Let's Not Forget Brenda

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

tigger wrote:
Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.
Iirc it was the second interview.

Not "no more Madeleine" but "no more search"....it's one of those WTF moments of their narratives !
They want the search to go on forever, if possible, for obvious reason.

And didn't Gerry say that they needed the Fund to carry on after the "official search" ended, or words to that effect.
They Knew and Know (or hope !! ) that she will not be found.

Monty Heck wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Tech/article1473136.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_10_18

Is this accurate reporting?  I thought that the McCanns didn't do twitter and it was some-one else who had handed police the 'dossier' ?

This at least makes sense.  Random individual/s taking it on themselves to compile a "dossier" including personal information and contact details and not only handing in to the police but the media simply doesn't seem credible.  As for approaching the media with this without the knowledge or sanction of the objects of one's concern when this could be highly damaging, words fail.

juliet wrote:I think Brenda was set up to suit the govt/mccann wider agenda of shutting down dissent on social media. Notice how all the columnists from Richd Madeley to Deborah Orr to Lorraine Kelly to Carol Malone all followed the identical line about the " sick" ,"lonely", "heartless" troll viciously attacking poor brave McCanns - even when she hadn't done any such thing. Even after she so tragically died.
Within a short time, however, a new scandal had flared up - Madeley's daughter being "threatened" by a troll because of something Judy Finnegan usefully said on TV. A few minutes later ( so it seemed) a new law was being framed to curb free speech and legitimate debate.

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Of course I can clarify it. It is illegal to post libel and no matter what people say about these allegations being common knowledge on the internet it doesn't make them true. These allegations are no more true than the allegation that the Queen is a lizard.

When you post libel about people, even when that libel is "common knowledge on the Internet" you get into trouble. Remember a certain Lord McAlpine and the people who got into trouble for posting what was "common knowldedge" about him?

And I stand by what I said about the rest of Brenda Leyland's output on Twitter. She was no angel. She said she was entitled to post what she liked, that was her freedom of speech. But what she posted was horrible and abusive and as I said earlier I would not want it posted about me or my children. And just maybe, if Brunt told the truth, she realised that she may have overstepped the mark when she told him that she hoped that she wouldn't get arrested for what she had posted.

If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times or about my children or about my friends I think I would go to the police about them or to the press because its horrible and its nasty and it should not be accepted as the norm.

tiny wrote:Rubbish,BRENDA was not a troll

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Of course I can clarify it. It is illegal to post libel and no matter what people say about these allegations being common knowledge on the internet it doesn't make them true. These allegations are no more true than the allegation that the Queen is a lizard.

When you post libel about people, even when that libel is "common knowledge on the Internet" you get into trouble. Remember a certain Lord McAlpine and the people who got into trouble for posting what was "common knowldedge" about him?

And I stand by what I said about the rest of Brenda Leyland's output on Twitter. She was no angel. She said she was entitled to post what she liked, that was her freedom of speech. But what she posted was horrible and abusive and as I said earlier I would not want it posted about me or my children. And just maybe, if Brunt told the truth, she realised that she may have overstepped the mark when she told him that she hoped that she wouldn't get arrested for what she had posted.

If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times or about my children or about my friends I think I would go to the police about them or to the press because its horrible and its nasty and it should not be accepted as the norm.

What allegations are you talking about that are no more true than the Queen is a lizard?

Did Brenda really post 4000 items of abuse? I think you'll find she didn't and I'm sorry but there are plenty of horrible and nasty things said by many people every day. Does that make it right? Of course not, but it doesn't make it illegal either. Freedom means the freedom to behave unethically and unpleasantly as well as the freedom to say nice things. Irrespective of whether she was less than an angel or not (and I have no view because I haven't read all her tweets) she was absolutely entitled to a point of view and to freely express it. If I post unpleasant things about you on here what on earth would you go to the police about? What law do you think I'd be breaking? Am I not entitled to hold, and voice, an opinion about you that you may not like?

