McCann 'TROLLS': Police WON'T take 'action'

http://news.sky.com/story/1475870/mccann-trolls-police-wont-take-action

McCann Trolls: Police Won't Take Action

Police say some of the messages sent to the family were "extremely distasteful", but none "constituted a prosecutable offence".

11:26, UK, Friday 01May 2015

No further action will be taken against dozens of people accused of directing online abuse at the family of Madeleine McCann, Sky sources have revealed.

Anti-abuse campaigners had compiled a dossier of names after becoming alarmed at the threatening nature of some tweets, posts and messages on online forums directed at Kate and Gerry McCann.

Hundreds of messages have been posted by trolls who believe, despite no evidence, that the McCanns had some involvement in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal in 2007.

In a letter to the campaigners, Leicestershire Police Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister said: "While finding that much of the material was extremely distasteful and unpleasant in nature, it was determined that none of the messages/postings constituted a prosecutable offence."

Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "Leicestershire Police had spent about eight months investigating the dossier, which effectively was a catalogue of abuse tweeted and posted online elsewhere by antagonists of Kate and Gerry McCann.

"There were dozens of such individuals identified in the dossier. They had threatened violence and even death against the couple."

The online posts included words like petrol and matches, handcuffs, shooting, torture and lynching, Brunt said.

He added: "Leicestershire Police have decided after consulting with Crown Prosecutors that none of these postings constitutes a breach of the Harassment Act, the Malicious Communications Act or the Telecommunications Act."

Brunt said those who compiled the dossier, which as revealed by Sky News in September, have reacted with "absolute dismay" at the decision.

"They say it is tantamount to giving the trolls, as they call them, 'carte blanche' to carry on abusing the McCanns," he said.

"Although we haven't heard directly from the McCanns, I'm sure they too will be astonished because when Sky News revealed this dossier, Gerry McCann said such trolls should be prosecuted."

Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "Leicestershire Police had spent about eight months investigating the dossier, which effectively was a catalogue of abuse tweeted and posted online elsewhere by antagonists of Kate and Gerry McCann.

"There were dozens of such individuals identified in the dossier. They had threatened violence and even death against the couple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brunt never did IRONY did he?

"They had threatened violence and even death against the couple."

Here's the 'irony' bit.

Cindy Martin, an ardent PRO McCann 'supporter' DID send 'death threats' to BL, and she WAS dead, days later!

Bet Brunt has NOT 'spent' EIGHT MONTHS 'investigating' McCann 'supporter', Cindy Martin's DEATH THREATS!

Those who compiled the dossier have reacted with "absolute dismay" so says the report.

Have the same dossier compiliers sent a file to the police of the vile tweets sent to Brenda?   

When will we hear the result of the police investigation (revealed at Brenda's inquest) into the people who sent those tweets to Brenda?

I wish they would report on the donations being made in support of Dr Amaral's fund which are continuing to grow  -at around  3600... it would be great if this was publicised to show how we are uniting around him - as he stands for truth and honesty  



http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA

"There were dozens of such individuals identified in the dossier. They had threatened violence and even death against the couple."


Erm, no they didn't or that would have been a prosecutable offence wouldn't it?


Saying you hate soneone, hope they rot in hell, or get their comeuppance is not a threat of actual violence, which most normal people could see from the start of this dossier business!

Have the same dossier compiliers sent a file to the police of the vile tweets sent to Brenda?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course they have........................ NOT!

BUT WE HAVE!

And even, that ex cop MWT did as well!

Thanks for that Jean.

Didn't know MWT had as well.

Will the police have to notify those who sent complaints of their findings?

Brenda committed no crime - hope her family sue the backsides off those who say she did.

Likewise, those named in the dossier who have committed no crime - I hope they sue their accusers too.

Thomas 'sent' his 'alert' to police before BL 'died'.

The 'threats' to BL were 'life threatening' and ILLEGAL, he said.

Which ARE 'prosecutable' in any court in the land. (UK)

Pro McCann 'supporter' J Gamble said 'there's nasty twits on both 'sides'

But not many, actual, pro McCann 'supporters' DIED, did they?

It would 'appear' Police did NOT 'blue light' it, AFTER they had been 'alerted' by an ex-copper, to 'protect' a UK citizen, BL, in danger of 'life threatening DEATH THREATS' sent by a pro McCann 'supporter'.

Maybe her family CAN 'sue' the Police for 'negligence' and 'not acting on information received'.

plebgate wrote:Brenda committed no crime - hope her family sue the backsides off those who say she did.

Likewise, those named in the dossier who have committed no crime - I hope they sue their accusers too.

