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 4 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 21.10.14 10:06

@Snifferdog wrote:Ristretto, Ladyinred asked if you believe, not if you know. A vast difference.

I believe in the legal term, 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'.

As there is nothing substantial on which to base a judgement or belief I simply don't know what to believe.


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 10:14

Ok so that means having read the evidence put forward by the police files etc and etc, you still hold no opinion on this case then?

____________________
“‘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 10:22

@HelenMeg wrote: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.

I am not sure in the wider world that the attempt backfired. The actual content of Brenda Leyland's tweets is now being viewed more and more widely. It isn't pleasant reading to people who have no knowledge of the case. A member of my own family was horrified that she could have been posting that kind of abuse for years without being stopped.

I think there are at least as many people who believe that Brenda Leyland simply couldn't defend her actions, couldn't face up to her neighbours knowing what she had been posting and claiming online and could not face her family knowing about her Sweepyface ID. Large numbers have expressed the view that karma caught up with her. I don't subscribe to that view.

What actually happened in Burton Overy it seems is that Brenda Leyland initially claimed her right to freedom of speech. Then we are told by Brunt that she expressed sorrow for having posted what she had posted and was hopeful that the police would not be in touch.

People see that as her not being able to defend her actions. And when people cannot defend their actions they are considered guilty by many. I have heard that reasoning applied far more to the McCanns than Brenda Leyland but I do think it is true. People presume guilt rightly or wrongly because people stay silent.

And now we have the real backlash. Because nobody is prepared to stand up and go on television and defend the tweeting about the McCanns. I wasn't asked by Brunt because I am too insignificant a poster but I have heard that others were asked and declined. Now there is the perfect opportunity for government to tighten the laws against free speech another notch. That is the result of Brunt's confrontation with Brenda Leyland. If there had been a swift and effective response defending the tweets then the idea of reprisals against those speaking out and exercising freedom of speech would have been that much harder.


As an aside can I ask whether Brenda Leyland's son gave permission for his picture to be used on the forum? Was he consulted?

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 21.10.14 10:23

@Snifferdog wrote:Ok so that means having read the evidence put forward by the police files etc and etc, you still hold no opinion on this case then?

I hold many opinions. But I don't know what happened to the little girl. As far as I am aware nobody does other than those directly involved in whatever happened.

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 10:31

Ristretto posted:.....then we are told by Brunt that she expressed sorrow for having posted what she had posted and was hopeful that the police would not be in touch.

@#£%&*!:'b£%&c•[^9$¥~£$¥@£%&*

Sorry, but i don't believe this, though of course it is your prerogative to do so. Do you have proof that Brenda really expressed these views?
Were you perhaps seated with Brunt in Brendas living room?

____________________
“‘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 10:51

@Snifferdog wrote:Ristretto posted:.....then we are told by Brunt that she expressed sorrow for having posted what she had posted and was hopeful that the police would not be in touch.

@#£%&*!:'b£%&c•[^9$¥~£$¥@£%&*

Sorry, but i don't believe this, though of course it is your prerogative to do so.  Do you have proof that Brenda really expressed these views?
Were you perhaps seated with Brunt in Brendas living room?

The point I was making was not that I believe it or not but rather that many of the British public believe it. Whether you think they are fools for that or not is your prerogative, of course, but believe it they most certainly do.

Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.



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 21.10.14 11:56

@Snifferdog wrote:Ristretto posted:.....then we are told by Brunt that she expressed sorrow for having posted what she had posted and was hopeful that the police would not be in touch.

@#£%&*!:'b£%&c•[^9$¥~£$¥@£%&*

Sorry, but i don't believe this, though of course it is your prerogative to do so.  Do you have proof that Brenda really expressed these views?
Were you perhaps seated with Brunt in Brendas living room?
Brunt reported that Brenda had hoped she hadn't broken any laws Ristretto. Not that she "expressed sorrow". 
And I am not sure that she did actually break any laws.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by PeterMac on 21.10.14 12:00

@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Ristretto on 21.10.14 12:33

@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

I would have thought that you of all people would have had some understanding of the law relating to harassment. A single instance of expressing an opinion is not deemed to be harassment but if there are thousands of such claims which have the potential to cause distress then there is a very good case that they are harassment.