The problem with your view is that, in your ideal world, we should all expect to get into trouble for saying things like "I believe the Mccann's were complicit in their daughters disappearance", "The T9 were all swingers" and "Kate and Gerry McCann are liars". All are highly libellous statements. Or is it just things that you disagree with that should cause people to get into trouble?

BTW I'm still struggling to understand what point you're trying to make because you ignored these questions: Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic?

Is your point that Brenda deserved what happened?

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Of course I can clarify it. It is illegal to post libel and no matter what people say about these allegations being common knowledge on the internet it doesn't make them true. These allegations are no more true than the allegation that the Queen is a lizard.

When you post libel about people, even when that libel is "common knowledge on the Internet" you get into trouble. Remember a certain Lord McAlpine and the people who got into trouble for posting what was "common knowldedge" about him?

And I stand by what I said about the rest of Brenda Leyland's output on Twitter. She was no angel. She said she was entitled to post what she liked, that was her freedom of speech. But what she posted was horrible and abusive and as I said earlier I would not want it posted about me or my children. And just maybe, if Brunt told the truth, she realised that she may have overstepped the mark when she told him that she hoped that she wouldn't get arrested for what she had posted.

If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times or about my children or about my friends I think I would go to the police about them or to the press because its horrible and its nasty and it should not be accepted as the norm.

What allegations are you talking about that are no more true than the Queen is a lizard?

Did Brenda really post 4000 items of abuse? I think you'll find she didn't and I'm sorry but there are plenty of horrible and nasty things said by many people every day. Does that make it right? Of course not, but it doesn't make it illegal either. Freedom means the freedom to behave unethically and unpleasantly as well as the freedom to say nice things. Irrespective of whether she was less than an angel or not (and I have no view because I haven't read all her tweets) she was absolutely entitled to a point of view and to freely express it. If I post unpleasant things about you on here what on earth would you go to the police about? What law do you think I'd be breaking? Am I not entitled to hold, and voice, an opinion about you that you may not like?

The problem with your view is that, in your ideal world, we should all expect to get into trouble for saying things like "I believe the Mccann's were complicit in their daughters disappearance", "The T9 were all swingers" and "Kate and Gerry McCann are liars". All are highly libellous statements. Or is it just things that you disagree with that should cause people to get into trouble?

BTW I'm still struggling to understand what point you're trying to make because you ignored these questions: Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic?

Is your point that Brenda deserved what happened?

Stop trying to suggest what I am saying. I have posted precisely what I think and don't need you to invent new things for me.

And it would make your postition much more credible if you had bothered to check exactly what Sweepyface (Brenda Leyland) posted on Twitter and Facebook. If you did that, then you might be able to comment with some kind of actual knowledge.

And as a matter of fact she did post well over 4000 tweets.

Where have I said that posting opinion should be illegal. What is illegal and which you are ignoring is the libel she posted about Blair and Brown. Please don't confuse the two.

juliet wrote:I think Brenda was set up to suit the govt/mccann wider agenda of shutting down dissent on social media. Notice how all the columnists from Richd Madeley to Deborah Orr to Lorraine Kelly to Carol Malone all followed the identical line about the " sick" ,"lonely", "heartless" troll viciously attacking poor brave McCanns - even when she hadn't done any such thing. Even after she so tragically died.
Within a short time, however, a new scandal had flared up - Madeley's daughter being "threatened" by a troll because of something Judy Finnegan usefully said on TV. A few minutes later ( so it seemed) a new law was being framed to curb free speech and legitimate debate.

Ristretto wrote:

tiny wrote:Rubbish,BRENDA was not a troll

By the common definition of the word she most certainly was in her posting to Amy Tierney.

Have you read those posts?

Ladyinred wrote:Ristretto, do you believe the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine?


"Not having any insight other than the two sources available to us all, the news media reports (which have so often been shown to be erroneous) and the Police Files which while contain evidence are not complete and are not proof of anything, I struggle to understand what happened in PDL that night.

