Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

[Angelo222]

By the way, note not one single comment of disgust, incredulity or condemnation of the list of  tweets I posted up last night from anyof the "sceptics".   In fact they seem to have been completely ignored by this group, who prefer instead to condemn as illegal and / or immoral the people who would rather see this sort of online abuse halted.   You really couldn't make it up.

I condemn them without reservation as I do McCann trolls who are guilty of the exact same abuse.

Always remembering that there is a fine line between abuse and criminal activity.  Brenda Leyland did not commit any crime imo.

[Jean-Pierre]

sky and those  who handed in the dossier their actions sent  brenda  over the edge

So what is your solution, Carly?

Should everyione on the internet be allowed to post whatever they like with no sanction, and no investigation by journalists? 

Should everyone be allowed to remain anonymous? 

[Angelo222]

Brunty and Sky News did wrong and they know it.  They were played for the fools they are, no wonder Brunt has disappeared.

[Carew]

Well........ there seems to be a huge effort to link what happened in the confrontation of Mrs Leyland by sky news waving a dossier compiled by supporters of the McCanns,............. (when a police investigation was already under way)...............with all sorts of examples of investigative journalism in order to sanitise or deflect from the awkward issues surrounding this particular issue.

[carlymichelle]

So what is your solution, Carly?

Should everyione on the internet be allowed to post whatever they like with no sanction, and no investigation by journalists? 

Should everyone be allowed to remain anonymous?

in my opinion  yes     there is a  choice to read things or  not   no one forces anyone to read anything

[Carew]

I know what you were doing.  It's a shame you find mocking my posting style more interesting than actually addressing the points I was making, but your choice.

Oh dear Alfred R Jones..........Your methods are so transparent and predictable!

[Jean-Pierre]

Was Brenda Leyland a public servant?  NO

No - but she was, in her persona as "sweepyface" a very active poster against a particular, known family.

So Volenti non fit injuria applies. 

Everyone may, at some point, have their cloak of anonymity removed.  Sadly she apparently could not cope with the consequences of that. 

[carlymichelle]

Brunty and Sky News did wrong and they know it.  They were played for the fools they are, no wonder Brunt has disappeared.

the mcann supporters dont see anything  they did  was  wrong

[Brietta]

I can see that there are those who are uncomfortable discussing the theme of the thread ... which concerns the trolls who have taken it upon themselves to hound the McCann family for over seven years.

The person who submitted the dossier to the police is to be excoriated ... for what? ... submitting a document to the police?
What then of the people who have continually petitioned and submitted FOI and, dare I say it, dossiers against the McCanns to the police over a seven year period?

Martin Brunt is being hounded with facebook pages etc set up specifically to have him sacked ... for what? ... for doing his job and contacting a person who had tweeted to him in a situation which then suddenly became newsworthy?
When he was reporting word for word the lies emanating from Portugal concerning the Drs McCann and their friends ... he was a great guy.

[Wonderfulspam]

on another thread  i realised and  posted    the  mcann supporters  are just like oscar pitorious supporters   all starstruck  i  highly  doubt   oscar  will get jail i hope  im  wrong but there is as much bias in that case    as  this oine

It's obvious that Oscar is as guilty as sin.

The judge only found him guilty of culpable homicide,  but he's a murderer, 100%.

[Jean-Pierre]

in my opinion  yes     there is a  choice to read things or  not   no one forces anyone to read anything

OK - so you think that everyone should have the absolute right to remain anonymous.  Fair enough. 

Should that apply to people plotting terrorist acts? 

Should it apply to paedophiles?  Should they be able online to swap pictures of young children being abused without any sanction? 

Should people be able to plot or discuss any other criminal activity online with a guarantee of anonymity?     

[Alfred R Jones]

...........so after we`ve all expressed our disgust, incredulity and condemnation of tweets from both sides...........

...........are we then to follow it up by saying that it`s therefore fine to pre-empt a police investigation by selecting a target and confronting him/her via the press?

Is that what you want to happen?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Firstly, what disgust, incredulity and condemnation have you actually expressed concerning the tweets I posted up yesterday?  None, that's what.

Secondly, how does highlighting these tweets pre-empt a police investigation exactly?  Do you know for sure that the police are even aware of these particular tweets?  Why shouldn't I or anyone else including Sky News challenge the depravity on display in such a twitter feed?  For fear that a poor little  troll might self-harm?  Is that what you're saying?  That one must never expose anyone suspected of any sort of criminal or anti-social behaviour for fear that they may take their own lives?  Well sorry, but if you go out of your way to solicit thousands of followers on twitter and then tweet tens of thousands of deranged tweets about waterboarding the McCanns (amongst other things) then you shouldn't be especially surprised if the press and / or police eventually start taking an interest in you and the sort of person you might be. 

The likelihood is the police will do nothing about this particular individual so should we as a civilised society simply accept that such abuse goes on and learn to live with it, or should we shine a light on it, so that it makes those perpetrators feel as uncomfortable as their unfortunate targets?

And the insane hypocrisy on show here is that many "sceptics" have spent a considerable amount of time and effort desperately trying to persuade the media and authors such as S & S to do critically investigative pieces on the McCanns, and then berate these same journalists when they don't mention (for example) the Gaspar statements. 

[Brietta]

in my opinion  yes     there is a  choice to read things or  not   no one forces anyone to read anything

I seem to remember you complaining vociferously about alleged abusive posts to yourself.

So OK for you to complain ... but not for the Drs McCann who have had the gates of Hell opened against them in a sustained seven year onslaught.

[Carew]

No - but she was, in her persona as "sweepyface" a very active poster against a particular, known family.

So Volenti non fit injuria applies. 

Everyone may, at some point, have their cloak of anonymity removed.  Sadly she apparently could not cope with the consequences of that.

You don`t really know that it was "the consequences of the removal of the cloak of anonymity" which she couldn`t cope with.

We actually don`t know all that was said to her.

As regards cloaks of anonymity.............Do you think the dossier compilers could cope with its removal in similar circumstances?

[carlymichelle]

I seem to remember you complaining vociferously about alleged abusive posts to yourself.

So OK for you to complain ... but not for the Drs McCann who have had the gates of Hell opened against them in a sustained seven year onslaught.

need i remind you the mcanns unwitting or not  put themselves in the spotlight by leaving children alone while they  ate and drank?