I would never deny anyone the right to free speech. Everyone can express their opinion as far as I am concerned. They can then either be agreed with, disagreed with or laughed at for those views. But publishing your opinions up to fifty times a day online for years is not simply expressing "an" opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to harass the target of your tweets whether that target personally reads it or not. That last aspect is also clearly part of the law as well.

When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have. Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others.

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 Rogue-a-Tory on 21.10.14 12:35

@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !
Sums up succinctly the way MSM, social media and ultimately the Law differently treats this disgraceful family

goodpost

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by aquila on 21.10.14 12:48

@Ristretto wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

I would have thought that you of all people would have had some understanding of the law relating to harassment. A single instance of expressing an opinion is not deemed to be harassment but if there are thousands of such claims which have the potential to cause distress then there is a very good case that they are harassment.

I would never deny anyone the right to free speech. Everyone can express their opinion as far as I am concerned. They can then either be agreed with, disagreed with or laughed at for those views. But publishing your opinions up to fifty times a day online for years is not simply expressing "an" opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to harass the target of your tweets whether that target personally reads it or not. That last aspect is also clearly part of the law as well.

When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have. Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others.
How many copies of Kate's bewk were published? I'm guessing it's in excess of 4,000.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by plebgate on 21.10.14 12:57

I cannot see why Blair and Brown has been brought into the posts about Brenda.

Brunty, ASFAIK did not doorstep Brenda about Blair and Brown, so why post about them?

Also where is the proof that Brenda has commited libel?

Ristretto seems to be a budding lawyer or sumat.   I think this poster will get on well with UT.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by mouse on 21.10.14 13:00

Ristretto wrote:-

"When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have.."


Okay - so what do you mean by obsessive posting of opinions? I mean, what are you saying here - that anyone who feels passionate about a subject and wants to get that opinion out there to make a difference mustn't keep posting/stating that opinion? Come on, women back in the day, women who campaigned for the vote - would be labeled as obsessed in your world. What about those who speak out continuously on gay rights/child abuse...and all the various injustices that have happened?. Wouldn't you just call them obsessive? Read what you wrote - you are now talking about obsessive opinions, opinion that aren't yours granted. But these opinions aren't illegal are they?. And what makes your opinion so right? If I was to run with your argument - I could say that you have become obsessed with your opinion that Brenda was wrong in stating hers. I don't agree with your opinion, but you've the right to state it, however her opinion isn't illegal, as your isn't either.


Sound's to me like you just want to shut down any difference of your opinion to yours. That is all.

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by bobbin on 21.10.14 13:14

@Ristretto wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

I would have thought that you of all people would have had some understanding of the law relating to harassment. A single instance of expressing an opinion is not deemed to be harassment but if there are thousands of such claims which have the potential to cause distress then there is a very good case that they are harassment.

I would never deny anyone the right to free speech. Everyone can express their opinion as far as I am concerned. They can then either be agreed with, disagreed with or laughed at for those views. But publishing your opinions up to fifty times a day online for years is not simply expressing "an" opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to harass the target of your tweets whether that target personally reads it or not. That last aspect is also clearly part of the law as well.

When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have. Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others.
"Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others. "

There is no legal definition for 'Troll/trolling' so any view that you may have about responsible (trolling) remaining within the law is moot.
There is no crime of 'trolling' at present because it has not been defined in law.

You are talking only about degrees of harm or distress caused to others and it is a reflection of your view and judgement level only.
You seem intolerant of anyone being anything but angelic, lovely and bland.
You are not allowing for the fact that frustration of not being able to get proper redress within the existing law can lead to a more positive remark than a bland politesse.

This discussion is now becoming all about semantics and is hardly contributing to the title of this thread.

The law exists, as stated by Bernard Hogan Howe, that if someone threatens something, and intends that the person threatened believes it, then it is a crime which is already treatable within the law.

Brunt and Sky and the Murdoch empire threatened Brenda that she had been reported to the police and that the police were investigating her.
Brunt did this in such a way that she believed that the police were investigating her and she said she hoped that she had not broken the law.

