Let's Not Forget Brenda

plebgate wrote:Title of Thread - Let's not forget Brenda.   

I don't think people will - going by the tweets on the twitter link.   I would say that people are still very much angry about the whole episode.  

Thanks again admin. for providing the link, I would never have seen any of it before.

aquila wrote:

plebgate wrote:Title of Thread - Let's not forget Brenda.   

I don't think people will - going by the tweets on the twitter link.   I would say that people are still very much angry about the whole episode.  

Thanks again admin. for providing the link, I would never have seen any of it before.

People will forget Brenda. The media already have. Brenda Leyland has now become a martyr to the cause of saying stuff on twitter - and it doesn't matter who is doing what.

People forget that Tony Bennett went to court. At the time Tony went to court on this forum he was everyone's hero and a 'martyr to the cause'. When Tony's contempt of court hearing was held no-one seemed to understand that he wasn't being sued by the McCanns - he'd already been gagged due to lack of money to fight them.

People (you know them, those 'freedom fighters' such as Cristobell) couldn't be bothered to turn up to court to support Tony and to find out for themselves what the situation was - Cristobell is now on a Brenda Leyland crusade (I'm sad for Brenda's family that Cristobell has taken this stance) and is advocating a November 5th march on the back of some other march - bloody ridiculous crusade.

Whatever anyone thinks of Tony, he had a good supportive presence in court - the court was full. People from all over UK and from Holland attended the hearings. These people were motivated enough to go and see/hear for themselves what this was all about - I was one of them. I went to see what it was all about. I got off my backside and went to the court.

Tony Bennett is correct. What matters is the session and outcome of Brenda Leyland's coroner's inquiry...and not some idiotic beatification of Brenda Leyland for the service of those who want to be popular on twitter or forums. This 'Brenda is a hero, she was hounded' to me is not entirely correct and it's not right for people such as Cristobell to take up the cause without doing the actual leg-work of attending the coroner's inquiry and reporting back.

ETA: I wonder if Rosalind Hutton, Sonia Poulton or Katie Holmes will go to the coroner's court. I'm sure some of the more discreet people on this forum will attend.

comperedna wrote:The BBC Website has an interesting article today about the current law and 'trolling'.  There are three Acts of Parliament which are relevant, but the situation is not cut and dried.
It says Brenda Leyland could probably have been prosecuted under the act which deals with 'harassment' because she put out around 50 tweets a day challenging the McCanns. The whole area of prosecution for what is written online is fraught with difficulties.

AlexBG wrote:

comperedna wrote:The BBC Website has an interesting article today about the current law and 'trolling'.  There are three Acts of Parliament which are relevant, but the situation is not cut and dried.
It says Brenda Leyland could probably have been prosecuted under the act which deals with 'harassment' because she put out around 50 tweets a day challenging the McCanns. The whole area of prosecution for what is written online is fraught with difficulties.

To prosecute under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, just two or more incidents are required (which need not be criminal acts in and of themselves). A finding of guilt is made on the following basis:
1) the court finds that the incidents amounted to a 'course of conduct' on the part of the accused
2) the complainant says that s/he felt harassed as a result of the incidents

The act does not stipulate a maximum length of time separating the incidents, but if a person is being tried summarily in a Magistrates' Court, at least one of the incidents must fall within 6 months of the date of charge.
A 'course of conduct' basically means that the accused is 'working for a cause'. Examples might include:
1- An animal rights protester sends an angry letter to a person who carries out research on animals. At a later date, the protester confronts the researcher face to face.
2- Person A plays a dirty trick on person B. Person B sends a nasty text message in response. Months later, person B -  still upset with person A - sends them a nasty email.
3- A couple split up. One of the pair tries to reconcile with the other by sending them friendly text messages, flowers and invitations to meet for a drink.

A single tweet could certainly count as "one incident".
The act is regularly and routinely enforced.

Genuine harassment ought to be dealt with by the courts, but the news media seems to play down the extent to which this act and others like it are used to punish what most ordinary citizens would simply regard as ordinary behaviour in a free and democratic society - free speech and freedom of expression.