I don't automatically believe any witness statement as being entirely correct as I know that most witnesses make mistakes of memory no matter how hard they try to tell the story as it happened. Nor do witnesses observe things as clearly as we might expect (I remember being caught out by a video of people catching a ball when a bear walks past unnoticed).

I don't know whether the McCanns were involved in the disappearance. I've never seen anything to prove that they were but it is a possibility.

I don't know if an abductor was involved. Again I've seen no proof of such an abductor, though it is interesting that the police seem to be pursuing that line of enquiry.

I suspect Madeleine is dead now, though can understand why her parents would still hope that she is not as I feel that is how I would react, wanting absolute proof before giving up on my child.

It is simply a mystery to me. That is probably why I still take an interest in the case."


Your reply on 15th January to a similar question to my own.

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Of course I can clarify it. It is illegal to post libel and no matter what people say about these allegations being common knowledge on the internet it doesn't make them true. These allegations are no more true than the allegation that the Queen is a lizard.

When you post libel about people, even when that libel is "common knowledge on the Internet" you get into trouble. Remember a certain Lord McAlpine and the people who got into trouble for posting what was "common knowldedge" about him?

And I stand by what I said about the rest of Brenda Leyland's output on Twitter. She was no angel. She said she was entitled to post what she liked, that was her freedom of speech. But what she posted was horrible and abusive and as I said earlier I would not want it posted about me or my children. And just maybe, if Brunt told the truth, she realised that she may have overstepped the mark when she told him that she hoped that she wouldn't get arrested for what she had posted.

If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times or about my children or about my friends I think I would go to the police about them or to the press because its horrible and its nasty and it should not be accepted as the norm.

What allegations are you talking about that are no more true than the Queen is a lizard?

Did Brenda really post 4000 items of abuse? I think you'll find she didn't and I'm sorry but there are plenty of horrible and nasty things said by many people every day. Does that make it right? Of course not, but it doesn't make it illegal either. Freedom means the freedom to behave unethically and unpleasantly as well as the freedom to say nice things. Irrespective of whether she was less than an angel or not (and I have no view because I haven't read all her tweets) she was absolutely entitled to a point of view and to freely express it. If I post unpleasant things about you on here what on earth would you go to the police about? What law do you think I'd be breaking? Am I not entitled to hold, and voice, an opinion about you that you may not like?

The problem with your view is that, in your ideal world, we should all expect to get into trouble for saying things like "I believe the Mccann's were complicit in their daughters disappearance", "The T9 were all swingers" and "Kate and Gerry McCann are liars". All are highly libellous statements. Or is it just things that you disagree with that should cause people to get into trouble?

BTW I'm still struggling to understand what point you're trying to make because you ignored these questions: Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic?

Is your point that Brenda deserved what happened?

Stop trying to suggest what I am saying. I have posted precisely what I think and don't need you to invent new things for me.

And it would make your postition much more credible if you had bothered to check exactly what Sweepyface (Brenda Leyland) posted on Twitter and Facebook. If you did that, then you might be able to comment with some kind of actual knowledge.

And as a matter of fact she did post well over 4000 tweets.

Where have I said that posting opinion should be illegal. What is illegal and which you are ignoring is the libel she posted about Blair and Brown. Please don't confuse the two.

I'm trying to get you to explain what point you're making. You refuse to do so, so I'm left with no alternative but to guess.

I know she posted over 4000 tweets but that's not what you said. What you said was (my emphasis) "If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times" clearly implying (wrongly) that Brenda had sent 4000 abusive tweets. Given you think I lack credibility because I haven't read all 4000 tweets it would have been an idea to read them yourself.

You need to learn what libel is, and the seven defences to it, because you clearly haven't got a clue.

And I'm still waiting for you to clarify which allegations you're talking about that are no more true than the Queen is a lizard