Author Topic: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine  (Read 81899 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2017, 05:35:22 PM »
Brenda Leyland.

Brunt and Sky.

BRUNT of course disappeared from public view after Ms. Leyland died for several weeks.

It is a pity he returned.

How he dare host this program is beyond disgusting.

Can we put this 'outrage' to bed please.

Martin Brunt was simply able to trace Brenda Leyland from contacts she had initiated with him via twitter.  He was doing his job when he interviewed her within his organisation's guidelines.

Do you call to mind Sonia Poulton turning up on Kate McCann's doorstep ... would your outrage have extended to her had she tipped Kate over the edge for a video that was never to see the light of day.



Why Sky's Martin Brunt was right to investigate the story of McCann Twitter 'troll' Brenda Leyland
Opinion

By Chris Boffey-07 October 2014 09:39am
Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government.

When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.

After her death we may never know, but what we are sure of is the police had identified Leyland as being part of an online trolling campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann and were investigating.

Brunt, the foremost crime correspondent in broadcasting with an enviable contacts book, discovered that Leyland was behind the anti-McCann Twitter account @sweepyface and confronted her on camera and later interviewed her in her own home.

In his report, Brunt did not identify Leyland, nor give out her address, which was uncomfortably close to the McCanns; he pixillated out her car registration number and put her Twitter campaign in context by saying it was by no means the worst.

When he spoke to her off camera he and Leyland had a straightforward interview where she told him she had questions for the McCanns about their behaviour and believed the British press was failing in its job. She hoped that she had not broken the law.

Up until Leyland was found dead in a hotel in Leicester on Saturday, Sky and Brunt had received few complaints about the story, except a small number from the anti-McCann faction. Brunt had legitimately followed the path of the story, the catalyst being a BBC interview with Gerry McCann in which he said online trolls should be investigated and charged by police. Brunt discovered the extent of police inquiries and the identity of @sweepyface and acted appropriately after following guidelines laid down by Sky’s lawyers.

Now, of course, Brunt is the centre of the story. He is getting the abuse, complaints have been made to Ofcom and there is a Facebook campaign to get him sacked. Sky is saying very little and Brunt has been told to keep quiet and keep his head down.

Also saying nothing is Gerry McCann, who had a lot to say about responsible journalism and online abuse campaigns after he won a £55,000 libel victory against The Sunday Times.

There is no doubt that the McCanns have been repeated victims of poor and shoddy journalism following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal, but in his interview Mr McCann appeared to suggest that the media had no right to even question him or his wife about the night their little girl went missing.

He is wrong. The media is given information; reporters are tasked with finding out if that information is right or wrong. If the story does not stand up it should be binned, not written as rumour, or something that has appeared online but slapped on the untrue spike. But it should be investigated.

So where does Gerry McCann stand on the Sky/Brunt report? The story was true, it was legitimate and proportional but tragically a woman, who sent almost 5,000 tweets in a year about the McCanns, is now dead. Does he believe that the media had no right to discover who were the online abusers potentially breaking the law by harassing his family?

McCann has a legitimate view in calling for the full implementation of media regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson and there are many people in and out of the media industry who believe that Ipso, the industry’s complaints board, is the Press Complaints Commission in another guise. But we cannot have a media that does not investigate and hold to account. That would be the death of a free press.

Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government

This article is about: UK, Brenda Leyland, Sky, Trolling, Twitter, Media
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2017, 05:40:08 PM »
Just heard elsewhere that brunt is hosting the Sky Documentary.

Has Brunt got any shame at all ?

You could not make this up.

Quite disgusting.
Heard from elsewhere?!  It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day.  Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2017, 05:56:17 PM »
Heard from elsewhere?!  It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day.  Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?
Bring back Brunt!
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2017, 06:01:11 PM »
Heard from elsewhere?!  It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day.  Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?

It was on Sky Alfie. 8)--))

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2017, 07:09:20 PM »
Can we put this 'outrage' to bed please.

Martin Brunt was simply able to trace Brenda Leyland from contacts she had initiated with him via twitter.  He was doing his job when he interviewed her within his organisation's guidelines.

Do you call to mind Sonia Poulton turning up on Kate McCann's doorstep ... would your outrage have extended to her had she tipped Kate over the edge for a video that was never to see the light of day.



Why Sky's Martin Brunt was right to investigate the story of McCann Twitter 'troll' Brenda Leyland
Opinion

By Chris Boffey-07 October 2014 09:39am
Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government.

When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.

After her death we may never know, but what we are sure of is the police had identified Leyland as being part of an online trolling campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann and were investigating.

Brunt, the foremost crime correspondent in broadcasting with an enviable contacts book, discovered that Leyland was behind the anti-McCann Twitter account @sweepyface and confronted her on camera and later interviewed her in her own home.

In his report, Brunt did not identify Leyland, nor give out her address, which was uncomfortably close to the McCanns; he pixillated out her car registration number and put her Twitter campaign in context by saying it was by no means the worst.

When he spoke to her off camera he and Leyland had a straightforward interview where she told him she had questions for the McCanns about their behaviour and believed the British press was failing in its job. She hoped that she had not broken the law.