All of the above is my opinion only and should not be taken as legal adivce.

j.rob wrote:

AlexBG wrote:

comperedna wrote:The BBC Website has an interesting article today about the current law and 'trolling'.  There are three Acts of Parliament which are relevant, but the situation is not cut and dried.
It says Brenda Leyland could probably have been prosecuted under the act which deals with 'harassment' because she put out around 50 tweets a day challenging the McCanns. The whole area of prosecution for what is written online is fraught with difficulties.

To prosecute under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, just two or more incidents are required (which need not be criminal acts in and of themselves). A finding of guilt is made on the following basis:
1) the court finds that the incidents amounted to a 'course of conduct' on the part of the accused
2) the complainant says that s/he felt harassed as a result of the incidents

The act does not stipulate a maximum length of time separating the incidents, but if a person is being tried summarily in a Magistrates' Court, at least one of the incidents must fall within 6 months of the date of charge.
A 'course of conduct' basically means that the accused is 'working for a cause'. Examples might include:
1- An animal rights protester sends an angry letter to a person who carries out research on animals. At a later date, the protester confronts the researcher face to face.
2- Person A plays a dirty trick on person B. Person B sends a nasty text message in response. Months later, person B -  still upset with person A - sends them a nasty email.
3- A couple split up. One of the pair tries to reconcile with the other by sending them friendly text messages, flowers and invitations to meet for a drink.

A single tweet could certainly count as "one incident".
The act is regularly and routinely enforced.

Genuine harassment ought to be dealt with by the courts, but the news media seems to play down the extent to which this act and others like it are used to punish what most ordinary citizens would simply regard as ordinary behaviour in a free and democratic society - free speech and freedom of expression.

All of the above is my opinion only and should not be taken as legal adivce.

The act is regularly and routinely enforced. flouted I would imagine.  Otherwise practically the entire population would be in court, based on the examples above. 

dantezebu wrote:In your examples AlexBG the offender was sending messages, etc to the "harassed" person.
Brenda did not send any messages and did not contact the McCann's.
She was not harassing them.

Joss wrote:Someone else that wrote about Brenda's amounts of tweets averaged out that 4000 tweets a year would average out at approx. 11 tweets per day. Not really what i would call obsessive or over the top, LOL.
How about the Pro McC's? How many tweets do that lot average about the case per year? What about Facebook, and forums? Where is the finger pointing or dossier on them?

Montclair wrote:

Joss wrote:Someone else that wrote about Brenda's amounts of tweets averaged out that 4000 tweets a year would average out at approx. 11 tweets per day. Not really what i would call obsessive or over the top, LOL.
How about the Pro McC's? How many tweets do that lot average about the case per year? What about Facebook, and forums? Where is the finger pointing or dossier on them?

I was under the impression that the number of 4000 was the total she tweeted over the 3 or 4 years she was on twitter. If that were the case, it would come to about 3 or 4 day on an average.

dantezebu wrote:

Montclair wrote:

Joss wrote:Someone else that wrote about Brenda's amounts of tweets averaged out that 4000 tweets a year would average out at approx. 11 tweets per day. Not really what i would call obsessive or over the top, LOL.
How about the Pro McC's? How many tweets do that lot average about the case per year? What about Facebook, and forums? Where is the finger pointing or dossier on them?

I was under the impression that the number of 4000 was the total she tweeted over the 3 or 4 years she was on twitter. If that were the case, it would come to about 3 or 4 day on an average.

Would the 4000 also include re-tweets too? So not such a great number. And reading Brenda's tweets they are clearly not directed to the McCann's but about them. 
When 2 people force themselves regularly into the publics face, they cannot complain when people write about or talk them. If it was only sycophantic fawning they would be happy enough for 4000 tweets.

dantezebu wrote:

Montclair wrote:

Joss wrote:Someone else that wrote about Brenda's amounts of tweets averaged out that 4000 tweets a year would average out at approx. 11 tweets per day. Not really what i would call obsessive or over the top, LOL.
How about the Pro McC's? How many tweets do that lot average about the case per year? What about Facebook, and forums? Where is the finger pointing or dossier on them?

I was under the impression that the number of 4000 was the total she tweeted over the 3 or 4 years she was on twitter. If that were the case, it would come to about 3 or 4 day on an average.

