Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

by Guest 26.10.14 22:27

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.

by MoonGoddess 26.10.14 22:58

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.

EXACTLY what I was thinking earlier today...

by Joss 27.10.14 4:16

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.

Exactly. I thought they said 4000 in a year but i could be wrong, but regardless that still isn't much.

by Joss 27.10.14 4:18

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.

That could be right, and I agree, not very many per day in either case.

by Joss 27.10.14 4:29

And most definitely the McC's wanted to be media whores and didn't like the negative responses they get, well in that case why didn't they get their mugs off the media circuit and let the police do their job.
It's funny that in missing child cases i have never seen anything like this case. I remember in the case of little Lisa Irwin, the parents had some media face time, but people didn't believe the story of her disappearance, and of course there were also the ones that were Pro Bradwin as we called the parents, but mostly it was very suspicious. Makes me wonder if some of these other cases took a page out of the McC case really. Lisa's mother had been sitting on her stoop getting drunk apparently, and then baby Lisa turns up missing. Hmmm.
There is always finger pointing at the parents in most of these cases that sound suspicious, and that is why Law enforcement always suss out the family first because in a lot of cases it is family involvement when a child disappears. I think the burden of proof usually does fall back on the parents to prove otherwise along with co operation with investigators working the case.

by plebgate 27.10.14 7:44

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.

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?

by AlexBG 27.10.14 20:01

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?

I understood the official story to be that the McCanns haven't seen any online "trolling" or made any specific complaints to police themselves. All the "concern" is said to be coming from the creators of the "dossier" - an anonymous group of ~~witch hunters~~ thoroughly decent human beings, is it not?

Either way, the problem with harassment generally, is that if the alleged "harasser" attempts to justify his/her stance - no matter how morally-sound or rational the reasoning may be, and no matter how bad it might make the complainant look - the alleged "harasser" only serves to set him/herself up for a motive.
All it does is strengthen the prosecution's claim that a "course of conduct" was being followed.
The complainant isn't the one on trial.

So while I personally agree with the points you've made, I unfortunately don't think they'd be of help.

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

by plebgate 27.10.14 21:23

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.

by AlexBG 27.10.14 23:01

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.

Yep I heard H.-Howe's comment on the radio interview - he'd probably just say he was mistaken if asked to confirm it, however.
On the other hand, if TM are changing their story to say that the McCanns themselves are the ones who have viewed, collected and handed the evidence of "trolling" to police, it might indicate that they are paving the way for harassment charges to be brought.

Most people accused of harassment are charged under section 2, which can only be tried in a Magistrates' Court.
A more serious charge under section 4, which requires threats of violence to have been made, can be heard before a jury in a Crown Court, but this is optional - the offence is "triable either way".
A person convicted in a Magistrates' Court can appeal to the Crown Court, but the appeal is heard by a Judge and two magistrates - there's still no jury.

I'd imagine that GM's statement about him having no problem with people purporting theories could be taken into account, if purporting theories was the only thing the defendant was accused of doing, but I'm not sure. It would only be useful for a defence of "I didn't know he felt harassed", but the police's "warning" is normally used to undermine that line of defence, as mentioned previously.

You can call an "unwilling" witness but they might be hostile and more of a hindrance than a help.

All just my opinions - not to be taken as legal advice.

by plebgate 28.10.14 6:47

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.

by tiny 28.10.14 9:12

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 10h10 hours ago
On location #mccann outside Brenda Leyland's home. Remembering #sweepyface #madeleine. Real talk not PR spin.

WELL DONE SONIA clapping

by AlexBG 28.10.14 20:48

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.

by Joss 29.10.14 5:32

This supposed new law would only affect people in the U.K. wouldn't it ? That means that people in other countries can still say why they think the McC's are guilty in this case, and they can't control that.
I still don't see how they are really going to enforce something like that, there would have to be so much involved and people to monitor it i can't see it going anywhere much at all. Think its just more threat tactics to close down opinion on those who don't agree with the parental involvement in what happened to Madeleine.
The parents actually are Guilty by default for setting their children up in a potentially dangerous situation by leaving them all alone if we can believe the police files, and what those two actually admitted to doing in that regard. If they had of got a babysitter or stayed in with the kids, Madeleine would not be missing. They are the guilty ones, no one else, no matter how they spin it. Would you throw your kids into harms way, of course not, but they did. They should both be behind bars IMO, and as a parent guilty of what horrible fate occurred as a result of your own negligence to your little child you should be ok. with that, knowing your child more than likely died because of it. And you would never be able to forgive yourself for that. Sometimes life dishes out some hard knocks, and lessons are learned the hardest way of all.

by plebgate 29.10.14 6:14

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.

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.

I am sure there are people out there who would not agree that posting comments (non threatening) about a case in which the parents asked the public to become involved and indeed accepted money from many people, one of whom may very well have contributed to the Fund, amounts to harrassment.

To sign such a document, would be on a file for ever more and I really do believe that many people would not find that acceptable, especially if a judge/jury were later to find that a person had not, in fact, committed any sort of crime.

I think we all understand it would not be Mr. & Mrs. on trial, but I believe there would not be a trial unless they were prepared to state in a court of law what had been said that had made them feel harrassed . It cannot, in a criminal court, be all one way as at the moment imo any defendant is entitled to use any means and ask for any information which would help show they are not guilty. Possibly depending on the number of witnesses a defendant might want to call, then it might even be pushed up to a higher court?

Re. inappropriate questioning? well wouldn't that depend on what had made them feel harrassed?

