seems I have convinced you
I would have thought supporters would have been hoping for an accident (as mentioned by Brietta a number of pages back), I can only assume you have a cunning theory, even more cunning than a very cunning thing.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2015, 08:00:22 AM
I would have thought supporters would have been hoping for an accident (as mentioned by Brietta a number of pages back), I can only assume you have a cunning theory, even more cunning than a very cunning thing.
I think it is obvious Brenda committed suicide. The fact that a psychiatrist who has treated Brenda has been called as a witness confirms previous mental health problems
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2015, 08:17:04 AM
In a situation such as this, you cannot just assume suicide.
Thorough police work would be to examine more than one scenario.
Brenda committed suicide..what other reason could you have for blaming Brunt..
the police have said no suspicious circumstances
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on March 01, 2015, 08:34:49 AM
Good God. No one believes that Brenda was murdered, do they. Who on earth would want to do that? She was already exposed, and any damage she might have done was already done.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2015, 08:39:35 AM
I think it is obvious Brenda committed suicide. The fact that a psychiatrist who has treated Brenda has been called as a witness confirms previous mental health problems
... And there we go.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 08:50:49 AM
If there are no suspicious circumstances, why all this delay ?
Let's face it the police don't always get things right.
and too put it mildly, this case is unusual.
A forensic examination might have revealed anomalies, and it very unwise and bad practice to assume one conclusion for the start.
Don't you agree dave ?
Or is it that wanted her to have committed suicide ?
I actually have a lot of sympathy for Brenda...she seemed a very bitter person....things must have happened to her in her life to make her this way. I am certainly not glad she committed suicide...that is a totally ridiculous thing to say...but you are saying some ridiculous things now
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 01, 2015, 09:16:43 AM
If Helium was the method used, surely the cylinder etc, would have been proof of her cause of death. I shudder to think, that this poor, sad woman would go to such extremes.
As to thoughts of a visitor to her room...........CCTV and reception would know, so unlikely IMO.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 01, 2015, 09:22:44 AM
If Helium was the method used, surely the cylinder etc, would have been proof of her cause of death. I shudder to think, that this poor, sad woman would go to such extremes.
As to thoughts of a visitor to her room...........CCTV and reception would know, so unlikely IMO.
Well there would have to be proof of purchase.
It has also become quite expensive, as there is an increasing shortage.
Now why would someone choose this to asphyxiate themselves.
There are other questions as well.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: jassi on March 01, 2015, 09:27:05 AM
Well if she didn't buy it and there is no proof of purchase.... 8(0(*
I gather Helium has gained popularity (sic) as suicide method du jour. Quick, painless, and without the hyprecapnic alarm response caused by O2 / CO2 imbalance.
So it is not impossible for even the Star to be on the right track.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 01, 2015, 07:29:54 PM
I gather Helium has gained popularity (sic) as suicide method du jour. Quick, painless, and without the hyprecapnic alarm response caused by O2 / CO2 imbalance.
So it is not impossible for even the Star to be on the right track.
So the evidence would be there in the room, for the police and last inquest?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 07:34:33 PM
I gather Helium has gained popularity (sic) as suicide method du jour. Quick, painless, and without the hyprecapnic alarm response caused by O2 / CO2 imbalance.
So it is not impossible for even the Star to be on the right track.
spot on...Many of us have experienced the hypercapnic alarm response when having gas to have a tooth extracted as children...as I pointed out last night this is because the anaesthetist turns down the oxygen level to speed the induction of anaesthesia up...it is most unpleasant as many will remember. Helium does not cause this unpleasant response and asphyxiation is quick and not unpleasant...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 07:36:29 PM
So the evidence would be there in the room, for the police and last inquest?
If Brenda was discovered by a member of staff...with a bag over her head and a tank of "balloon gas" next to her it would be quite possible that it was a member of staff that leaked the story
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: DCI on March 01, 2015, 07:37:31 PM
I gather Helium has gained popularity (sic) as suicide method du jour. Quick, painless, and without the hyprecapnic alarm response caused by O2 / CO2 imbalance.
So it is not impossible for even the Star to be on the right track.
I can't see even the Star printing this, If it's not true. If they have I hope they are sued by the family. Just can't see anyone but the family having this information, before the inquest is finished. It does say recorded by Leicester Coroners Court.
