Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.

[Alfred R Jones]

Have you even read the tweets?  Obviously not!

Of course I have, don't be silly.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Angelo222]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[Lace]

Sky's lawyers only looked at it after the piece was broadcast.

That article says the lawyers looked at it BEFORE it was broadcast John.

[John]

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.

[Lace]

Yes, I know.   Pity they don't share the same concerns over the actions of their other reporters.

So why did you say they didn't?

[Carana]

So why did you say they didn't?

I'm confused as well, Lace.

John you did say:

"Sky's lawyers only looked at it after the piece was broadcast."

[John]

So why did you say they didn't?

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.

[Lace]

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

[Matthew Wyse]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

Definitions of what?  It seems pretty straight forward to me.

That is hardly a definitive statement and unless one of your ologies is in the appropriate branch of the law pretty valueless too.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Carana]

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...