 Seconded.

jeanmonroe wrote:Thomas 'sent' his 'alert' to police before BL 'died'.

The 'threats' to BL were 'life threatening' and ILLEGAL, he said.

Which ARE 'prosecutable' in any court in the land. (UK)

Pro McCann 'supporter' J Gamble said 'there's nasty twits on both 'sides'

But not many, actual, pro McCann 'supporters' DIED, did they?

It would 'appear' Leicestershire Police did NOT 'blue light' it to 'protect' a UK citizen, BL, in danger of 'life threatening DEATH THREATS' by a pro McCann 'supporter'.

It is such a sorry and sad thing to have happened to Brenda.   I am still fuming about it, even more so since reading that MWT had said that.

ChippyM is surely correct. If death threats had been made there would have been prosecutions. Brunt made suggestions that threats had been made, but with the law as it stands that can't have been so.

IF Police HAD 'acted' on 'information received', by an ex 'one of their own', maybe, just maybe, BL would still be 'with us' today!

BUT THE POLICE, ANY POLICE, DIDN'T 'ACT' TO 'SAVE' BL.! (afaik)

R.I.P. Brenda.

Look forward to the day the pro trolls will be mentioned in the media.
Maybe a very long wait.

"Here we go"!

Poor ol' Cankles dosen't 'feature.

Brunt just been on Sky News.

Mentioning S&S 'book' and Swan, herself, 'commented'

Strange, isn't it, how Sky News just 'happened' to have a 'news crew' where R Swan was.

So that's 2 out of 3 of the tri-ffid on Sky News today, just needs Gamble to complete the 'picture'.

Brunt, Gamble, S&S.!

Now where have i heard about that 'trio' before?

Oh, yeah! They tried, but FAILED, dismally, to plug a 'definitive' book about Madeleine.

To 'boost' their 'pension' pots, imo.

Madeleine, their cash cow, 'failed' on that 'account' to 'bring home the bacon'

But they are NOT gonna stop 'trying' to 'profit' from her!

Waiting for Troll hunter General, Gamble to 'comment' on Sky News, of course.

Probably within the 'hour'!

just to add: MB seems to have a rather overly excessive, er, fixation, with all things McCann and their kids.

all, imo, obviously.

notlongnow wrote:Look forward to the day the pro trolls will be mentioned in the media.
Maybe a very long wait.

Quite, imo the cps daren't prosecute as they know that mud slinging has come from both sides.  And more importantly, Brenda,  if they prosecuted one side all hell would break loose.  Where people would be demanding the pros to be investigated.  
If that happened, certain posters would be exposed and their socks, and maybe Brunty's sources.
If you ask me, Brunty would be quite relieved the police aren't getting involved. imo.

" Hundreds of messages have been posted by trolls who believe, despite no evidence, that the McCanns had some involvement in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal in 2007. "


Oh what dickheads - they got that totally wrong, it should be
"hundreds of messages have been posted by supporters of the McCanns who believe the McCanns when, despite no evidence, they claim that Madeleine was abducted "

Richard IV wrote:" Hundreds of messages have been posted by trolls who believe, despite no evidence, that the McCanns had some involvement in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal in 2007. "


Oh what dickheads - they got that totally wrong, it should be
"hundreds of messages have been posted by supporters of the McCanns who believe the McCanns when, despite no evidence, they claim that Madeleine was abducted "

They actually know that this is true. But they have simply spun it. This is what Team McCann do. Have done it all along. They blame their critics for doing what they themselves are doing. It is typical Team McCann.

Why is it always sky that seem to be the only one deeply involved?

The Police won't take action, I wonder why. 


Is it because the allegations made by Sky are grossly exaggerated and no real crime has been committed?  Or is it because, well you can only imagine how the interview would go?  Not exactly what Stu  the officers of Leics cop shop would want to be dealing with.

So the police won't take action against the McCann Trolls, then? The McTrolls like fat ankles perhaps? Just like they won't take action against the McCanns and the Tapas?

sharonl wrote:The Police won't take action, I wonder why. 


Is it because the allegations made by Sky are grossly exaggerated and no real crime has been committed?  Or is it because, well you can only imagine how the interview would go?  Not exactly what Stu  the officers of Leics cop shop would want to be dealing with.

Could it be because no crime was committed?  

If they take action against anti trolls they will have to arrest pro trolls too. Especially the pro-Mcs trolls who abused and threatened the late Brenda Leyland.
I imagine SP will have quite a few on her Dossiers List for the Police.