Would the 4000 also include re-tweets too? So not such a great number. And reading Brenda's tweets they are clearly not directed to the McCann's but about them. 
When 2 people force themselves regularly into the publics face, they cannot complain when people write about or talk them. If it was only sycophantic fawning they would be happy enough for 4000 tweets.

Montclair wrote:

Joss wrote:Someone else that wrote about Brenda's amounts of tweets averaged out that 4000 tweets a year would average out at approx. 11 tweets per day. Not really what i would call obsessive or over the top, LOL.
How about the Pro McC's? How many tweets do that lot average about the case per year? What about Facebook, and forums? Where is the finger pointing or dossier on them?

I was under the impression that the number of 4000 was the total she tweeted over the 3 or 4 years she was on twitter. If that were the case, it would come to about 3 or 4 day on an average.

AlexBG wrote:

dantezebu wrote:In your examples AlexBG the offender was sending messages, etc to the "harassed" person.
Brenda did not send any messages and did not contact the McCann's.
She was not harassing them.

There have been cases where the accused was found to have made less "direct" contact with the complainant. One example would be if the complainant saw the accused in a place s/he was in. If the accused didn't have a rock solid reason for having been present, backed up with evidence, it could be seen as an incident of "stalking".

In the case of twitter, a tweet with the hashtag #mccann would probably be seen as as a direct message to the Mccanns, but it's entirely up to the court to decide.
However, the Mccanns have undermined their own case by going on record as saying they never read any tweets or other material posted about them online. They can't possibly be harassed by something they haven't seen and/or aren't aware of.

The act requires that the accused either knew or "ought to have known" that their conduct was causing harassment.
Because of this, before an arrest and a prosecution takes place, the alleged "harasser" is usually "warned" by the police that a complaint has been made and that any further complaints will result in further police action. This removes the defence of "I didn't know they felt harassed".

The above is my opinion only and should not be taken as legal advice.

plebgate wrote:Thanks for your posts AlexBG very interesting.   Perhaps you could give your opinion as to why, after 7 years of people on forums asking questions from the police files, they might now feel they are being harrassed?

People are only asking the same questions as they were 7 years ago  because we have learned nothing new since then.   Other than that, people are commenting on stories appearing in the papers.  This has also been happening for 7 years, so why would they only now possibly feel that they are being harrassed?  Would a judge have to take the issue of fair comment into consideration?

Last week photos of them were shown of them giving money they had gained from ST (£10,000) to charity.   Apparently they also appeared on local tv.   If I felt harrassed, I do not think I would have been able to stand/sit in front of a camera whatever the reason, so do you have an opinion on whether something like that would be asked by any defence solicitors?

plebgate wrote:Thanks AlexBG

Well I don't really know what happened re. the dossier as in a radio interview with John Humphreys, Mr. H.-Howe said that the McCann family handed it in.   Nobody seems sure whether that was a mistake or not.  No doubt should any criminal case arise then it would all come out anyway.

In your opinion, would an harrassment case be heard  before a jury?

All very interesting isn't it? 

In your opinion, if a complaint was made, would the statement Mr. made about him having no problem with people purporting theories be taken into account?

IIRC this statement was made under oath at the Leveson enquiry.

Would any defendant's solicitor be able to call any accusers into the witness box maybe as "unwilling" witnesses?

As someone suggested this week, if anyone is ever charged,what a turn up if  maybe they should call on the help of Tony Bennett and ask him to represent them as   he might know exactly what questions to ask?

All very interesting.

plebgate wrote:Alex in your opinion, now that the sentence for "trolling"/harrassment is going to be increased to 2 years, do you think that a defendant could ask for trial by jury, but in any case as you say, there  could always be an appeal apparently and by that time it would be fully known who did compile the dossier.  Whoever compiled the dossier would have to go to court and give evidence I would imagine, so that is one (or more) who would not need to be called as a hostile witness? 

It seems to me as though a person would have to have been warned previously before a court appearance would come about, but what if a person did not accept the warning.   Would they automatically be  charged and then a trial take place?   We all know from looking around the net that there are some damned awkward peeps like that.

Yep I should think a hostile witness would be just that, BUT, under questioning who knows what might come out.   Once out, cannot be put back in.  