If Brenda was discovered by a member of staff...with a bag over her head and a tank of "balloon gas" next to her it would be quite possible that it was a member of staff that leaked the story
Of course, but to only one newspaper? And the article states "As one of the listed inquests"? Maybe someone attending the inquest, such as you said. a Hotel worker on duty at the time.
I didn't mind gas when having a tooth pulled, but then I am needle phobic .
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 07:57:53 PM
Of course, but to only one newspaper? And the article states "As one of the listed inquests"? Maybe someone attending the inquest, such as you said. a Hotel worker on duty at the time.
I didn't mind gas when having a tooth pulled, but then I am needle phobic .
you almost certainly had Relative Analgesia which is at least 30 per cent oxygen...same as gas and air and quite a pleasant experience
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Eleanor on March 01, 2015, 08:05:02 PM
Of course, but to only one newspaper? And the article states "As one of the listed inquests"? Maybe someone attending the inquest, such as you said. a Hotel worker on duty at the time.
I didn't mind gas when having a tooth pulled, but then I am needle phobic .
I did. It was horrible. And I was never quite out anyway. I felt everything. But I suppose it was better than being wide awake.
Who knows who leaked it? Bloody disgraceful. Someone needs to do something about this.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 01, 2015, 08:14:34 PM
The hotel wouldn't have called the police without entering the room first.....they wouldn't call the police simply because the door wasn't answerred
They do have master keys, but what if a "Do not disturb" sign was on her door and they had learnt who she was via television news? The register would have her name on it, too. We really don't know yet, how it came about .
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
They do have master keys, but what if a "Do not disturb" sign was on her door and they had learnt who she was via television news? The register would have her name on it, too. We really don't know yet, how it came about .
anything is possible..but more than likely if a maid wanted to clean a room and got no reply ...may have thought she was out...
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 01, 2015, 08:50:37 PM
anything is possible..but more than likely if a maid wanted to clean a room and got no reply ...may have thought she was out...
You were correct, Davel. So the scene had already been viewed by a someone, before the police.
A Leicestershire Police spokeswoman said on Sunday: “Police were called at 1.42pm on Saturday to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park. Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. Identification of the deceased is a matter for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious.”
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
You were correct, Davel. So the scene had already been viewed by a someone, before the police.
A Leicestershire Police spokeswoman said on Sunday: “Police were called at 1.42pm on Saturday to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park. Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. Identification of the deceased is a matter for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious.”
A member of staff confides in a partner...a policeman tells his wife...the story would soon get round
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 02, 2015, 05:13:42 PM
spot on...Many of us have experienced the hypercapnic alarm response when having gas to have a tooth extracted as children...as I pointed out last night this is because the anaesthetist turns down the oxygen level to speed the induction of anaesthesia up...it is most unpleasant as many will remember. Helium does not cause this unpleasant response and asphyxiation is quick and not unpleasant...
I've had dental work as a child in the States and I was never given gas, only novacaine shots. In France and Portugal, I have always been given local novacaine injections. So, I find it surprising that in the UK dentists use gas.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 03, 2015, 12:36:12 PM
I've had dental work as a child in the States and I was never given gas, only novacaine shots. In France and Portugal, I have always been given local novacaine injections. So, I find it surprising that in the UK dentists use gas.
This came up in the discussion about the helium suicide rumour of BL. No, Montclair, gas isn't used by dentists anymore, except in rare circumstances.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 03, 2015, 12:36:50 PM
I've had dental work as a child in the States and I was never given gas, only novacaine shots. In France and Portugal, I have always been given local novacaine injections. So, I find it surprising that in the UK dentists use gas.
Not for quite a long time.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Montclair on March 03, 2015, 01:43:49 PM
Sorry Anna I did not see your post. The newspaper article is wrong. According to the Star Brenda used Helium to commit suicide...a very neat and painless method. Nitrous oxide used in the same way would be quite unpleasant
Thank you Davel, I thought that might be the case, as they showed a photo of people with balloons and then said that it was, nitrous oxide, used to fill balloons. So Helium it was.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2015, 05:36:37 PM
Thank you Davel, I thought that might be the case, as they showed a photo of people with balloons and then said that it was, nitrous oxide, used to fill balloons. So Helium it was.
