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

BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.02.15 12:52

Apologies if someone else has already covered this issue.

I feel sure that this part of the OFCOM Code of Conduct will be raised at Brenda Leyland's Inquest. If not, it certainly should be.

I think there have been references to Brenda Leyland having been 'depressed' and 'receiving psychological help'.

The very last bit of this part of the Code is the aspect SKY News have most to fear, given that public perception already is that Bredna Leyland was hounded to her death by Martin Brunt and the actions of SKY News Management. If they did not check whether she was in any way 'vulnerable', they are, or should be, in big trouble.

That's not to mention the NUJ Code of Conduct which, as a member, Martin Brunt also has to abide by (I hope to cover this another time).  

Parts of the OFCOM Code that I think relevant highlighted in red:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  
 

(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 3(2)(f) and 326 of the Communications Act 2003, sections 107(1) and 130 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (as amended), and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)

Foreword

This section and the preceding section on fairness are different from other sections of the Code. They apply to how broadcasters treat the individuals or organisations directly affected by programmes, rather than to what the general public sees and/or hears as viewers and listeners.

As well as containing a principle and a rule this section contains "practices to be followed" by broadcasters when dealing with individuals or organisations participating or otherwise directly affected by programmes, or in the making of programmes. Following these practices will not necessarily avoid a breach of this section of the Code (Rule 8.1). However, failure to follow these practises will only constitute a breach where it results in an unwarranted infringement of privacy. Importantly, the Code does not and cannot seek to set out all the "practices to be followed" in order to avoid an unwarranted infringement of privacy.

The Broadcasting Act 1996 (as amended) requires Ofcom to consider complaints about unwarranted infringement of privacy in a programme or in connection with the obtaining of material included in a programme. This may call for some difficult on-the-spot judgments about whether privacy is unwarrantably infringed by filming or recording, especially when reporting on emergency situations ("practices to be followed" 8.5 to 8.8 and 8.16 to 8.19). We recognise there may be a strong public interest in reporting on an emergency situation as it occurs and we understand there may be pressures on broadcasters at the scene of a disaster or emergency that may make it difficult to judge at the time whether filming or recording is an unwarrantable infringement of privacy. These are factors Ofcom will take into account when adjudicating on complaints.

Where consent is referred to in Section Eight it refers to informed consent.

Please see "practice to be followed" 7.3 in Section Seven: Fairness.

Principle

To ensure that broadcasters avoid any unwarranted infringement of privacy in programmes and in connection with obtaining material included in programmes.

Rule

8.1 Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted.

Meaning of "warranted":

In this section "warranted" has a particular meaning. It means that where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted. If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy. Examples of public interest would include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations or disclosing incompetence that affects the public.


Practices to be followed (8.2 to 8.22)

Private lives, public places and legitimate expectation of privacy

Meaning of "legitimate expectation of privacy":

Legitimate expectations of privacy will vary according to the place and nature of the information, activity or condition in question, the extent to which it is in the public domain (if at all) and whether the individual concerned is already in the public eye. There may be circumstances where people can reasonably expect privacy even in a public place. Some activities and conditions may be of such a private nature that filming or recording, even in a public place, could involve an infringement of privacy. People under investigation or in the public eye, and their immediate family and friends, retain the right to a private life, although private behaviour can raise issues of legitimate public interest.


8.2 Information which discloses the location of a person's home or family should not be revealed without permission, unless it is warranted.

8.3 When people are caught up in events which are covered by the news they still have a right to privacy in both the making and the broadcast of a programme, unless it is warranted to infringe it. This applies both to the time when these events are taking place and to any later programmes that revisit those events.

8.4 Broadcasters should ensure that words, images or actions filmed or recorded in, or broadcast from, a public place, are not so private that prior consent is required before broadcast from the individual or organisation concerned, unless broadcasting without their consent is warranted.

Consent

8.5 Any infringement of privacy in the making of a programme should be with the person's and/or organisation's consent or be otherwise warranted.

8.6 If the broadcast of a programme would infringe the privacy of a person or organisation, consent should be obtained before the relevant material is broadcast, unless the infringement of privacy is warranted. (Callers to phone-in shows are deemed to have given consent to the broadcast of their contribution.)

