Brenda (sweepyface) on FB

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

interested wrote:With the "review" costing British taxpayers millions, as well as the media presenting the McCanns as "cleared". is it any wonder that people are sceptical.  Surely people are entitled to express their views and sceptical attitudes.  Sadly I think it has taken Brenda Leyland's death for a lot of nonbelievers to surface.

the review like the leveson joke was a cameron knee jerk. as for ms leyland she hid behind the cloak of anonymity believing she wouldn't get caught. she was wrong. she was on a list and hey, someone has to be first. she wasn't stalked and she wasn't hounded. when faced with what she'd done the consequences which she had to face proved way too much.

Hi Marky... After all these years, and you're still a WUM...

yeah and i expect you're still the brave keyboard warrior you always were.

almostgothic wrote:@ mossman

Ok, this is just me hypothesising off the top of my head ...

The original plan:
They were hoping that the book would sell and do a great PR job.
Also hoping that there would be some fairly swift arrests over the dossier - another great PR job.
Bad judgement calls on both counts.
One could assume they were timing all this to coincide with the last knockings of the Lisbon trial.
Thanks to the current chaos in the Portuguese legal system, this didn't happen either.
Another bad judgement call.
If everything had gone to plan as they wished, it might have all ended at this point.

But as it didn't go to plan, and possibly due to a combination of frustration, impatience and a desire for revenge, they hatched the Sky plot. Maybe Brunt's doorstepping stunt was to be the first of many - who knows? Long-term headlines which would sustain TM and their MSM lackeys until the Lisbon court date finally materialised.
Taking this bull-in-a-china-shop approach, they obviously didn't think about any unintended consequences. They probably thought they were being very clever, picking on a soft target - a woman in her sixties living on her own in a quiet, small village (as opposed to a big six-foot bloke in a town terrace with a rottweiler and a bunch of inquisitive, burly neighbours).
But if they had bothered to take a more measured perspective, they would have realised that this was a dangerously high-risk strategy. What if their victim had health problems, for example? Did they even consider a heart attack on the doorstep? No, they obviously didn't.

And we all know what DID happen.
This time it wasn't just a bad judgement call.
It was the most heinous act perpetrated for no good reason upon a defenceless woman who was innocent in the eyes of the law.
But I suspect they'll all spend far more time trying to wriggle out of it than they ever will in self-flagellation or looking at themselves in the mirror ...

Well said

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

margaret wrote:

Marky wrote:

Annabel wrote:http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda

good article.

Hi marky, I disagree, second paragraph in...

After her death we may never know, but what we are sure of is the police had identified Leyland as being part of an online trolling campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann and were investigating.

The police had done nothing of the sort! They were handed a dossier, nothing else.

as far as you know.

No, it's a fact. They were handed a dossier but had taken no action...

Sky News undaunted by the lack of police action, sent in Martin Brunt to 'out' Brenda Leyland even though they knew the police had not approached or spoken to her and she had not been charged with any offence.

And that is not acceptable...

not acceptable huh. she was engaging in the sort of behaviour that has seen many people fined or jailed. it is therefore news and what followed therefore acceptable. that you don't like it is irrelevant.

The press have tried to get a story out off her son by asking for an ''exclusive'



Somehow they have found out that Brenda and her eldest son.... Were 'Estranged'.


Let's hope he isnt bitter.



If it were me my 'daughter in law and son would sell to the highest bidder with their Tongues hanging out.....believe me.

kitti wrote:The press have tried to get a story out off her son by asking for  an ''exclusive'



Somehow they have found out that Brenda and her eldest son.... Were 'Estranged'.


Let's hope he isnt bitter.



If it were me my  'daughter in  law and  son    would sell to the highest bidder with their  Tongues hanging out.....believe me.

kitti wrote:The press have tried to get a story out off her son by asking for  an ''exclusive'



Somehow they have found out that Brenda and her eldest son.... Were 'Estranged'.


Let's hope he isnt bitter.



If it were me my  'daughter in  law and  son    would sell to the highest bidder with their  Tongues hanging out.....believe me.

Sorry to read that Kitti: flower:

That's ok Dutchclogs.




It's very weird really because Brunt did his piece asking for people to tweet him ...Q & A....then he 'outs' Brenda


The times gets sued then puts a piece in regarding the 'dossier' and arrests.

dutchclogs wrote:

almostgothic wrote:@ mossman

Ok, this is just me hypothesising off the top of my head ...

The original plan:
They were hoping that the book would sell and do a great PR job.
Also hoping that there would be some fairly swift arrests over the dossier - another great PR job.
Bad judgement calls on both counts.
One could assume they were timing all this to coincide with the last knockings of the Lisbon trial.
Thanks to the current chaos in the Portuguese legal system, this didn't happen either.
Another bad judgement call.
If everything had gone to plan as they wished, it might have all ended at this point.

