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

[stephen25000]

You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.

I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like.  I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.

Well said.

The McCann's also refuse to condemn their supporters who use 'derogatory' language and threats.

[Eleanor]

You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.

I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like.  I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.

There is no proof that Brenda Leyland was hounded to her death by The Press and TV, so please don't state it as a fact.

[stephen25000]

Firstly, we were discussing whether or not she had anything to be ashamed of.  I gave examples of behaviour that I felt were likely to cause her shame on reflection.  I did not say they were justification for being outed on TV - YOU have made that assumption.  You have also assumed that I believe Brenda to be evil and vile.  Wrong. I believe her to have been seriously misguided, foolish and desperate to please her new cyber pals.  Evil no, but she certainly was responsible for some vile tweets.

Thanks for getting that off your chest and reminding us all why you hate the McCanns so much - you must feel better for that.

Pathetic.

[stephen25000]

There is no proof that Brenda Leyland was hounded to her death by The Press and TV, so please don't state it as a fact.

Who exposed her to the world on the precept she was under investigation by the police  ?

[Mr Gray]

You want so much to believe that Brenda Leyland was evil and vile in order to justify in your mind her being hounded to death by the press and TV. None of the above is a reason to out anyone on television.

I used to feel sorry for the McCanns but not anymore, not at all.They are certainly not doing anything to make themselves any more likable by suing anyone who says anything they don't like.  I find them particularly despicable and vindictive and they are not nice people and no one should be hounded for thinking and saying this. We are not required by law to like them or feel sorry for them even if some of you here think that it should be obligatory.

You can say what you like about the mccanns on here but should you be outed you should not whinge...as posters are doing now for brenda... I happen to believe they are an absolutely wonderful couple

[Miss Taken Identity]

I do hope this is a dignified inquiry.  I also hope that 'Bennet crew' stay away- they will do more harm that good for Brenda's family.

I also hope there is a mention of how she came to be alone in a hotel room, so distraught, she thought being dead would solve her problem or just release her from what she may have perceived a terror campaign against her.  And that was proved correct,  she was front line news about being a vile troll.

It is good to see this has not affected the McCANN TROLLS or the family.

[stephen25000]

Well it seems there is more available on the compilers of the dossier, and it appears they were colluding with Sky News.


Available on page 271 of the Amazon discussion of the  mccann case.

[Montclair]

Well it seems there is more available on the compilers of the dossier, and it appears they were colluding with Sky News.


Available on page 271 of the Amazon discussion of the  mccann case.

JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.

IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:

1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics;
2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book;
3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.

But it backfired.

[Jean-Pierre]

JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.

IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:

1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics;
2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book;
3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.

But it backfired.

BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police.  The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter. 

[Montclair]

BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police.  The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter.

Criminal matters: Blackmail, threats and racism AFAIK.

[stephen25000]

BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police.  The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter.

Brenda Leyland made no direct comments to the mccanns.

They did not have a twitter account(s), or so they claim.

[stephen25000]

JMHO, but I believe that the dossier was handed over, perhaps by the McCanns, as BHH stated, at the beginning of September. As the police were not going to take any action, as it was a civil matter according to BHH, the persons involved in this "outing" campaign got annoyed and impatient and decided to use the press to out the doubters. This is plausible but it is just my opinion.

IMO, there were 3 reasons for this campaign:

1. To deviate OG from the murder investigation and make them waste their time going after heretics;
2. To use in the damages trial to show that the McCanns are targeted by crazy people because of GA's book;
3. To put the fear of God into the doubters.

But it backfired.

Thanks for that reply, as it raises pertinent points.

Nothing has come out form SY to date it seems, so we now await for the inquest in December and what line the Coroner takes.

As regards to the involvement of SY , nothing from them it seems so far, and meanwhile Sky News and Brunt, have been noticeably quiet.

Has he retired ?

[Montclair]

BHH said that this was being handled by Leicester police.  The harrasment aspect would be a criminal law matter.

If this were the case, then why didn't they let the police handle it instead of going to the press. If they did have a case for harassment, keeping quiet would have been more effective.

[Jean-Pierre]

Brenda Leyland made no direct comments to the mccanns.

They did not have a twitter account(s), or so they claim.

Direct communication is not necessary for a case of harrasment.  For obvious reasons.  So I am not sure what your point is. 

[stephen25000]

Direct communication is not necessary for a case of harrasment.  For obvious reasons.  So I am not sure what your point is.

Where has it been established it is a criminal matter, i.e. her tweets ?

I have seen some extremely offensive posts on a site I believe  you post on.

N.B. Not from you.