Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

[Eleanor]

I know, but I'm not sure that Carly actually realises the extent of the threats, nor whether she would find these acceptable if they were expressed against herself or her loved ones.

I find that to be a reasonable question because she appears not to.

[Jean-Pierre]

of course not but  why lump everybody  who doesnt believe the mcanns  together??

I dont think anyone is "lumping everybody  who doesnt believe the mcanns  together".  It is fine to ask questions, express doubts and comment on the case.  But if you do so, then is it unreasonable to expect others to retaliate?

When it spills over into threats, accusations that the McCanns have committed various crimes, stalking, distributiong books, videos and leaflets, visiting their place of work - then that is unacceptable.  And it is at that point the McCanns would be entitled to take legal action.   And sometimes they do, as Bennett found out.  Quite right too. 

[Carana]

of course not but  why lump everybody  who doesnt believe the mcanns  together??

This thread is about an investigation into Internet trolls by the police.

Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and abuse, (let alone comments about potentially setting fire to your home, or harming your family)?

[Carew]

of course not but  why lump everybody  who doesnt believe the mcanns  together??

Good point.

[Carana]

Good point.

This thread concerns: Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

Where are the limits?

[Carew]

This thread is about an investigation into Internet trolls by the police.

Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and abuse, (let alone comments about potentially setting fire to your home, or harming your family)?

By the police........yes.

Where do you draw the line between a police investigation and a pre-emptive D.I.Y. version, via a dossier and Sky News ?

[carlymichelle]

By the police........yes.

Where do you draw the line between a police investigation and a pre-emptive D.I.Y. version, via a dossier and Sky News ?

exactly isnt that stalking like they accuse the more outspoken    people??

[Mr Gray]

exactly isnt that stalking like they accuse the more outspoken    people??

So it's OK to stalk the MCCanns but it's not ok to stalk the stalkers... &%+((£ &%+((£ &%+((£

[Carana]

By the police........yes.

Where do you draw the line between a police investigation and a pre-emptive D.I.Y. version, via a dossier and Sky News ?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

One thing is the official investigation (which was subject to a rather long interruption). Another is the trial by media which has never stopped.

Again... where are the limits to unsubstantiated speculation and unbridled misinformation gleefully being touted as "facts"?

My question is to bring it back to a human level. Would anyone here appreciate this if we or our own famiies were the targets?

[Carew]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

One thing is the official investigation (which was subject to a rather long interruption). Another is the trial by media which has never stopped.

Again... where are the limits to unsubstantiated speculation and unbridled misinformation gleefully being touted as "facts"?

My question is to bring it back to a human level. Would anyone here appreciate this if we or our own famiies were the targets?

To clarify...........My post related to the thread subject..........Police investigation into McCann internet trolls.

Your reply seems to refer to the official investigation into Madeleine`s disappearance / trial by media of the McCanns?

Is that it?

[Brietta]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

One thing is the official investigation (which was subject to a rather long interruption). Another is the trial by media which has never stopped.

Again... where are the limits to unsubstantiated speculation and unbridled misinformation gleefully being touted as "facts"?

My question is to bring it back to a human level. Would anyone here appreciate this if we or our own famiies were the targets?

If there were different questions being put as newer information was exposed; if the statements and accusations being made were any different from those being made in 2007; then there might be some excuse.

It is the constant repetition of statements which have been proved to be erroneous that I find the most inexplicable.

If I ask a question and have been given an answer which I don’t like but which can be proven to be true … I accept the answer. 
I would never dream of displaying my ignorance ? my spite ? or my bile ? by continually asking it over and over again and again over a period of seven years ... because the truth of the answer isn't going to change.

I think people who have indulged themselves at the expense of the McCann family must be totally devoid of empathy as well as having other character defects. 
We are all capable of having disastrous ‘heat of the moment’ episodes … but keeping it up for seven years … that is something else.

[stephen25000]

So it's OK to stalk the MCCanns but it's not ok to stalk the stalkers... &%+((£ &%+((£ &%+((£

and what about the McCann trolls who stalk people who don't believe the McCann's , is that O.K. ?

[Mr Gray]

and what about the McCann trolls who stalk people who don't believe the McCann's , is that O.K. ?

how many times do I have to tell you...the type of behaviour shown by Brenda Leyland is not acceptable whichever side it comes from

[stephen25000]

how many times do I have to tell you...the type of behaviour shown by Brenda Leyland is not acceptable whichever side it comes from

At least you admit that.

Some don't.

[Jean-Pierre]

and what about the McCann trolls who stalk people who don't believe the McCann's , is that O.K. ?

An interesting point.  Most people post under an anonymous username, here, and on other social media.   Can an a pseudonym sue for defamtion?  Can it be insulted?  Can it be threatened? 

I do not know the answer as it has not been tested in court. 

The problems come when there is a collision between a pseudonym and real life.  When someone using a pseudonym defames a real and identifyable person.  Or when someone who has been a bit overenthusiastic in their posting is unmasked. 

If everyone obeyed the simple rule - "never post any anything you would not say if the subject were standing in front of you" then all would be fine.

And before you go off on one - that applies to posters on both sides.