The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Let's Not Forget Brenda

Page 3 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Joss on 20.10.14 15:50

@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.

Well GM did say "Find the body and prove we killed her", or words to that effect.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Joss on 20.10.14 15:57

@Monty Heck wrote:
@worriedmum wrote:
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.
The thing is though that Brenda's tweets were quite tame and in no way threatening to the McC's. Thats what i don't get, and why in that case was she made such an example of then?? So much so that Sky news confronted her on national tv and made accusations toward her and threatened her with the police, when i doubt very much the police would have even been interested in her tweets.
Was someone else setting her up for a fall, making tweets that weren't actually hers to look or seem as if they were her tweets? This all smacks of a personal vendetta toward Brenda for whatever reason. I'm just guessing here because non of it makes any sense to me.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Joss on 20.10.14 16:04

Does anyone know what would give such a dossier if it were compiled by such random nasty person/ people in cyberspace over a period of time, enough interest for a media outlet such as Sky news to pursue it, and act on it? Especially on an innocent person.
I guess what i am really asking is "What the f*ck made this even newsworthy to Sky news???

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by juliet on 20.10.14 16:17

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.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Joss on 20.10.14 16:43

@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.

Yes it does seem to have been a catalyst for that agenda, but why Brenda in particular? I'm sure there were many other twitterers on there that questioned the parents in this case, most definitely from what i have read anyway, and people that agreed with Brenda's opinions on the case.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Lance De Boils on 20.10.14 17:10

Has it been reported if Brenda's funeral has taken place yet? I haven't seen any mention of it. Unless I missed something?

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 20.10.14 17:23

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.

And, yes, I know this opinion will probably get me a lot of criticism here but I don't think we should avoid telling the truth.

Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by AndyB on 20.10.14 18:43

@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?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by juliet on 20.10.14 19:28

What Brenda Leyland said about Brown and Blair is common knowledge. It is all over the internet. It didn't justify Brunt and his Sky lynch mob, any more than her oft-repeated suspicions of the McCanns and their backers did. However the powers-that-be are anxious to shut up all doubters and dissenters.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 20.10.14 20:06

@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.

Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by tiny on 20.10.14 20:27

Rubbish,BRENDA was not a troll

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by AndyB on 20.10.14 20:29

@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?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 20.10.14 20:32

@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?

Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 20.10.14 20:36

@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.

Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Guest on 20.10.14 20:36

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.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by AndyB on 20.10.14 20:52

@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

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by juliet on 20.10.14 20:59

It's not libel if it's true.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by MoonGoddess on 20.10.14 22:01

@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.


I am under the impression that Brunt attempted to 'doorstep' and contact someone else via twitter, prior to Brenda. I think Brenda was on a list of quite a few that were chosen [for whatever reason] to be made an example of, but once Brenda died, a halt was called to the 'mission to discredit'.

Does anyone know if the police/coroner have been supplied with the threats made AGAINST Brenda?

____________________
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~

MoonGoddess

Posts : 282
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by tiny on 21.10.14 7:01

@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?

Then half of those on twitter are trolls ,also have you read the tweets sent to Brenda????,any how this is about Brenda who DID NOT troll the mccanns
personally, as they are not on twitter

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Guest on 21.10.14 8:16

Amy Tierney on twitter - are you stating that she has been tweeting on McCann hashtag, Ristretto?  Can you also confirm that she's basilandmanuel?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Snifferdog on 21.10.14 9:11

Was Brunt a willing pawn in a wider agenda? (to use a favorite phrase of Gerry).
Set up to out her, but unbeknownst to him she was to get the silk tie treatment?
I don't believe she committed suicide.
Imo her outing and subsequent "suicide" is meant as a warning to what can happen to other Mccann fairytale disbelievers.



____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by HelenMeg on 21.10.14 9:32

I believe there was an attempt to stir up anger and hatred against the Mc Canns in order to label people 'trolls' and present them to the wider public as 'horrible people'.  The campaign backfired disastrously and ended up having the opposite effect, rightly so. Brenda and her family have paid the price for that attempt by TM.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 21.10.14 9:50

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.

Am I missing something here or have you copied that post and not bothered to read it? It is perfectly clear from that reply that I do not know whether the McCanns were involved or not. None of us do. It seems that Scotland Yard don't believe they were. But whether we are supposed to believe every word the police say I no longer know.

To put it more simply. I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann and there isn't sufficient evidence available to me to be 100% certain about anything to do with the case.


Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Snifferdog on 21.10.14 9:55

Ristretto, Ladyinred asked if you believe, not if you know. A vast difference.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 21.10.14 10:03

@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

The point is that whether it was 3500 of the 4000 tweets or 2500 of them or even 1500 of them that were abusive, I would not want it happening to my family. I have made that clear three times now but hey ho.

If people post abuse using my name or my family name in public it would most certainly get them reported to the police and the media if I was sure who it was.

The tweets which are no more true than the Queen being a lizard were copied clearly into a post earlier by me and refer to two prominent politicians and sexual stories about them which nobody ever shows the evidence for. As I said there is as much truth in them as there is in the lizard story. There is no evidence of any of the three things being true. If you disagree with that then post the evidence. And don't come back at me with the conspiracy theory that there are all powerful beings who are controlling the media and controlling what we are allowed to know. I am an adult and don't take kindly to being fed fairy tales.


Ristretto

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum