Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

by Guest 19.10.14 12:53

sallypelt, don't be sorry.
I just wanted to add Gerry as the article included him.
If true, he lied.. or handed something over without reading it?
Beggars belief...
All imo
parapono

by palm tree 19.10.14 13:32

Mccann and her husband Gerry -

Things are changing.

IMO

by Guest 19.10.14 13:36

Further down the piece it also add's.

Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets,

by Guest 19.10.14 13:51

After recently handing out £55k after being accused of libel, they're going to be 100% certain this is not defamatory.

This means they've either picked this up from Bernard Hogan-Howe or they have their own information confirming the Macanns as the conveyors of the dossier imo.

I think this is pretty damning from the Sunday Times. They certainly seem to want to get another mesaage across to their readers other than the troll aspect. This is how the publicly available part of the article appears to non-subscribers:

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 2 Kate-McCann_157349k

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 2 Kate-McCann_157349k

Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts (Adrian Sherratt)

THEY are the modern scourge: cowards who use the anonymity of the internet to viciously abuse people by issuing threats to rape, mutilate or murder.

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, better known for his tough stance on the European convention on human rights, has turned his fire on so-called trolls, people who use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to harass and intimidate victims.

"People are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion,” Grayling said last night.“We must send out a clear message: if you troll, you risk being behind bars for two years.”

Many of the victims of these trolls are women, among them the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the TV presenter Judy Finnigan and her daughter Chloe Madeley, and Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine.

Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets,"

I, personally, am now convinced the McCanns handed that dossier to police.

Wonder what the police investigation into Brenda's death will make of it?

by **PeterMac** 19.10.14 15:18

Handed over an 80 page dossier but did not look at the contents ?
So why then hand it over if you don't know what is in it ?
And who gave it to them, assuming they did not prepare it themselves, which they could not have done since they don't look at Twitter or Facebook . . .
because they said so

Every time they speak they find themselves deeper in the mire.
Perhaps a time for a new thread
List of Things the McCanns have said, which turned out to be True.

On second thoughts, it might be fairly short

by **PeterMac** 19.10.14 15:37

copied from facebook - https://www.facebook.com/MadeleineMcCannNewsAsItHappens?ref=bookmarks

Gerry McCann stated on BBC Radio 4 that they had no presence on social media.

Jim Gamble stated that the family did not hand in dossier, neither did they have anything to do with it !

Sky News and Martin Brunt said the dossier was handed in by 'anonymous web users.'

Sir Bernard Hogan Howe said the McCanns handed the dossier in.

So do you believe a disgraced and sacked senior Police Officer, or a disgraced reporter, or the main suspect
or the Head of the Met, who seems to be the only one not yet disgraced and sacked ?

by **tigger** 19.10.14 17:06

Gosh! That needs some thought....

Got it! Can't have been the McCanns because they're spending all their time and money on 'the search' - couldn't possibly spend money on people gathering information on what's being said about them.

Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.

Iirc it was the second interview.

by HelenMeg 19.10.14 17:27

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/abuse-dossier-kate-gerry-mccann-police-madeleine

Guardian reports :

A dossier of online abuse directed at the parents of Madeleine McCann is being examined by police.
Members of the public have handed to Scotland Yard a file stretching to more than 80 pages of tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages aimed at Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Sky News.

http://news.sky.com/story/1346687/gerry-mccann-says-make-example-of-web-trolls
Gerry McCann said online abuse had caused "severe distress" to him and his wife Kate and that police should be more willing to prosecute the perpetrators.
He was speaking after Sky's Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt revealed in a special report that Scotland Yard is investigating a dossier of social media abuse targeting the McCanns - whose three-year-old daughter went missing on a family holiday in 2007.
When confronted over her actions, one of the trolls, who used the name "Sweepyface" online, told Sky News she believed she was "entitled" to attack the couple on Twitter.
Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.

Mr McCann also branded the Sunday Times "disgraceful" after winning a £55,000 libel payout over a story which claimed the couple had deliberately hindered the search for Madeleine, who vanished in Praia da Luz.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Sky news + Sunday Times - major game playing going on. Gerry says he did not read the Sweepyface tweets yet he, says Hogan-Howe and ST, was responsible (with his family ) for handing over dossier to OG - as usual - some lies are being told, it would seem, IMO. Confusion.