The crime here is clearly, that of the Brunt/Sky/Murdoch paraphernalia, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

The police do not have a crime of 'trolling' to handle in law.

What Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire did was lie, for they did not know whether or not the police were investigating her. They only knew that the police had been handed a snitcher's charter which had been handed to them by Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.

Please can we get this discussion back onto Brenda and how she was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire and then she died.
It is not for us to determine what is considered bland, mediocre, vociferous, damaging etc. especially as it was not seen by Kate and Gerry who have publicly stated that they do not do twitter.

In a democracy people should be able to express their opinion, anger, frustration, wishes for justice, when the law through media corruption prohibits the proper course of the law.

Blair according to the vast majority of people embarked upon a completely illegal war. People have no recourse in law in this matter and yet they express their opinions openly.

As one poster said earlier, libel is not libel if it is true.

Let the courts decide, let the McCs find themselves in a proper court of law and then the 'anger and frustration' need no longer be expressed in an effort to get the message out there that a little girl has suffered an injustice that many good citizens are not prepared to just sit back and accept.

Brenda wanted justice for Madeleine. Her parents want Brenda and all others who dissent, to STFU. How much damage is being caused to all of the dissenters being called 'haters' and 'trolls'. A lot maybe, but we take it in our stride because we will continue to seek that justice for a little girl whose memory and life have been besmirched by her very own defiling parents.

The tweets from cindy dirndllass fit into the category of crime, as defined by Bernard Hogan Howe.

It is not for us to decide what shade of 'nice-ness' is OK and which shade is a tad too dark.

Look at the motivation. Did Brenda, like us, want justice for Madeleine, yes she did and yes we do.

Angels are theoretically 'good' not 'goody two shoes'.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Snifferdog on 21.10.14 13:17

Ristretto you wrote: "Whether you think they are fools for that or not is your prerogative,"

Please don't put words into my mouth.

____________________
“‘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 MoonGoddess on 21.10.14 13:35

@bobbin wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

I would have thought that you of all people would have had some understanding of the law relating to harassment. A single instance of expressing an opinion is not deemed to be harassment but if there are thousands of such claims which have the potential to cause distress then there is a very good case that they are harassment.

I would never deny anyone the right to free speech. Everyone can express their opinion as far as I am concerned. They can then either be agreed with, disagreed with or laughed at for those views. But publishing your opinions up to fifty times a day online for years is not simply expressing "an" opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to harass the target of your tweets whether that target personally reads it or not. That last aspect is also clearly part of the law as well.

When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have. Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others.
"Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others. "

There is no legal definition for 'Troll/trolling' so any view that you may have about responsible (trolling) remaining within the law is moot.
There is no crime of 'trolling' at present because it has not been defined in law.

You are talking only about degrees of harm or distress caused to others and it is a reflection of your view and judgement level only.
You seem intolerant of anyone being anything but angelic, lovely and bland.
You are not allowing for the fact that frustration of not being able to get proper redress within the existing law can lead to a more positive remark than a bland politesse.

This discussion is now becoming all about semantics and is hardly contributing to the title of this thread.

The law exists, as stated by Bernard Hogan Howe, that if someone threatens something, and intends that the person threatened believes it, then it is a crime which is already treatable within the law.

Brunt and Sky and the Murdoch empire threatened Brenda that she had been reported to the police and that the police were investigating her.
Brunt did this in such a way that she believed that the police were investigating her and she said she hoped that she had not broken the law.

The crime here is clearly, that of the Brunt/Sky/Murdoch paraphernalia, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

The police do not have a crime of 'trolling' to handle in law.

What Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire did was lie, for they did not know whether or not the police were investigating her. They only knew that the police had been handed a snitcher's charter which had been handed to them by Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.

Please can we get this discussion back onto Brenda and how she was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire and then she died.
It is not for us to determine what is considered bland, mediocre, vociferous, damaging etc. especially as it was not seen by Kate and Gerry who have publicly stated that they do not do twitter.

In a democracy people should be able to express their opinion, anger, frustration, wishes for justice, when the law through media corruption prohibits the proper course of the law.

Blair according to the vast majority of people embarked upon a completely illegal war. People have no recourse in law in this matter and yet they express their opinions openly.

