*Warning* Daily Mail are doorstepping 100's of people who donated to Amaral's Defence Fund

NickE wrote:If you are doorstepped,stand proud and ask the journalist if he/she knows what the original Police investigation concluded.

MayMuse wrote:Why did they need to doorstep Brenda Leyland?

BlueBag wrote:

MayMuse wrote:Why did they need to doorstep Brenda Leyland?

To humiliate, punish and warn others.

This is round 2.

BlueBag wrote:

I would be careful to keep it all calm and level. Keep it minimum. Know/prepare what you want to say and stick to it. Do not get diverted - say your piece and close the door. 

MayMuse wrote:So the Daily Mail have a 'dossier' just like Sky? 
Perhaps they should compare notes!

How or whom supplied theses names/addresses? 

All this because Amaral won? 

I don't get it!!!

More to this than meets the eye! 

Which way should we look, as it's not over our shoulders!?

Nasty, just nasty!

sallypelt wrote:I am one of the "sick trolls" who gave a donation to the fund, but I am certainly NOT an "anti-McCann".  I gave because I believe in truth and justice. I have no more knowledge of what happened to Madeleine McCann than the next person, but what I DO know, and it is blatantly obvious to all those who have a single functioning brain cell, that this whole McCann saga is crawling with lies and contradictions.

As for the Gofundme fund, it allowed a man to put his case forward. Something he couldn't have done without truthseekers help. As a result, he "won" on this occasion.

Is there a particular group of people who would like to deny someone's right to a fair hearing, just because they lack the finances to have their day in court. The truth is the truth, and no matter how deep one buries it, it will come to the surface, eventually (won't it Hillsborough?). So giving financial support to Dr Amaral doesn't make him less guilty or more innocent. What it has done is allowed him to have the chance to PROVE whether he was innocent or guilty.  In this instance, Dr Amaral WON!

We have previously written about the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and how the act has been used against journalists as an alternative or alongside Libel and Privacy claims. If you require advice call Carruthers law today. Why not have a look at our section on Defamation.

• “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit” and that they “must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them”.
  

 “ Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct,
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other…
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment of the other.”

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Film them or ask someone with you to film them. Post the video on line, link it to a forum like this.

But above all, ask them why they are not reporting the 5 conclusions from the Portuguese investigation & why they report abduction.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

I was messaged on facebook last night about the Daily Mail who have obtained the names of 100's of people who donated to Amaral's Defence Fund and are in the process of doorstepping them.

Some people have already been doorstepped and followed.

RIP Brenda Leyland.