Plus they risk opening up a can of worms which they may want to avoid?
Can you imagine the headlines if the McCanns and their little helpers are exposed as organisers of the dossiers and snitching to the Police? The implication on that in relation to Brenda Leyland's untimely death would be enormous . I suspect the Police are reluctant to prosecute the pros Mc trolls, which they will have to, if they are prosecuting trolls, because there is more to it than meet the eyes.

ETA: It does mean that people can resume their twitting and trolling to their hearts content because the Police are not going to do anything about it.

notlongnow wrote:Why is it always sky that seem to be the only one deeply involved?

Sky must be implicated in all this right up to their necks. And it is on record, in Kate's book, that Dave sent an email to Sky News alerting them to the abduction of Madeleine using, according to Kate "an address listed on their website.......Evidently this wasn't the best way of contacting Sky, because, as it turned out, Dave's email remained buried in some inbox."

Yeah, right Kate. 

This is classic Kate deviousness. She is trying to give the impression that none of them had any idea how to contact Sky to the extent that an email remained buried away somewhere.

This tells me that the opposite is true. They very much knew how to contact Sky.

Kate writes: "Despite the fabricated tales that later emerged in certain quarters, suggesting that we had contacted the media before we'd even called the police, apparently the first Sky heard of Madeleine's disappearance was from the Press Association, and from seeing one of our friends on GMTV later that morning. Though we knew little of what was going on at the time, it is true that the news filtered through overnight. Rachael had contacted a friend of hers at the BBC  seeking help and advice and several friends in the UK informed the press some time after 7am."

Seeing as you generally have to assume that when Kate makes a statement it is a deliberate distortion of what really happened, I would assume that Sky were very much in on the picture from an early stage.

And, imo, were complicit in a pre-planned media abduction hoax. One that either went wrong that week or one that was deliberately sabotaged for some reason, leading to "the disaster" that Gerry spoke of. Which, imo, was why both Gerry and Kate were quite literally prostrating themselves in front of police. Down on their hands and knees praying for their lives.

So what went wrong? Who pulled out? Why was there "a disaster?" Was it always the intention for Robert Murat to fly out that week or was he pulled in at the last minute as a damage limitation exercise? And to provide a convenient "patsy" to take the spotlight away from TM? Which of course he was handsomely paid for. 

I suspect also that, due to Robert Murat's police connections and local ties, he was urgently needed to screen eye-witness testimonies. Who had seen what and when?

Rupert Murdoch really is a little sh**. He has to be in this right up to his neck with Martin Brunt's strings being pulled left, right and centre.

All in my opinion.

If they take action against anti trolls they will have to arrest pro trolls too. Especially the pro-Mcs trolls who abused and threatened the late Brenda Leyland. 
I imagine SP will have quite a few on her Dossiers List for the Police.

Plus they risk opening up a can of worms which they may want to avoid?
Can you imagine the headlines if the McCanns and their little helpers are exposed as organisers of the dossiers and snitching to the Police? The implication on that in relation to Brenda Leyland's untimely death would be enormous . I suspect the Police are reluctant to prosecute the pros Mc trolls, which they will have to, if they are prosecuting trolls, because there is more to it than meet the eyes.

ETA: It does mean that people can resume their twitting and trolling to their hearts content because the Police are not going to do anything about it.


--------



Agreed. Although it does make you wonder about who compiled the dossier and why? Given that the most vicious trolls have always been in the TM camp, imo, then surely this dossier was going to expose some of the TM nasty little bag of tricks?

What "game" is being played here? A "game" involving Team McCann, the media - particularly Sky - the police and other "players" as well.

j.rob wrote:If they take action against anti trolls they will have to arrest pro trolls too. Especially the pro-Mcs trolls who abused and threatened the late Brenda Leyland. 
I imagine SP will have quite a few on her Dossiers List for the Police.

Plus they risk opening up a can of worms which they may want to avoid?
Can you imagine the headlines if the McCanns and their little helpers are exposed as organisers of the dossiers and snitching to the Police? The implication on that in relation to Brenda Leyland's untimely death would be enormous . I suspect the Police are reluctant to prosecute the pros Mc trolls, which they will have to, if they are prosecuting trolls, because there is more to it than meet the eyes.

ETA: It does mean that people can resume their twitting and trolling to their hearts content because the Police are not going to do anything about it.


--------



Agreed. Although it does make you wonder about who compiled the dossier and why? Given that the most vicious trolls have always been in the TM camp, imo, then surely this dossier was going to expose some of the TM nasty little bag of tricks?

What "game" is being played here? A "game" involving Team McCann, the media - particularly Sky - the police and other "players" as well.