I think the confusion is that these partygoers fill ballons with nitrous oxide in order to inhale it...hence the confusion with helium
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 13, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
I think the confusion is that these partygoers fill ballons with nitrous oxide in order to inhale it...hence the confusion with helium
Ah! The article, did mention laughing gas. Thanks again
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 14, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Absolutely wonderful. ...thes posters think they are so smart that they have worked out what ha happened to maddie....and using their incredible powers of deductioln have worked out I'm a dustman.....is there no start to their talent
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 14, 2015, 06:53:38 PM
Absolutely wonderful. ...thes posters think they are so smart that they have worked out what ha happened to maddie....and using their incredible powers of deductioln have worked out I'm a dustman.....is there no start to their talent
No Dave, it was sarcasm.
Clearly you don't understand that either.
Don't make claims you can't back up.
As you like telling other posters. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on March 14, 2015, 07:13:41 PM
So - this Friday then...what are people expecting to happen vis-à-vis the dossier compiler(s)?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 14, 2015, 07:23:01 PM
So - this Friday then...what are people expecting to happen vis-à-vis the dossier compiler(s)?
I think her cause of death will be announced, but I doubt anything else will. However I might be surprised. I will miss it all, if it is announced on Friday. Will it be over in one day?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 14, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
I think her cause of death will be announced, but I doubt anything else will. However I might be surprised. I will miss it all, if it is announced on Friday. Will it be over in one day?
We shall find out shortly.
However, whatever happens I feel sure the debate will continue.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 14, 2015, 07:30:39 PM
However, whatever happens I feel sure the debate will continue.
I'm sure it will and as long as the debate is on the topic of the thread, that is fine with me.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Anna on March 14, 2015, 09:50:49 PM
I have been trying to find out how long this inquest is likely to last and due to the complexity, I should imagine it will be a few days at least. This is not for Leicestershire, but I am sure will be basically the same.
What happens if someone is responsible for my relative's death? It is important to understand that an inquest is different from a trial. It is not about deciding issues or guilt, blame or compensation. It is purely a fact-finding inquiry. These things are dealt with separately in the civil and criminal courts. No sentence or penalty will be given to anyone by the Coroner.
This means that an inquest runs in a slightly different way from a trial. For example, lawyers do not make opening and closing speeches, and questioning is straightforward and factual - there is no cross-questioning or attempts to 'trip up' a witness. While people in court may have different outcomes they are hoping for, we ask everyone present to work in a spirit of co-operation to create a true account of what happened. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/626/coroners/5533/the_inquest_system/13
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 15, 2015, 11:48:13 AM
I would expect the coroner to use all her powers to carry out her duty with respect to the inquest in to the circumstances surrounding the death of Brenda Leyland. If she deems it necessary to find out who the dossier compilers/"handersover" were and question them she will. If she doesn't she will not. What will happen to the dossier compilers on Friday? subject to the previous sentence they will be questioned or not questioned. In the event they are questioned and the coroner feels the matter should be referred to the police for further action she will. As the police allegedly received a copy of the document they will possibly know who handed it to them unless it was done anomalously [yes I know] Read the document in the above link which I have posted at least once before. It is pretty factual one would imagine and takes out much of the guesswork.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on March 15, 2015, 11:52:24 AM
I would expect the coroner to use all her powers to carry out her duty with respect to the inquest in to the circumstances surrounding the death of Brenda Leyland. If she deems it necessary to find out who the dossier compilers/"handersover" were and question them she will. If she doesn't she will not. What will happen to the dossier compilers on Friday? subject to the previous sentence they will be questioned or not questioned. In the event they are questioned and the coroner feels the matter should be referred to the police for further action she will. As the police allegedly received a copy of the document they will possibly know who handed it to them unless it was done anomalously [yes I know] Read the document in the above link which I have posted at least once before. It is pretty factual one would imagine and takes out much of the guesswork.
The coroner has already deemed it necessary to find out who the dossier compilers are hence her demand to Sky, so what next?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2015, 11:54:09 AM
I would expect the coroner to use all her powers to carry out her duty with respect to the inquest in to the circumstances surrounding the death of Brenda Leyland. If she deems it necessary to find out who the dossier compilers/"handersover" were and question them she will. If she doesn't she will not. What will happen to the dossier compilers on Friday? subject to the previous sentence they will be questioned or not questioned. In the event they are questioned and the coroner feels the matter should be referred to the police for further action she will. As the police allegedly received a copy of the document they will possibly know who handed it to them unless it was done anomalously [yes I know] Read the document in the above link which I have posted at least once before. It is pretty factual one would imagine and takes out much of the guesswork.
so you don't know...just like everybody else...
my opinion is the inquest will be primarily interested in the cause of death....suicide seems to be the most obvious. A toxicologist and Brenda's psychiatrist are listed as witnesses so this gives us some idea of what the coroner is interested in. We have already been told that no one is expected to face criminal charges
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 15, 2015, 01:15:21 PM
The coroner has already deemed it necessary to find out who the dossier compilers are hence her demand to Sky, so what next?
