Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

[stephen25000]

no the abductor is

and the evidence/proof  for that is ?

[Benice]

Deflection NO.

Just read what I said.

P.S. Would Brenda Leyland now be dead, if the dossier hadn't been given to Sky News ?

A simple YES or NO, would of course suffice.

This is what you said:

Quote
Well those who submitted the dossier, which of course was made available in early September, have now tried to disappear, and have certain media accounts closed.

However, I have read some of these peoples' names are known.
unquote

As you can see -  your own post to which I responded had nothing to do with Mrs Leyland.

So instead of trying to change the subject -  can you confirm that some of the names of the people who compiled and submitted the dossier have now been released/confirmed and are now in the public domain.   

 If you cannot do that - then it is reasonable to assume that your claims are merely wishful thinking based on wild speculation - but which IMO you are attempting to import onto this forum as 'facts'.

[stephen25000]

This is what you said:

Quote
Well those who submitted the dossier, which of course was made available in early September, have now tried to disappear, and have certain media accounts closed.

However, I have read some of these peoples' names are known.
unquote

As you can see -  your own post to which I responded had nothing to do with Mrs Leyland.

So instead of trying to change the subject -  can you confirm that some of the names of the people who compiled and submitted the dossier have now been released/confirmed and are now in the public domain.   

 If you cannot do that - then it is reasonable to assume that your claims are merely wishful thinking based on wild speculation - but which IMO you are attempting to import onto this forum as 'facts'.

'I have read some of these peoples' names are known.'

[Mr Gray]

and the evidence/proof  for that is ?

It's on another thread as this one is about trolls

[stephen25000]

It's on another thread as this one is about trolls

We have dealt with that before.

There is nothing on there of any consequence.

[Jean-Pierre]

The question comes, where do draw the line with the press ?

They have undoubtedly revealed many cases of both  corruption and malfeasance, by individuals and groups, for many decades and have therefore helped bring criminals to justice.

They have also been responsible for destroying peoples' lives.................................

Fair enough - but I would much rather live in a society with a free press.

The other two questions -

Is there an absolute right to freedom of speech? (to be able to say whatever you want.)

And do individuals have a right to anonymity?  (To write or post under a pseudonym)

[Eleanor]

People who don't post Malicious or Libellous Comments, don't need the protection of Free Speech.

[jassi]

People who don't post Malicious or Libellous Comments, don't need the protection of Free Speech.

Perhaps, but both are subjective concepts.
The problem with the internet is that people often post comments without due consideration.

[Eleanor]

Perhaps, but both are subjective concepts.
The problem with the internet is that people often post comments without due consideration.

Indeed they do.  Perhaps they should be a bit more subjective about that.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps, but both are subjective concepts.
The problem with the internet is that people often post comments without due consideration.

they are only subjective to a degree...posting that the mccanns covered up the accidental death of their daughter is libellous unless the poster can prove the truth of the statement..as Tony Bennett found out

[jassi]

they are only subjective to a degree...posting that the mccanns covered up the accidental death of their daughter is libellous unless the poster can prove the truth of the statement..as Tony Bennett found out

Indeed, but surely the decision of a jury to accept or reject such proof would itself be a subjective one.

[Angelo222]

As usual the press and media are spinning the latest anti troll measures into something it isn't.  Trolls are for the most part harmless but like most things there are the idiots who take it too far.  Abusive troll is the correct term.

[Mr Gray]

Indeed, but surely the decision of a jury to accept or reject such proof would itself be a subjective one.

Most people understand what a jury would accept..that's part of the problem...most posters don't understand what constitutes proof...the dogs ...no


dna...no
mcccanns statements..no
Gerry scratching his nose...no

[faithlilly]

What else would you expect them to do with it?

I have no argument with the M....... handing the dossier to the police. It does however suggest a closeness between the couple and the individuals who compiled the dossier and harassed Brenda before her death, a closeness that the M...... have been at pains to deny. What they shouldn't have done however is either disclose it's contents, or let them be disclosed by a third party, to the media.

Disclosing the details of individuals included in the dossier to Sky would almost certainly have made any resulting prosecution impossible ( how would Brenda Leyland have got a fair trial after her exposure and subsequent vilification in the MSM ? ) but of course by that time I'm sure the M........ ( who don't forget would be the only ones receiving information from SY as it was them who handed over the dossier ) would have known there was going to be no prosecution so forced to do something like giving the go-ahead for one of their minions ( deniability always ) to give it to Sky.


[edited as per forum rules]

[Mr Gray]

I have no argument with the M....... handing the dossier to the police. It does however suggest a closeness between the couple and the individuals who compiled the dossier and harassed Brenda before her death, a closeness that the M...... have been at pains to deny. What they shouldn't have done however is either disclose it's contents, or let them be disclosed by a third party, to the media.

Disclosing the details of individuals included in the dossier to Sky would almost certainly have made any resulting prosecution impossible ( how would Brenda Leyland have got a fair trial after her exposure and subsequent vilification in the MSM ? ) but of course by that time I'm sure the M........ ( who don't forget would be the only ones receiving information from SY as it was them who handed over the dossier ) would have known there was going to be no prosecution so forced to do something like giving the go-ahead for one of their minions ( deniability always ) to give it to Sky.


[edited as per forum rules]

how do you know that those who complied the dossier harassed Brenda...its a gross assumption