Let's Not Forget Brenda

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

HelenMeg wrote:I believe there was an attempt to stir up anger and hatred against the Mc Canns in order to label people 'trolls' and present them to the wider public as 'horrible people'.  The campaign backfired disastrously and ended up having the opposite effect, rightly so. Brenda and her family have paid the price for that attempt by TM.

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

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

@#£%&*!:'b£%&c•[^9$¥~£$¥@£%&*

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

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

@#£%&*!:'b£%&c•[^9$¥~£$¥@£%&*

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

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

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

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

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

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

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

Ristretto wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ristretto wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bobbin wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also where is the proof that Brenda has commited libel?

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

Snifferdog wrote:Was Brunt a willing pawn in a wider agenda? (to use a favorite phrase of Gerry).
Set up to out her, but unbeknownst to him she was to get the silk tie treatment?
I don't believe she committed suicide.
Imo her outing and subsequent "suicide" is meant as a warning to what can happen to other Mccann fairytale disbelievers.

bobbin wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

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

So let us not forget what St Katherine has actually published, and sold. For money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ristretto wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After harrassment and threats, Brenda died.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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