8.7 If an individual or organisation's privacy is being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster should do so, unless it is warranted to continue.

8.8 When filming or recording in institutions, organisations or other agencies, permission should be obtained from the relevant authority or management, unless it is warranted to film or record without permission. Individual consent of employees or others whose appearance is incidental or where they are essentially anonymous members of the general public will not normally be required.

However, in potentially sensitive places such as ambulances, hospitals, schools, prisons or police stations, separate consent should normally be obtained before filming or recording and for broadcast from those in sensitive situations (unless not obtaining consent is warranted). If the individual will not be identifiable in the programme then separate consent for broadcast will not be required.

Gathering information, sound or images and the re-use of material

8.9 The means of obtaining material must be proportionate in all the circumstances and in particular to the subject matter of the programme.

8.10 Broadcasters should ensure that the re-use of material, i.e. use of material originally filmed or recorded for one purpose and then used in a programme for another purpose or used in a later or different programme, does not create an unwarranted infringement of privacy. This applies both to material obtained from others and the broadcaster's own material.

8.11 Doorstepping for factual programmes should not take place unless a request for an interview has been refused or it has not been possible to request an interview, or there is good reason to believe that an investigation will be frustrated if the subject is approached openly, and it is warranted to doorstep. However, normally broadcasters may, without prior warning interview, film or record people in the news when in public places. (See "practice to be followed" 8.15).

Meaning of "doorstepping":

Doorstepping is the filming or recording of an interview or attempted interview with someone, or announcing that a call is being filmed or recorded for broadcast purposes, without any prior warning. It does not, however, include vox-pops (sampling the views of random members of the public).


8.12 Broadcasters can record telephone calls between the broadcaster and the other party if they have, from the outset of the call, identified themselves, explained the purpose of the call and that the call is being recorded for possible broadcast (if that is the case) unless it is warranted not to do one or more of these practices. If at a later stage it becomes clear that a call that has been recorded will be broadcast (but this was not explained to the other party at the time of the call) then the broadcaster must obtain consent before broadcast from the other party, unless it is warranted not to do so.

(See "practices to be followed" 7.14 and 8.13 to 8.15.)

8.13 Surreptitious filming or recording should only be used where it is warranted. Normally, it will only be warranted if:

there is prima facie evidence of a story in the public interest; and

there are reasonable grounds to suspect that further material evidence could be obtained; and

it is necessary to the credibility and authenticity of the programme.

(See "practices to be followed" 7.14, 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15.)

Meaning of "surreptitious filming or recording":

Surreptitious filming or recording includes the use of long lenses or recording devices, as well as leaving an unattended camera or recording device on private property without the full and informed consent of the occupiers or their agent. It may also include recording telephone conversations without the knowledge of the other party, or deliberately continuing a recording when the other party thinks that it has come to an end.


8.14 Material gained by surreptitious filming and recording should only be broadcast when it is warranted. (See also "practices to be followed" 7.14 and 8.12 to 8.13 and 8.15.)

8.15 Surreptitious filming or recording, doorstepping or recorded wind-up' calls to obtain material for entertainment purposes may be warranted if it is intrinsic to the entertainment and does not amount to a significant infringement of privacy such as to cause significant annoyance, distress or embarrassment. The resulting material should not be broadcast without the consent of those involved. However if the individual and/or organisation is not identifiable in the programme then consent for broadcast will not be required. (See "practices to be followed" 7.14 and 8.11 to 8.14.)

Suffering and distress

8.16 Broadcasters should not take or broadcast footage or audio of people caught up in emergencies, victims of accidents or those suffering a personal tragedy, even in a public place, where that results in an infringement of privacy, unless it is warranted or the people concerned have given consent.

8.17 People in a state of distress should not be put under pressure to take part in a programme or provide interviews, unless it is warranted.

8.18 Broadcasters should take care not to reveal the identity of a person who has died or of victims of accidents or violent crimes, unless and until it is clear that the next of kin have been informed of the event or unless it is warranted.

8.19 Broadcasters should try to reduce the potential distress to victims and/or relatives when making or broadcasting programmes intended to examine past events that involve trauma to individuals (including crime) unless it is warranted to do otherwise. This applies to dramatic reconstructions and factual dramas, as well as factual programmes.