Up until Leyland was found dead in a hotel in Leicester on Saturday, Sky and Brunt had received few complaints about the story, except a small number from the anti-McCann faction. Brunt had legitimately followed the path of the story, the catalyst being a BBC interview with Gerry McCann in which he said online trolls should be investigated and charged by police. Brunt discovered the extent of police inquiries and the identity of @sweepyface and acted appropriately after following guidelines laid down by Sky’s lawyers.

Now, of course, Brunt is the centre of the story. He is getting the abuse, complaints have been made to Ofcom and there is a Facebook campaign to get him sacked. Sky is saying very little and Brunt has been told to keep quiet and keep his head down.

Also saying nothing is Gerry McCann, who had a lot to say about responsible journalism and online abuse campaigns after he won a £55,000 libel victory against The Sunday Times.

There is no doubt that the McCanns have been repeated victims of poor and shoddy journalism following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal, but in his interview Mr McCann appeared to suggest that the media had no right to even question him or his wife about the night their little girl went missing.

He is wrong. The media is given information; reporters are tasked with finding out if that information is right or wrong. If the story does not stand up it should be binned, not written as rumour, or something that has appeared online but slapped on the untrue spike. But it should be investigated.

So where does Gerry McCann stand on the Sky/Brunt report? The story was true, it was legitimate and proportional but tragically a woman, who sent almost 5,000 tweets in a year about the McCanns, is now dead. Does he believe that the media had no right to discover who were the online abusers potentially breaking the law by harassing his family?

McCann has a legitimate view in calling for the full implementation of media regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson and there are many people in and out of the media industry who believe that Ipso, the industry’s complaints board, is the Press Complaints Commission in another guise. But we cannot have a media that does not investigate and hold to account. That would be the death of a free press.

Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government

This article is about: UK, Brenda Leyland, Sky, Trolling, Twitter, Media
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
The bit I have bolded is the bit I find despicable.  Confronted on camera aka door-stepped.  I saw it, and I do not care whether it was within Sky guidelines.  It was despicable.

I got virtual-reality door-stepped by The Mirror, in a despicable manner.  Confrontational, IMO yes.  Accurate, IMO no.

I have already talked to media here (Luz) re the 10th anniversary.  They were polite and professional.  I was asked if it was OK for them to take stills and video of me.  I declined.  They accepted this and we moved on.  I know I am not central to the material they were collecting, and in the exchange, I learned a considerable amount about what they had as their focus. Since they were professional and courteous to me, I will not be revealing their details or agenda until they go public.  Confrontational, IMO no.  Accurate, hopefully but I only have a limited impression of how they will proceed.

I have another media exchange stacked up.  On this one it happens to be I am dancing with the Devil, but needs must.  This contact has been so far professional and courteous, and there is no suggestion of door-stepping.  I have no idea of the proposed agenda.  I might get sand-bagged, but who knows.  Again, I am not going to provide details until publication occurs.

I did not follow the Brenda Leyland development.  I have seen a fair number of her tweets, and IMO a number were despicable.  I do not consider that 2 wrongs make a right, and for the record, I consider Martin Brunt's door-stepping to be despicable.  And for Chris Boffey to defend it is also despicable, IMO.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2017, 07:14:30 PM »
I dont see Brunts behaviour as despicable...its a matter of opinion

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2017, 07:22:07 PM »
I dont see Brunts behaviour as despicable...its a matter of opinion
Everyone already knows how you value your opinion.   8((()*/

However, we now have information you choose not to decry door-stepping or confrontation on camera.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2017, 07:25:36 PM »
Everyone already knows how you value your opinion.   8((()*/

However, we now have information you choose not to decry door-stepping or confrontation on camera.

i dont...I see nothing wrong with what Brunt did...its been going on for years with no previous complaints

Offline barrier

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2017, 07:27:25 PM »
i dont...I see nothing wrong with what Brunt did
What do you see the purpose of it was.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2017, 07:30:29 PM »
What do you see the purpose of it was.
its called reporting the news and its very important..Brunt did nothing wrong

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2017, 07:32:41 PM »
i dont...I see nothing wrong with what Brunt did...its been going on for years with no previous complaints
Slavery went on for years.  It did not make it right.  Confrontational door-steppers deserve no respect for such actions.

Disgraceful.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2017, 07:34:30 PM »
Slavery went on for years.  It did not make it right.  Confrontational door-steppers deserve no respect for such actions.

Disgraceful.

comparing brunts actions to slavery shows how ridiculously pathetic your argument is....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2017, 07:35:37 PM »
Slavery went on for years.  It did not make it right.  Confrontational door-steppers deserve no respect for such actions.

Disgraceful.

Quite right.

Cleanly it was deemed she was an easy target.

If she was suspected of criminal action,  it was a police matter.

What Brenda Leyland did was wrong, but others were doing the same.

The question remains, why did Sky, and their reporter single her out.

Offline barrier

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2017, 07:35:48 PM »
its called reporting the news and its very important..Brunt did nothing wrong
A person tweeting on social media is hardly news.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2017, 08:00:17 PM »
comparing brunts actions to slavery shows how ridiculously pathetic your argument is....
For much of the time that slavery was legal, it was considered appropriate.  Slavery was abolished because it was abominable.

Confrontational door-stepping is a 2017 phenomenon that should be abolished.  Even supposed 'valid' targets such as politicians should be free from this obnoxious practice.

Perhaps you think people should be free to visit Rothley and indulge in some confrontational door-stepping of the McCanns.  Personally, I would condemn such behaviour as odious.
What's up, old man?