1. Guardian report incorrect as it says members of the public handed over dossier. Who fed it that line?
2. The Bernard Hogan Howe states it was family that gave dossier to SY.
3. Now ST is reinforcing that family handed it over - in fact they make it very clear - almost as if they wrote the piece in order to make it clear!

Now think back that Martin Brunt did a special Sky report to investigate the dossier - so who is in cahoots with whom? Team Mc Cann + Martin Brunt (Sky) . Then it backfires with the awful tragedy of teh death of Brenda. The Sunday Times makes it clear that the family handed over the dossier. So does that seem like an about turn by someone?

by Guest 19.10.14 17:46

HelenMeg, that's the way I see it. But it's Murdoch versus Murdoch here, baffling.

The Sunday Times have always stood out as a lone alternative Murdoch voice, with the 'withheld evidence' report last October, the non-apology which clarfied a minor detail but still stood by the bulk of it's message. Then the paltry (out of court?) settlement in penance for the bit they did have to clarify - peanuts in the scale of 'serious' libel payouts.

And now this. I agree completely that that piece has been written with the specific purpose of clarifying that the McCanns are responsible for passing the dossier to the Met.

So what's going on? Are the ST working autominously from their owner? Or is Murdoch hedging his bets?

Or did Sky encourage the Mcs involvement knowing it would implicate them in the long run? I still can't help thinking Rebekah Brooks had motives other than paper sales when she forced the review.

Just my musings, as ever.

by aiyoyo 19.10.14 17:54

PeterMac wrote:copied from facebook - https://www.facebook.com/MadeleineMcCannNewsAsItHappens?ref=bookmarks

Gerry McCann stated on BBC Radio 4 that they had no presence on social media.

Jim Gamble stated that the family did not hand in dossier, neither did they have anything to do with it !

Sky News and Martin Brunt said the dossier was handed in by 'anonymous web users.'

Sir Bernard Hogan Howe said the McCanns handed the dossier in.

So do you believe a disgraced and sacked senior Police Officer, or a disgraced reporter, or the main suspect
or the Head of the Met, who seems to be the only one not yet disgraced and sacked ?

I know who I believe.

It is the action of someone with an interest to protect. It is inconceivable that a total stranger unrelated or unassociated to the McCanns, no matter how nosey, would become so personal and emotive over the McCanns, that s/he would bend her/her arms to do something petty like that for no apparent purpose.

I don't buy this anonymous snitcher croak.

If not the McCanns, are they going to sue the author of this article, or sue BHH ?

by aiyoyo 19.10.14 17:56

tigger wrote: Gosh! That needs some thought....

Got it! Can't have been the McCanns because they're spending all their time and money on 'the search' - couldn't possibly spend money on people gathering information on what's being said about them.

Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.

Iirc it was the second interview.

Not "no more Madeleine" but "no more search"....it's one of those WTF moments of their narratives !

They want the search to go on forever, if possible, for obvious reason.

by lj 20.10.14 1:20

HelenMeg wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/abuse-dossier-kate-gerry-mccann-police-madeleine

Guardian reports :

A dossier of online abuse directed at the parents of Madeleine McCann is being examined by police.
Members of the public have handed to Scotland Yard a file stretching to more than 80 pages of tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages aimed at Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Sky News.

http://news.sky.com/story/1346687/gerry-mccann-says-make-example-of-web-trolls
Gerry McCann said online abuse had caused "severe distress" to him and his wife Kate and that police should be more willing to prosecute the perpetrators.
He was speaking after Sky's Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt revealed in a special report that Scotland Yard is investigating a dossier of social media abuse targeting the McCanns - whose three-year-old daughter went missing on a family holiday in 2007.
When confronted over her actions, one of the trolls, who used the name "Sweepyface" online, told Sky News she believed she was "entitled" to attack the couple on Twitter.
Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.

Mr McCann also branded the Sunday Times "disgraceful" after winning a £55,000 libel payout over a story which claimed the couple had deliberately hindered the search for Madeleine, who vanished in Praia da Luz.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Sky news + Sunday Times - major game playing going on. Gerry says he did not read the Sweepyface tweets yet he, says Hogan-Howe and ST, was responsible (with his family ) for handing over dossier to OG - as usual - some lies are being told, it would seem, IMO. Confusion.

1. Guardian report incorrect as it says members of the public handed over dossier. Who fed it that line?
2. The Bernard Hogan Howe states it was family that gave dossier to SY.
3. Now ST is reinforcing that family handed it over - in fact they make it very clear - almost as if they wrote the piece in order to make it clear!