In particular, so far as is reasonably practicable, surviving victims and/or the immediate families of those whose experience is to feature in a programme, should be informed of the plans for the programme and its intended broadcast, even if the events or material to be broadcast have been in the public domain in the past.

People under sixteen and vulnerable people

8.20 Broadcasters should pay particular attention to the privacy of people under sixteen. They do not lose their rights to privacy because, for example, of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of events in their schools.

8.21 Where a programme features an individual under sixteen or a vulnerable person in a way that infringes privacy, consent must be obtained from:

a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis; and

wherever possible, the individual concerned;

unless the subject matter is trivial or uncontroversial and the participation minor, or it is warranted to proceed without consent.

8.22 Persons under sixteen and vulnerable people should not be questioned about private matters without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis (in the case of persons under sixteen), or a person with primary responsibility for their care (in the case of a vulnerable person), unless it is warranted to proceed without consent.

Meaning of "vulnerable people":

This varies, but may include those with learning difficulties, those with mental health problems, the bereaved, people with brain damage or forms of dementia, people who have been traumatised or who are sick or terminally ill.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.02.15 13:37

@LombardySkeptik wrote:
TB - you may wish to edit or remove this (Bolded in the early part of your post)
Thank you - an unfortunate error, I got to it in time to amend

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by LombardySkeptik on 02.02.15 13:45

All cleared now - can't give gifts to those Macs

____________________
Morto, ma io non ho dimenticato lei

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

'Make an example of 'em...'

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.03.15 22:03

Tomorrow - 20 March 2015...

May the sun (and the Sun) be eclipsed...

...and may Martin Brunt and SKY News be eclipsed...

...and may the might of Rupert Murdoch's empire be eclipsed...

...as we find out (if the Coroner is any good at her job) how it was that a troubled divorcee,

who had been receiving psychological help with her problems,

was apparently hounded to death by arguably the most powerful news medium in the world,

aided and abetted by the compilers of a dossier,

aided and abetted by the police who told SKY News they were 'investigating' this dossier, and

aided and abetted by loud demands from the likes of Dr Gerry McCann and Jim Gamble for vengeance, action, prison etc. for anti-McCann trolls...

...mob justice:  'Make an example of 'em... 


Brenda Leyland may have sent dozens of nasty, foul-mouthed tweets.

But did the relentless pursuit and exposure of her lead very directly to her suicide?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 19.03.15 23:37

"Brenda Leyland may have sent dozens of nasty, foul-mouthed tweets."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

'examples' plz Mr TB.

Just five, will do.

How many of these 'nasty, foul mouthed' tweets did BL actually 'send' to the McCann's?

For that is 'how' we, all, (me, anyway) first 'heard' of BL. (via Sky News/ MB)

Or did she only send these NFM 'tweets' to other people?

NONE of BL's 'tweets' could be any more FOUL MOUTHED than the tweets/messages BL 'received' (on FB or Twitter) from ardent McCann 'supporter' CINDY MARTIN, AFTER MB's exposure, could they?

Even MWT 'reported' CM to the UK police.

Can't recall him ever 'reporting' BL to the UK police for her 'tweets'

istbc.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.03.15 7:29

@jeanmonroe wrote:"Brenda Leyland may have sent dozens of nasty, foul-mouthed tweets."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

'examples' plz Mr TB.

Just five, will do.

REPLY: You can look them up yourself on 'greptweet', as I have. I really do not want to place bad language on the forum, but to answer your request, here are 5 samples, I am afraid there are a good many more:

516694945034698752|Mon Sep 29 21:04:09 +0000 2014|@siamesey    Mod is a total Fucktard, I despise him

512272511376297984|Wed Sep 17 16:10:58 +0000 2014|@AdirenM  #mccann  How fucking disingenuous of Luisa Uva and Barroso, missing children !  yeah right

514900397140762625|Wed Sep 24 22:13:15 +0000 2014|#mccann  Have been engaged today for far too long with Fucktards ,  always makes me feel  have to bathe in Jeyes fluid after

486980077427896320|Wed Jul 09 21:07:52 +0000 2014|@Maplestead4 @CissyB1503 @Gold6082   #mccann MCcunts fabulous, but also laughed at Alfie kebab

412151998918557696|Sun Dec 15 09:27:48 +0000 2013|#mccann   When you can show proof of my " economy of truth" I will be ready TJ, provide all cases, other wise suggest you fuck off,

How many of these 'nasty, foul-mouthed' tweets did BL actually 'send' to the McCann's?