She will ask questions of the relevant persons and deliver her verdict which may be a narrative verdict. If as a result she requires the police to make further investigations she will ask for them to do so but that is without the jurisdiction of her court. If she decides she needs to make recommendations to prevent a death occurring under similar circumstances she will do so. What do you think is next Alf?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on March 15, 2015, 01:21:03 PM
She will ask questions of the relevant persons and deliver her verdict which may be a narrative verdict. If as a result she requires the police to make further investigations she will ask for them to do so but that is without the jurisdiction of her court. If she decides she needs to make recommendations to prevent a death occurring under similar circumstances she will do so. What do you think is next Alf?
No idea, but I'm not expecting criminal proceedings to arise as a result of the inquest, are you?
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 15, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
No idea, but I'm not expecting criminal proceedings to arise as a result of the inquest, are you?
I haven't a clue. My gut feeling is the worst will be someone getting a flea in their ear. As I don't have all the evidence and neither does the coroner until her court has convened and gone the process who really knows? Apart from the odd punter on here who thinks he/she is clairbloodyvoyant.
Looking at it from the aspect of the coroner having a duty to try to prevent a death occurring in similar circumstances she may decide to play dirty and read out the names of all identified folks, whatever the flavour, in her court. Ouch! blackballed at the goff club and defrocked by the church committee; just desserts! [how many posts til someone cottons on I am taking the p**s with that last para?] 8(>((
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2015, 03:22:59 PM
I haven't a clue. My gut feeling is the worst will be someone getting a flea in their ear. As I don't have all the evidence and neither does the coroner until her court has convened and gone the process who really knows? Apart from the odd punter on here who thinks he/she is clairbloodyvoyant.
Looking at it from the aspect of the coroner having a duty to try to prevent a death occurring in similar circumstances she may decide to play dirty and read out the names of all identified folks, whatever the flavour, in her court. Ouch! blackballed at the goff club and defrocked by the church committee; just desserts! [how many posts til someone cottons on I am taking the p**s with that last para?] 8(>((
Shall we open a book ? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: Brietta on March 15, 2015, 04:33:18 PM
I haven't a clue. My gut feeling is the worst will be someone getting a flea in their ear. As I don't have all the evidence and neither does the coroner until her court has convened and gone the process who really knows? Apart from the odd punter on here who thinks he/she is clairbloodyvoyant.
Looking at it from the aspect of the coroner having a duty to try to prevent a death occurring in similar circumstances she may decide to play dirty and read out the names of all identified folks, whatever the flavour, in her court. Ouch! blackballed at the goff club and defrocked by the church committee; just desserts! [how many posts til someone cottons on I am taking the p**s with that last para?] 8(>((
I think reflected in the witnesses called, the coroner may ascertain as far as she can Brenda Leyland's state of mind by interviewing the last people known to have spoken to her.
The toxicologist will give a medical report as to any substances which may or may not have been found ... and based on that evidence decide whether her death was natural causes, accident or suicide, and will rule accordingly. I don't know whether or not she will declare that immediately or at a later date.
It has been a long time coming and must have been a traumatic time for her immediate family whatever their relationship might have been. It would be good if people would remember that the family are having to live with this very public event through no choice of their own and allow the coroner's decision on the circumstances to stand without injuring these people further.
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: John on March 15, 2015, 04:57:08 PM
Please do not add further posts to this thread.
Discussion continued here. (http://www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6184.msg226672#msg226672)
Title: Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
Post by: mercury on May 01, 2016, 11:57:43 PM
Quote from: Alice Purjorick on Today at 11:36:57 PM After giving it to the police first who said words to the effect of "Go away and don't be so silly". That would upset those with an over inflated sense of their own importance and entitlement. ----------- Indeed, but their being "upset" seems to have lead them right back to their original aim....albeit probably not the death of someone whose views they opposed....probably named and shamed in the papers, which is repugnant enough, pity none of them had the simplest iq to foresee that being doorstepped by SKY in a controversial case over ones private tweets and being repeated on world wide tv every 15 mns all day may have such consequences...
---
Just bumpng ths thread with deleted posts from elsewhere so I can stay ON TOPIC and so that valuable relevant posts dont go into the ether forever