Now think back that Martin Brunt did a special Sky report to investigate the dossier - so who is in cahoots with whom? Team Mc Cann + Martin Brunt (Sky) . Then it backfires with the awful tragedy of teh death of Brenda. The Sunday Times makes it clear that the family handed over the dossier. So does that seem like an about turn by someone?

How could it cause "severe distress" to him and his wife Kate if they had not read it?

by Okeydokey 20.10.14 2:34

PeterMac wrote:copied from facebook - https://www.facebook.com/MadeleineMcCannNewsAsItHappens?ref=bookmarks

Gerry McCann stated on BBC Radio 4 that they had no presence on social media.

Jim Gamble stated that the family did not hand in dossier, neither did they have anything to do with it !

Sky News and Martin Brunt said the dossier was handed in by 'anonymous web users.'

Sir Bernard Hogan Howe said the McCanns handed the dossier in.

So do you believe a disgraced and sacked senior Police Officer, or a disgraced reporter, or the main suspect
or the Head of the Met, who seems to be the only one not yet disgraced and sacked ?

Let's hope the Inquest gets to the bottom of this since it is germane to how poor Brenda died. Did she die as a result of a co-ordinated campaign or as a reaction to mere happenstance.

I think we can see which way the evidence is pointing.

by aiyoyo 20.10.14 6:59

Let's hope the Inquest summons Brunt to ask questions :
How he heard about the dossier?
Had he seen the dossier personally and who supplied it to him?
Why he particularly singled out Brenda?
Was he instructed to target her?

The way the dossier was compiled is probably a criminal offence.
It wasn't just a compilation of tweets per se by a disgruntle public member. Tweeter user's identity (and personal detail) is not a regular feature on tweeter account it is usually just a screen name.

The fact that the dossier contains tweeter users personal details meant the compiler had gone beyond that. Questions have to be asked how the compiler obtained those personal details? How many users were targeted, and why particularly Brenda was singled out for the Press?
It meant the compiler was a stalker of targeted tweeter users, must have googled researched and dug around in order to come up with a personalised dossier.

Pertinent questions would be : Who was the compiler? Why did s/he stalk, target and single out only Mccans doubters ? What was in it for the compiler? Why did compiler get personal with Mccanns doubters going the extra miles to compile not only a dossier of tweets but a dossier of users' profiles if there is no vested interest in it for the compiler?

It is patently clear the compiler must be one of these two types (1) a complete nutter who is a blind fan of McCanns or (2) someone related /connected to the McCanns.

Was the compiler and snitcher (to Police and Press) same person or two different people? If different entities, what's the connection between compiler and snitcher. More importantly the inquest needs to determine if the Mcs was behind the stalking and outing of their doubters.

We can guess to whose doorstep this will lead to, but at the end of day it is up to Brenda's family to demand this thoroughness from the Inquest otherwise Brunt and the so called anonymous snitcher are going to get off without repercussions. It's probably going to be swept under the carpet as everything related to the Mcs invariably is.

by **PeterMac** 20.10.14 8:51

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:
Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.
Iirc it was the second interview.
Not "no more Madeleine" but "no more search"....it's one of those WTF moments of their narratives !
They want the search to go on forever, if possible, for obvious reason.

And didn't Gerry say that they needed the Fund to carry on after the "official search" ended, or words to that effect.
They Knew and Know (or hope !! ) that she will not be found.

by Guest 20.10.14 9:05

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:
Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.
Iirc it was the second interview.
Not "no more Madeleine" but "no more search"....it's one of those WTF moments of their narratives !
They want the search to go on forever, if possible, for obvious reason.

And didn't Gerry say that they needed the Fund to carry on after the "official search" ended, or words to that effect.
They Knew and Know (or hope !! ) that she will not be found.

Is that what this case is totally reliant on in the end,a body? how does the law work in Portugal with out a body? any one know?

by **PeterMac** 20.10.14 10:04

WMD wrote:
Is that what this case is totally reliant on in the end, a body? how does the law work in Portugal with out a body? any one know?

No, because the Cipriano case went ahead despite the daughter's body not having been found
It makes things more difficult, but not impossible, given the rest of the evidence

by Monty Heck 20.10.14 10:11

worriedmum wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Tech/article1473136.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_10_18
Is this accurate reporting? I thought that the McCanns didn't do twitter and it was some-one else who had handed police the 'dossier' ?