As one poster said earlier, libel is not libel if it is true.

Let the courts decide, let the McCs find themselves in a proper court of law and then the 'anger and frustration' need no longer be expressed in an effort to get the message out there that a little girl has suffered an injustice that many good citizens are not prepared to just sit back and accept.

Brenda wanted justice for Madeleine. Her parents want Brenda and all others who dissent, to STFU. How much damage is being caused to all of the dissenters being called 'haters' and 'trolls'. A lot maybe, but we take it in our stride because we will continue to seek that justice for a little girl whose memory and life have been besmirched by her very own defiling parents.

The tweets from cindy dirndllass fit into the category of crime, as defined by Bernard Hogan Howe.

It is not for us to decide what shade of 'nice-ness' is OK and which shade is a tad too dark.

Look at the motivation. Did Brenda, like us, want justice for Madeleine, yes she did and yes we do.

Angels are theoretically 'good' not 'goody two shoes'.
Great post, Thank You.

I hope to God that someone has presented the threats that Brenda was subject to, to the Police and Coroner.

____________________
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 plebgate on 21.10.14 13:39

I believe that Brenda's family will be aware of the threats Brenda received.   I am crossing fingers that her family will do that.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Snifferdog on 21.10.14 13:50

I second that MoonGoddess. Good post Bobbin!

____________________
“‘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 14:04

@bobbin wrote:
"Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others. "

There is no legal definition for 'Troll/trolling' so any view that you may have about responsible (trolling) remaining within the law is moot.
There is no crime of 'trolling' at present because it has not been defined in law.

You are talking only about degrees of harm or distress caused to others and it is a reflection of your view and judgement level only.
You seem intolerant of anyone being anything but angelic, lovely and bland.
You are not allowing for the fact that frustration of not being able to get proper redress within the existing law can lead to a more positive remark than a bland politesse.

This discussion is now becoming all about semantics and is hardly contributing to the title of this thread.

The law exists, as stated by Bernard Hogan Howe, that if someone threatens something, and intends that the person threatened believes it, then it is a crime which is already treatable within the law.

Brunt and Sky and the Murdoch empire threatened Brenda that she had been reported to the police and that the police were investigating her.
Brunt did this in such a way that she believed that the police were investigating her and she said she hoped that she had not broken the law.

The crime here is clearly, that of the Brunt/Sky/Murdoch paraphernalia, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

The police do not have a crime of 'trolling' to handle in law.

What Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire did was lie, for they did not know whether or not the police were investigating her. They only knew that the police had been handed a snitcher's charter which had been handed to them by Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.

Please can we get this discussion back onto Brenda and how she was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire and then she died.
It is not for us to determine what is considered bland, mediocre, vociferous, damaging etc. especially as it was not seen by Kate and Gerry who have publicly stated that they do not do twitter.

In a democracy people should be able to express their opinion, anger, frustration, wishes for justice, when the law through media corruption prohibits the proper course of the law.

Blair according to the vast majority of people embarked upon a completely illegal war. People have no recourse in law in this matter and yet they express their opinions openly.

As one poster said earlier, libel is not libel if it is true.

Let the courts decide, let the McCs find themselves in a proper court of law and then the 'anger and frustration' need no longer be expressed in an effort to get the message out there that a little girl has suffered an injustice that many good citizens are not prepared to just sit back and accept.

Brenda wanted justice for Madeleine. Her parents want Brenda and all others who dissent, to STFU. How much damage is being caused to all of the dissenters being called 'haters' and 'trolls'. A lot maybe, but we take it in our stride because we will continue to seek that justice for a little girl whose memory and life have been besmirched by her very own defiling parents.

The tweets from cindy dirndllass fit into the category of crime, as defined by Bernard Hogan Howe.

It is not for us to decide what shade of 'nice-ness' is OK and which shade is a tad too dark.

Look at the motivation. Did Brenda, like us, want justice for Madeleine, yes she did and yes we do.

Angels are theoretically 'good' not 'goody two shoes'.

It is a shame that in their haste to applaud your post some posters have completely ignored the two fundamental flaws within it.