REPLY: AFAIK she didn't send any to the McCanns, though she did address some of her tweet comments direct to the McCanns on the #McCann hashtag  

For that is 'how' we, all, (me, anyway) first 'heard' of BL. (via Sky News/ MB)

Or did she only send these NFM 'tweets' to other people?

REPLY: I have an idea that she may have sent a letter or something to the McCanns, maybe we will hear more about this today (if the media report these proceedings)
 
NONE of BL's 'tweets' could be any more FOUL MOUTHED than the tweets/messages BL 'received' (on FB or Twitter) from ardent McCann 'supporter' CINDY MARTIN, AFTER MB's exposure, could they?

REPLY: Agreed

Even MWT 'reported' CM to the UK police.

Can't recall him ever 'reporting' BL to the UK police for her 'tweets'

istbc.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 9:34

Debbie Law‏@dminnimouse·8 mins8 minutes ago
Brenda Leyland inquest
Brunt plus 5 just arrived
#mccann

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 9:54

Deborah Jayne Law Brunt plus 5 just arrived

Deborah Jayne Law Sonia Poulton has also arrived

Deborah Jayne Law It is thought Brunt Jonathan Levy plus legal team are the five

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jkjoannekilcoyne/


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 10:21

Debbie Law‏@dminnimouse·3 mins3 minutes ago
Where are the rest of Brendas persecutors today all hiding in shame not 1 has the courage to face the devastation thy caused #mccann COWARDS
--------------------------------------
Could someone 'help' me with 'posting' tweets and 'updates.'

Please.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 10:33

natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·2 mins2 minutes ago
Toxicology revealed asphyxiation by helium overdose #mccann #brendaleyland

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by aiyoyo on 20.03.15 10:47

Plastic bag and gas canister are needed for using that method.

That begs the question - were those materials evidence found on the scene?

If so, you'd think the method would be self evident to the police and pathologist.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 10:52

natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·8 mins8 minutes ago
Dr has finished giving evidence http://www.faceboook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine … #brendaleyland #mccann

natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·8 mins8 minutes ago
Police now testifying, discussing @sweepyface #mccann #brendaleyland

Jon Tait‏@jontait42·4 mins4 minutes ago
#BrendaLeyland sent NO CRIMINAL TWEETS says cop at inquest


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by whatsupdoc on 20.03.15 10:59

@jeanmonroe wrote:natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·8 mins8 minutes ago
Dr has finished giving evidence http://www.faceboook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine … #brendaleyland #mccann

natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·8 mins8 minutes ago
Police now testifying, discussing @sweepyface  #mccann #brendaleyland

Jon Tait‏@jontait42·4 mins4 minutes ago
#BrendaLeyland sent NO CRIMINAL TWEETS says cop at inquest

 I agree with Jon Tait as I have over a year  ( I think) of BL's tweets and they are nowhere near as offensive as Kate McCann spews out in her book and to thePJ .


Rainne , @dirndllass, is probably theworst example of a "pro"...really bad language. I have many of her tweets as well.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 11:00

natalie charlesworth‏@nataliecharlesw·2 mins2 minutes ago
Onto discussion of the dossier, cop says Brenda sent no criminal messages. Police were of investigating her #mccann #brendaleyland

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.03.15 11:02

'Help' me out guys...........................I'm OLD and can't keep 'up'

With 'tweet' stuff.

Do my best tho.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BRENDA LEYLAND: Did Martin Brunt & SKY News (A) Break the OFCOM Code of Conduct and (B) Breach her Article 8 Human Rights Convention 'Right to Privacy' by doorstepping and then broadcasting her repeatedly on national TV?

Post by plebgate on 20.03.15 11:07

thetruthmatters @truthmatters197
#mccann well police confirm well suprise suprise no criminal tweets were made by brenda so pros stalked a women for nothing


Why the heck was this dossier ever made and sent to the police.   Will the person who sent the dossier now be charged with wasting police time?

plebgate

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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