This at least makes sense. Random individual/s taking it on themselves to compile a "dossier" including personal information and contact details and not only handing in to the police but the media simply doesn't seem credible. As for approaching the media with this without the knowledge or sanction of the objects of one's concern when this could be highly damaging, words fail.

by Guest 20.10.14 11:36

PeterMac wrote:
WMD wrote:
Is that what this case is totally reliant on in the end, a body? how does the law work in Portugal with out a body? any one know?
No, because the Cipriano case went ahead despite the daughter's body not having been found
It makes things more difficult, but not impossible, given the rest of the evidence

Thanks for that Peter.

by **PeterMac** 20.10.14 14:43

RIP Brenda,
Just the latest victim of the McCanns and their Media Machine
There will be more

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 2 <a href=

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 2 Brenda10

" />

by Joss 20.10.14 15:50

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:
Which reminds me of the Swedish interviewer who asked what would be their reaction if Maddie was found to be dead.
Kate answered that the worst would be that there would be no more search.
Iirc it was the second interview.
Not "no more Madeleine" but "no more search"....it's one of those WTF moments of their narratives !
They want the search to go on forever, if possible, for obvious reason.

And didn't Gerry say that they needed the Fund to carry on after the "official search" ended, or words to that effect.
They Knew and Know (or hope !! ) that she will not be found.

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

by Joss 20.10.14 15:57

Monty Heck wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Tech/article1473136.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_10_18
Is this accurate reporting? I thought that the McCanns didn't do twitter and it was some-one else who had handed police the 'dossier' ?
This at least makes sense. Random individual/s taking it on themselves to compile a "dossier" including personal information and contact details and not only handing in to the police but the media simply doesn't seem credible. As for approaching the media with this without the knowledge or sanction of the objects of one's concern when this could be highly damaging, words fail.

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

by Joss 20.10.14 16:04

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

by juliet 20.10.14 16:17

I think Brenda was set up to suit the govt/mccann wider agenda of shutting down dissent on social media. Notice how all the columnists from Richd Madeley to Deborah Orr to Lorraine Kelly to Carol Malone all followed the identical line about the " sick" ,"lonely", "heartless" troll viciously attacking poor brave McCanns - even when she hadn't done any such thing. Even after she so tragically died.
Within a short time, however, a new scandal had flared up - Madeley's daughter being "threatened" by a troll because of something Judy Finnegan usefully said on TV. A few minutes later ( so it seemed) a new law was being framed to curb free speech and legitimate debate.

by Joss 20.10.14 16:43

juliet wrote:I think Brenda was set up to suit the govt/mccann wider agenda of shutting down dissent on social media. Notice how all the columnists from Richd Madeley to Deborah Orr to Lorraine Kelly to Carol Malone all followed the identical line about the " sick" ,"lonely", "heartless" troll viciously attacking poor brave McCanns - even when she hadn't done any such thing. Even after she so tragically died.
Within a short time, however, a new scandal had flared up - Madeley's daughter being "threatened" by a troll because of something Judy Finnegan usefully said on TV. A few minutes later ( so it seemed) a new law was being framed to curb free speech and legitimate debate.

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

by Lance De Boils 20.10.14 17:10

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

by Ristretto 20.10.14 17:23

Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

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

by AndyB 20.10.14 18:43

Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

by juliet 20.10.14 19:28

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

by Ristretto 20.10.14 20:06

AndyB wrote:
Ristretto wrote:Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.
Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to be express unpleasant thoughts? Should there be laws against people being less than angelic? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Can you clarify what you mean by "she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble" please?

Of course I can clarify it. It is illegal to post libel and no matter what people say about these allegations being common knowledge on the internet it doesn't make them true. These allegations are no more true than the allegation that the Queen is a lizard.

When you post libel about people, even when that libel is "common knowledge on the Internet" you get into trouble. Remember a certain Lord McAlpine and the people who got into trouble for posting what was "common knowldedge" about him?

And I stand by what I said about the rest of Brenda Leyland's output on Twitter. She was no angel. She said she was entitled to post what she liked, that was her freedom of speech. But what she posted was horrible and abusive and as I said earlier I would not want it posted about me or my children. And just maybe, if Brunt told the truth, she realised that she may have overstepped the mark when she told him that she hoped that she wouldn't get arrested for what she had posted.

If somebody posted abuse about me 4000 times or about my children or about my friends I think I would go to the police about them or to the press because its horrible and its nasty and it should not be accepted as the norm.