If a trial went to court then it might well go unreported in the media but I believe many people (possibly from other countries) would be reporting on line. Of course, there is always the possibility that one newspaper in UK might report everything especially as there would be no grounds for a libel writ from info. gleaned in a court room?

As you say all opinion, but at the moment, in UK we are all entitled to one.

by Snifferdog 29.10.14 7:18

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.

by Joss 29.10.14 11:10

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.

Exactly.

by AlexBG 29.10.14 17:47

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.

by Liz Eagles 29.10.14 17:53

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.

Why would anyone on this forum be prosecuted? Do you know something we don't?

I'm sensing a 'Kevin' moment.

by plebgate 29.10.14 19:56

I thought it was a Kevin moment too. Coming on a forum and citing harrassment laws, but then admitting not the best person to ask. Whaaattt.

IGNORE. WUM IMO.

by j.rob 30.10.14 2:02

'd imagine that GM's statement about him having no problem with people purporting theories could be taken into account, if purporting theories was the only thing the defendant was accused of doing, but I'm not sure. It would only be useful for a defence of "I didn't know he felt harassed", but the police's "warning" is normally used to undermine that line of defence, as mentioned previously.

----

Sorry - does anyone care about what GM thinks?

I doubt anyone gives a monkeys....

by ultimaThule 30.10.14 3:55

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.

On the 19th of this month this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29678989 carried the headline 'internet trolls could face up to two years in jail under new laws'.

However, on further reading, it is apparent that any such new laws are in fact "to be made as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill going through Parliament, and due to be debated in the House of Lords in the coming week" and that "The Bill applies to England and Wales only."

As can be seen here http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/criminaljusticeandcourts/stages.html the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill has been meandering its way to Royal Assent since February of this year but, despite it's final reading being little more than a week away, it does not as yet appear to contain any amendment which pertains to the BBC's story.

In the event that summary offences such as those contrary to section1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and sections 2 and 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (as amended) become triable either way, this will inevitably place an increased burden on the Crown Courts and on the public purse.

by jeanmonroe 30.10.14 10:34

However, on further reading, it is apparent that any such new laws are in fact "to be made as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill going through Parliament, and due to be debated in the House of Lords in the coming week" and that "The Bill applies to England and Wales ONLY"
----------------------------------------

So,

presumeably then, a 'troll' can 'carry on trolling, to their hearts content' IF they are 'trolling' FROM N Ireland and Scotland?

thinking

A CRIMINAL 'law' that is only 'enforced/enforcable' in HALF of the UK?

How very 'odd'!

by The....truth 30.10.14 13:07

I thought I would post this here. It is part of the recognition of the looming threat to free speech in England and Wales. The first point illuminates the possible future for CR and all persistent claimants....a win win at no risk.

It is coming. 'they' want to be able to silence all who publish, on paper or electronically, and to shut down the truth.

Written by Paul Dacre, editor of Daily Mail....

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/paul-dacre/

" And finally, we need to understand the nature of the threats that face us, and unite in response to that. Those threats are considerable…

Threats from the Royal Charter and the imposition of punitive damages, backed up by the iniquity of ‘costs shifting’. That could see newspapers paying the other side’s costs, win or lose, however big or small they are. It will be a defamation derby for all those who want to gag or punish the press.
Threats to the confidentiality of our sources – crucial to all journalists – through the disgraceful misuse of the RIPA legislation.
Threats from Europe in the grisly shape of the right to be forgotten which hits at the heart of freedom of expression.
Threats to the sanctity of our content by the undermining of copyright protection here and in Brussels.
Threats to the local press from the taxpayer-funded BBC, whose own Charter comes up for renewal shortly – a crucial moment for the industry.
And finally the dark warnings of some politicians that once the election is out of the way, they’ll be back to finish what they began with Leveson and impose the so-called ‘will of Parliament’ on our industry for the first time since 1695.

These and many other issues require our industry to be united if we are to survive and prosper, and if we are to be able to pass onto the next generation that precious heritage of a free, fearless press that we inherited from our forefathers."

by tiny 30.10.14 13:51

On twitter some are saying that the pond in the mb doorstepping film is Craiglockhart Pond.

by comperedna 30.10.14 14:02

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't get what ptb means. Anyone help?

by TheTruthWillOut 30.10.14 14:08

tiny wrote:On twitter some are saying that the pond in the mb doorstepping film is Craiglockhart Pond.

It is true:

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 7 0_around_edinburgh_-_craiglockhart_pond_nl

by Liz Eagles 30.10.14 14:14

comperedna wrote:Maybe I'm slow, but I don't get what ptb means. Anyone help?

tptb = the powers that be

I also find it hard to keep up sometimes.

by tiny 30.10.14 14:16

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
tiny wrote:On twitter some are saying that the pond in the mb doorstepping film is Craiglockhart Pond.

It is true:

Now I wonder if the dossier person lives there or near there.

by bobbin 30.10.14 14:23

tiny wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
tiny wrote:On twitter some are saying that the pond in the mb doorstepping film is Craiglockhart Pond.

It is true:

Now I wonder if the dossier person lives there or near there.

Interesting. As soon as I saw the buxom legs and the green shawl that I feel I had seen elsewhere, I wondered if the accent being covered up would be a Scottish one.
Funny that Craiglockart pond is by Edinburgh and Gerry McCann and his close family are from that area.
Now I can't find the Martin Brunt Sky news report where the 'lady' who handed the dossier over was video'd.
Does anyone have access to it or has it been whooshed along with Martin Brunt who does not appear to have been around for a while.