I haven't written about any law relating to trolling. I have written about the law relating to harassment which is very simply legally explained as a course of two or more actions which could cause distress to another whether they are personally aware of the actual comment or not. The latter allows for distress caused by third parties using the content of the initial harassment to cause distress.

You then accuse me of relying on personal judgement to bolster my view and effectively criticise me for doing so.

Yet you then go on to make the personal judgement that Brenda Leyland was "was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch".

I do find such hypocrisy rather alarming when you are clearly well-educated and should be aware of such things.

Nobody has shown that there was any crime committed by any of the people you mention. That is simply your personal judgement and as you are neither the coroner, nor a Judge, and as you don't have any access to the details of the case your view is no more valid than mine on the previous issue.

You demand the courts "decide" on whether Brenda Leyland should be considered as having been guilty of harassing the McCanns while pre-empting the court in the decision on the actions of Brunt, Sky etc.

It remains my view that Brenda Leyland would, almost certainly, if a case had been brought been guilty of the crime of harassment as would many others potentially on both sides of the McCann divide. Certainly the US tweeter who you refer to, would if she had been British, been open to criminal action in my view and rightly so.

And it remains my view that my personal opinion regarding that harassment is just as valid as your personal opinion about criminal action on the part of Brunt, Sky and Murdoch. Neither have yet gone before the courts, neither is yet a fact but unlike you, I am prepared to accept both as valid personal judgements which should be decided by the courts, I am not prejudging anything merely expressing an opinion.

A long read here but worth it, if you want to comment seriously on the subject of harassment.

http://www.harassmentlaw.co.uk/book/ch2.htm

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 21.10.14 14:44

@plebgate wrote:I cannot see why Blair and Brown has been brought into the posts about Brenda.

Brunty, ASFAIK did not doorstep Brenda about Blair and Brown, so why post about them?

Also where is the proof that Brenda has commited libel?

Ristretto seems to be a budding lawyer or sumat.   I think this poster will get on well with UT.

Because the libel she posted as sweepyface is part and parcel of the role she played online.

I really do find the question on the last line of your post amusing. Are you one of the conspiracy brigade who explain everything by referring to the Paedophile conspiracy?
Show me the evidence that supports what Brenda Leyland posted about these two men and I might go along with you. Till then its as valid a claim as the one about the Queen being a lizard, only far more likely to be challenged as libel. Remember the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it.

Only a budding lawyer eh? Shows what you know doesn't it!


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 Joss on 21.10.14 14:46

@Snifferdog wrote: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.



ITA, And she wouldn't be the first in an agenda.

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by mouse on 21.10.14 14:52

But the Mccanns aren't on twitter - so how can she have harrassed them. She was merely stating her opinion to others on twitter and arguing with those who had a differing opinion. She was not personally harrassing them. I would actually say that Mr Brunt's behaviour was more harrassment as he, without any legal standing doorstepped her personally, clearly showed her face on camera, told her she was being reported to the police - all in all using threatening, scare tac-tics when he had not a shred of legal evidence to stand on. It was the police's job to do this if they had a case to put, not his. This woman, had not committed a serious crime like murder, or physical abuse or any other clear cut crime. She was just someone who had an opinion and stated it. 

Anyway, you now appear to be moving onto harrassment law, rather than the obessional opinions argument you outlined before. As I said in my argument with you - one person's passionate opinion, in somebody else's opinion - is an unhealthy obsession. Both are entitled to have this, but no law was been broken, as in Brenda's case.

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Joss on 21.10.14 14:59

@bobbin wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Ristretto wrote:
Many things are taken by the public without proof and based only on journalists say so. Society has survived the last century on that premise and I have no doubt that many think it is a good system. Some disagree. That is the way of the world. Personally, I think that the old fashioned media should work in tandem with the newer online media but if the former should be expected to refrain from lying, libel, abuse etc. then exactly the same restrictions should be placed on the newer media as well (or at least as close as possible to the same). Both are forms of publishing.
So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

But she is Kate, so that's apparently all right !

I would have thought that you of all people would have had some understanding of the law relating to harassment. A single instance of expressing an opinion is not deemed to be harassment but if there are thousands of such claims which have the potential to cause distress then there is a very good case that they are harassment.