As you say, all opinion but it could well play out like that, especially if the very well informed Reseachers all helped "behind the scenes" so to speak.

Edited to add - in your opinion Alex would a person be given a police warning because a dossier from an anonymous source was given to them?    If that is the case, then it seems to me to be more like N. Korea by the minute.

AlexBG wrote:

plebgate wrote:Alex in your opinion, now that the sentence for "trolling"/harrassment is going to be increased to 2 years, do you think that a defendant could ask for trial by jury, but in any case as you say, there  could always be an appeal apparently and by that time it would be fully known who did compile the dossier.  Whoever compiled the dossier would have to go to court and give evidence I would imagine, so that is one (or more) who would not need to be called as a hostile witness? 

It seems to me as though a person would have to have been warned previously before a court appearance would come about, but what if a person did not accept the warning.   Would they automatically be  charged and then a trial take place?   We all know from looking around the net that there are some damned awkward peeps like that.

Yep I should think a hostile witness would be just that, BUT, under questioning who knows what might come out.   Once out, cannot be put back in.  

As you say, all opinion but it could well play out like that, especially if the very well informed Reseachers all helped "behind the scenes" so to speak.

Edited to add - in your opinion Alex would a person be given a police warning because a dossier from an anonymous source was given to them?    If that is the case, then it seems to me to be more like N. Korea by the minute.

I'm really not the best person to be posing all these questions to! but I'll give it a go...

It was unclear from the news reports I've read, as to whether the increase in maximum sentence to 2 years refers specifically to the Malicious Communications Act, or to all cases heard by magistrates.
Currently magistrates only have the power to impose a prison sentence of 6 months maximum. After conviction, they may refer sentencing for "triable either way" offences only to the Crown Court, if they feel a longer sentence is warranted.
However, for triable either way offences, there should have been an earlier opportunity, before the case went to trial, to ask for it to be heard before a judge and jury instead of magistrates.

The Protection from Harassment Act is just one of a number of Acts that can be used against internet "trolls", incidentally. The Malicious Communications Act is another.

The police "warning" for harassment usually involves the alleged "harasser" being asked to sign something which states that they agree to cease harassing. I don't know what would happen if they refused to sign it.

Most people (including hostile witnesses) can be "tripped up" under cross-examination by a skilled/competent lawyer, using a series of recognised and well-understood psychological techniques, but as I said earlier, at the trial of an alleged internet "troll", the McCanns themselves wouldn't be the ones on trial.
To make anything "come out" pertaining to the events of May 2007, a defence lawyer would have to pursue inappropriate lines of questioning, and even if they managed to do so unchallenged, whatever might "come out" would have no relevance to the court's decision making, and would most likely go unreported in the media.

All just my opinion - not legal advice.

Snifferdog wrote:This law that the ptb are trying to push through with firstly the failed Levison inquiry through the likes of the McCanns and some ridiculous actor with an over inflated sense of self importance. These imo, think their self inflicted shame deserves to be covered up by the implementation of draconian laws, by curbing the freedom of speech of UK citizens. The ptb will not stop this assault on freedom of speech. They will keep using compromised individuals such as these to serve their purpose of quelling all dissent and enquiries into their hidden agendas, corruption and disgusting past times.

plebgate wrote:Thanks for your reply.   Well that's it isn't it - you are probably not the best person to answer so probably not the best thing to do - to come on a forum and start posting about the law.

AlexBG wrote:

plebgate wrote:Thanks for your reply.   Well that's it isn't it - you are probably not the best person to answer so probably not the best thing to do - to come on a forum and start posting about the law.

Well I might not be the best person to ask (and many people on forums won't admit to that), but I'm a uni student and I have studied criminal harassment (and other offences) in detail as a part of my course.
I only came on here to post what I'd learned, in a genuine attempt to help innocent people such as yourself avoid prosecutions I feel they do not deserve. I'm on your side.

I get the feeling from your posts that you're desperate to get some of the controversy surrounding the disappearance exposed in court; part of you might even welcome a harassment or "trolling" trial as the vehicle for this - such feelings are understandable, but I've already explained to you why it would be futile.

Just my opinion - not legal advice.