Yeah, and i think the joke is on us, the public.

j.rob wrote:

Agreed. Although it does make you wonder about who compiled the dossier and why? Given that the most vicious trolls have always been in the TM camp, imo, then surely this dossier was going to expose some of the TM nasty little bag of tricks?

by Anthony Summers, and Robynn Swan
7:05AM BST 02 May 2015

Last August, a group of 10 “concerned citizens” wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, alerting him to “an appalling campaign of abuse directed at the parents and wider family of Madeleine McCann”.

None of the authors of the letter was related to or even knew Kate and Gerry McCann. It was, rather, they said, the behaviour of an army of online “haters” in recent months that decided them to turn to law enforcement. The abuses against the McCanns had “raged for over seven years now, but have lately become worse”.

Well.......
according to S&S 10 "concerned citizens" did their civic duty to Mcs.  
It's such an exact figure S&S used, not to mention a fair bit of details were included as well.
Not difficult to deduce they're close to the source and derived this info from source.

Although 10 is not a big majority, but 10 individuals (assuming among them, each does not know of the other) deciding to take it each upon themselves to turn over Mc trolls to the Police, on behalf of Kate & Gerry, two complete strangers to them, is stretching believability a fair bit.


If acting individually,
what are the coincidental chances of 10 CC (not knowing one another) each compiling own Dossier on Mc-trolls?  By that definition, that would result in 10 different Dossiers List, one from each of the 10 CC.

It's not believable that 10 CC wrote separately to the Police Commissioner all coinciding at the same time (in late August).  10CC but ONE letter would imply the 10 acted collectively.  
What are the chances of 10 citizens (known or not known to one another) following Mc-trolls on social media becoming concerned about Mc-haters that they're united in their collusion to compile ONE big dossiers for two complete strangers they have never met?  
Anyway, complete strangers wouldn't waste their emotions getting personal, embroiling themselves with Mctrolls by calling them "Haters", nor would they be concerted in efforts to get trolls into trouble with Police when no vested interest in involved.  Only people with vested interest have reason to do that. Unless they are all malicious nutters.  No sane person would do that, let alone 10 of them !

One of two nutters doing that on separate occasions is perhaps believable.
Ten would suggest a concerted and orchestrated effort, under the organisation of ONE person.

they said, the behaviour of an army of online “haters” in recent months that decided them to turn to law enforcement.

 

The use of "they said" along with the nature of the narrative would imply the 10 CC (or represented by one head) had direct communication with the "source" that S&S got their info from.

What "game" is being played here? A "game" involving Team McCann, the media - particularly Sky - the police and other "players" as well.

If team McCann is not involved in this (but the Police Commissioner told us otherwise) you got to question MB obssession with the McCanns.
His extreme support of them and his enthusiasm to stick up for them incessantly is so OTT and so ODD. He seems to get all the Mc News in first, which suggests a special interest in their case, or getting it first hand from prime source.

I found the police's decision not to take any action against so-called "trolls" very odd, given TM's apparent desire to demonise them, and given the apparent high level government support for TM (but "very odd" has been a theme for the entire Maddie saga thus far).

Just about any "unfriendly" electronic communication can be prosecuted under harassment law (or telecommunications law) in the UK. The messages need not threaten violence, nor be especially lewd/offensive, to be considered harassment - all it takes for charges to be brought are:
- two or more unwanted communications 
- evidence that the sender was pursuing a course of conduct
- a statement from the the alleged victim to say that s/he felt harassed by said communications.

Prosecutions are commonplace and routine.
Equally commonplace is a situation whereby the State "takes a side" if the communications formed part of a two-way exchange. Typically, the first person to contact the police is seen as the victim.
So, for example, if some of the "antis" were prosecuted, based on a complaint made by a "pro", there'd be no automatic obligation for any of the "pros" to be prosecuted too, no matter how offensive the "pro's" tweets may have been.

I think I said in a previous post some time ago, that the McCs had undermined any potential prosecution by stating publicly that they do not follow social media, and therefore could not themselves be harassed by something which they, by their own admission, hadn't even seen.
However, I've since encountered a case whereby police had obtained some communications which the alleged victim had not previously seen, prior to the police actually giving copies to her/him. Because the alleged victim said that s/he felt harassed when reading the messages that the police had just handed to her/him, charges against the sender were brought and a conviction obtained.

All just my opinions - not legal advice.

I have some trouble posting so trying this again:

Thanks, Alex, interesting.

Would the harassment that Brenda Leyland suffered be covered under the same law? Both the television and newspaper/magazine harassment, and the tweets etc.?

Also, in the example you give, could the "pros" who won't be automatically prosecuted, be proscuted in a separate complaint?

My veiw is that if they took prosecutions against the so called antis,they would have to take action on the pros.