I would never deny anyone the right to free speech. Everyone can express their opinion as far as I am concerned. They can then either be agreed with, disagreed with or laughed at for those views. But publishing your opinions up to fifty times a day online for years is not simply expressing "an" opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to harass the target of your tweets whether that target personally reads it or not. That last aspect is also clearly part of the law as well.

When people begin to understand the difference between the right to express an opinion and the obsessive posting of such opinions we might begin to recognise the difference between the rights we have and the responsibilities we also have. Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others.
"Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others. "

There is no legal definition for 'Troll/trolling' so any view that you may have about responsible (trolling) remaining within the law is moot.
There is no crime of 'trolling' at present because it has not been defined in law.

You are talking only about degrees of harm or distress caused to others and it is a reflection of your view and judgement level only.
You seem intolerant of anyone being anything but angelic, lovely and bland.
You are not allowing for the fact that frustration of not being able to get proper redress within the existing law can lead to a more positive remark than a bland politesse.

This discussion is now becoming all about semantics and is hardly contributing to the title of this thread.

The law exists, as stated by Bernard Hogan Howe, that if someone threatens something, and intends that the person threatened believes it, then it is a crime which is already treatable within the law.

Brunt and Sky and the Murdoch empire threatened Brenda that she had been reported to the police and that the police were investigating her.
Brunt did this in such a way that she believed that the police were investigating her and she said she hoped that she had not broken the law.

The crime here is clearly, that of the Brunt/Sky/Murdoch paraphernalia, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

The police do not have a crime of 'trolling' to handle in law.

What Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire did was lie, for they did not know whether or not the police were investigating her. They only knew that the police had been handed a snitcher's charter which had been handed to them by Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.

Please can we get this discussion back onto Brenda and how she was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire and then she died.
It is not for us to determine what is considered bland, mediocre, vociferous, damaging etc. especially as it was not seen by Kate and Gerry who have publicly stated that they do not do twitter.

In a democracy people should be able to express their opinion, anger, frustration, wishes for justice, when the law through media corruption prohibits the proper course of the law.

Blair according to the vast majority of people embarked upon a completely illegal war. People have no recourse in law in this matter and yet they express their opinions openly.

As one poster said earlier, libel is not libel if it is true.

Let the courts decide, let the McCs find themselves in a proper court of law and then the 'anger and frustration' need no longer be expressed in an effort to get the message out there that a little girl has suffered an injustice that many good citizens are not prepared to just sit back and accept.

Brenda wanted justice for Madeleine. Her parents want Brenda and all others who dissent, to STFU. How much damage is being caused to all of the dissenters being called 'haters' and 'trolls'. A lot maybe, but we take it in our stride because we will continue to seek that justice for a little girl whose memory and life have been besmirched by her very own defiling parents.

The tweets from cindy dirndllass fit into the category of crime, as defined by Bernard Hogan Howe.

It is not for us to decide what shade of 'nice-ness' is OK and which shade is a tad too dark.

Look at the motivation. Did Brenda, like us, want justice for Madeleine, yes she did and yes we do.

Angels are theoretically 'good' not 'goody two shoes'.
bravo

Joss

Posts : 1899
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 21.10.14 15:08

@Ristretto wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
"Those responsibilities include the need to remain within the law, to ensure that we don't cause harm to others, to be certain that we don't cause distress to others. "

There is no legal definition for 'Troll/trolling' so any view that you may have about responsible (trolling) remaining within the law is moot.
There is no crime of 'trolling' at present because it has not been defined in law.

You are talking only about degrees of harm or distress caused to others and it is a reflection of your view and judgement level only.
You seem intolerant of anyone being anything but angelic, lovely and bland.
You are not allowing for the fact that frustration of not being able to get proper redress within the existing law can lead to a more positive remark than a bland politesse.

This discussion is now becoming all about semantics and is hardly contributing to the title of this thread.

The law exists, as stated by Bernard Hogan Howe, that if someone threatens something, and intends that the person threatened believes it, then it is a crime which is already treatable within the law.

Brunt and Sky and the Murdoch empire threatened Brenda that she had been reported to the police and that the police were investigating her.
Brunt did this in such a way that she believed that the police were investigating her and she said she hoped that she had not broken the law.

The crime here is clearly, that of the Brunt/Sky/Murdoch paraphernalia, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

The police do not have a crime of 'trolling' to handle in law.

What Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire did was lie, for they did not know whether or not the police were investigating her. They only knew that the police had been handed a snitcher's charter which had been handed to them by Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Bernard Hogan Howe.

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.

Please can we get this discussion back onto Brenda and how she was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch empire and then she died.
It is not for us to determine what is considered bland, mediocre, vociferous, damaging etc. especially as it was not seen by Kate and Gerry who have publicly stated that they do not do twitter.

In a democracy people should be able to express their opinion, anger, frustration, wishes for justice, when the law through media corruption prohibits the proper course of the law.

Blair according to the vast majority of people embarked upon a completely illegal war. People have no recourse in law in this matter and yet they express their opinions openly.

As one poster said earlier, libel is not libel if it is true.

Let the courts decide, let the McCs find themselves in a proper court of law and then the 'anger and frustration' need no longer be expressed in an effort to get the message out there that a little girl has suffered an injustice that many good citizens are not prepared to just sit back and accept.

Brenda wanted justice for Madeleine. Her parents want Brenda and all others who dissent, to STFU. How much damage is being caused to all of the dissenters being called 'haters' and 'trolls'. A lot maybe, but we take it in our stride because we will continue to seek that justice for a little girl whose memory and life have been besmirched by her very own defiling parents.

The tweets from cindy dirndllass fit into the category of crime, as defined by Bernard Hogan Howe.

It is not for us to decide what shade of 'nice-ness' is OK and which shade is a tad too dark.

Look at the motivation. Did Brenda, like us, want justice for Madeleine, yes she did and yes we do.

Angels are theoretically 'good' not 'goody two shoes'.

It is a shame that in their haste to applaud your post some posters have completely ignored the two fundamental flaws within it.

I haven't written about any law relating to trolling. I have written about the law relating to harassment which is very simply legally explained as a course of two or more actions which could cause distress to another whether they are personally aware of the actual comment or not. The latter allows for distress caused by third parties using the content of the initial harassment to cause distress.

You then accuse me of relying on personal judgement to bolster my view and effectively criticise me for doing so.

Yet you then go on to make the personal judgement that Brenda Leyland was "was treated in a criminal fashion by Brunt/Sky/Murdoch".

I do find such hypocrisy rather alarming when you are clearly well-educated and should be aware of such things.

Nobody has shown that there was any crime committed by any of the people you mention. That is simply your personal judgement and as you are neither the coroner, nor a Judge, and as you don't have any access to the details of the case your view is no more valid than mine on the previous issue.

You demand the courts "decide" on whether Brenda Leyland should be considered as having been guilty of harassing the McCanns while pre-empting the court in the decision on the actions of Brunt, Sky etc.

It remains my view that Brenda Leyland would, almost certainly, if a case had been brought been guilty of the crime of harassment as would many others potentially on both sides of the McCann divide. Certainly the US tweeter who you refer to, would if she had been British, been open to criminal action in my view and rightly so.

And it remains my view that my personal opinion regarding that harassment is just as valid as your personal opinion about criminal action on the part of Brunt, Sky and Murdoch. Neither have yet gone before the courts, neither is yet a fact but unlike you, I am prepared to accept both as valid personal judgements which should be decided by the courts, I am not prejudging anything merely expressing an opinion.

A long read here but worth it, if you want to comment seriously on the subject of harassment.

http://www.harassmentlaw.co.uk/book/ch2.htm
Brenda Leyland didn't F***ing harrass anyone. She tweeted thousands of tweets according to who? Were they really all her tweets? And so what if they were? She was doing what many other like minded people do everyday. Brenda wasn't harrassing she was venting and voicing her frustration like many other that want justice for a 3 yr. old who was neglected by those responsible for her wellbeing.
And the McC's sure don't act like parents of a missing child, IMO, all they care about is shutting everyone up and $$$$$. Consciousness of guilt much.

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post by Snifferdog on 21.10.14 15:38


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Interesting.
So its the McCanns who organised Brendas doorstopping.
Everything they touch..........

____________________
“‘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

Page 4 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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