But as it didn't go to plan, and possibly due to a combination of frustration, impatience and a desire for revenge, they hatched the Sky plot. Maybe Brunt's doorstepping stunt was to be the first of many - who knows? Long-term headlines which would sustain TM and their MSM lackeys until the Lisbon court date finally materialised.
Taking this bull-in-a-china-shop approach, they obviously didn't think about any unintended consequences. They probably thought they were being very clever, picking on a soft target - a woman in her sixties living on her own in a quiet, small village (as opposed to a big six-foot bloke in a town terrace with a rottweiler and a bunch of inquisitive, burly neighbours).
But if they had bothered to take a more measured perspective, they would have realised that this was a dangerously high-risk strategy. What if their victim had health problems, for example? Did they even consider a heart attack on the doorstep? No, they obviously didn't.

And we all know what DID happen.
This time it wasn't just a bad judgement call.
It was the most heinous act perpetrated for no good reason upon a defenceless woman who was innocent in the eyes of the law.
But I suspect they'll all spend far more time trying to wriggle out of it than they ever will in self-flagellation or looking at themselves in the mirror ...

Well said

Agreed 

I couldn't find anything about this on the Daily Mail website this morning unless I missed it. I wonder if, considering the backlash against Sky News and the possible harm it may do to the McCanns reputation, it's all going to be quietly swept under the carpet.

My thoughts too.

Anything that doesn't reflect well on the McCanns or their supporters isn't likely to see the light of day.

I noticed that yesterday, but its too late now. who will ever forget that a woman died following G McC calling for an example to be made, and Brunty doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of the McCanns.

Maybe there will be a "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" type speech or article. if there is then the McCs internet patrollers will have earned their crust. .

saloongirl wrote:I couldn't find anything about this on the Daily Mail website this morning unless I missed it. I wonder if, considering the backlash against Sky News and the possible harm it may do to the McCanns reputation, it's all going to be quietly swept under the carpet.

or maybe just that there's nothing new to add so lets just let the inquest get under way and report accordingly.

What I find disgusting is..


Brenda was NOT going to be investigated by the Police yet she was 'outed'.



The Police had the dossier a month BEFORE she was 'outed' so how did sky get hold off this dossier and was it passed onto Sky because nothing was going to be done?


So it's obvious whoever passed it to the police was aggitated because off this so gave it to sky who then got Brunt to 'out' her.


It's obvious too that Gerry McCann KNEW something was going to happen as the mccanns had seen the dossier BEFORE all this happened and made his ridiculous statement.


Was this person PAID for the dossier from sky I wonder?

I have found an interesting site that gives all the articles published on a topic:
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Madeleine+McCann

The last one being:

"Doorstepping ‘troll’ Brenda Leyland was justified, so let’s not bully Sky’s Martin Brunt - Roy Greenslade"

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/737590281?-17657:19554


where Greendsale tries to defend Brunt. Not very convincing imo.

frencheuropean wrote:I have found an interesting site that gives all the articles published on a topic:
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Madeleine+McCann

The last one being:

"Doorstepping ‘troll’ Brenda Leyland was justified, so let’s not bully Sky’s Martin Brunt - Roy Greenslade"

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/737590281?-17657:19554


where Greendsale tries to defend Brunt. Not very convincing imo.

a thoughtful and measured observation i'd say frenchie. now lets just wait for the meerkat to tip up and trash it as a load of old oxboll.

not at all convincing.

So .......
Gerry Mccann hasn't seen the tweets.
Gamble tells tweeters that the McCanns had nothing to do with the dossier.
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe informs a BBC interviewer that it was the family who handed over the dossier to the police.

Y'now, there's something not right about all that ......
...... but i can't quite put my finger on it ......

RE:http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/737590281?-17657:19554

Greensales is not at ease in this article because he knows that Brunt's attitude was wrong but he defends a friend, rather akwardly I would say and his conclusion is a good example:

"Then again, I can’t help feeling that it is a bit rich to accuse Brunt of being a bully for having revealed the existence of a genuine bully. He is a sensitive man, quite unlike the stereotypical foot-in-the-door reporter of yesteryear legend, and I am sure he is upset at her death."

If you know the existence of a really bully and think he may be dangerous, you go to the police and tell them why you think he is dangerous or abusive. You let them conduct the enquiry if necessary.
You have not the right to take the matter in your own hands by confronting directly the alleged bully , filming him and plaster the video all over the net. And it's not because you are a journalist that you are allowed to ignore the law.
According to Greensales, he "revealed the existence of a genuine bully". First, was B.Leyland a genuine bully? It was not prooved, she was not charged and some specialists now say she had not the profile of a troll. He "revealed" what he or his editor thought could be a source of good sales. The lure of profit was behind the "revelation", not  a concern about the general interest.
The fact that Brunt is "upset at her death" is not relevant here and not the proof that he  has less responsability. Same for "a sensitive man". Sensitive men also make errors. Sensitive women also.

"He is a sensitive man, quite unlike the stereotypical foot-in-the-door reporter of yesteryear legend"

For me, B.Leyland was  a sensitive lady quite unlike the stereotypical nasty troll of today internet. She went,imo, too far in her comments but never threatened directly the McCanns or was a danger for them. The victim here , it's she, not Brunt.
Ok, he is upset by her death, it's normal because he is upset by the death of a woman he is partly responsible of.  Brenda's son is  far more upset by the death of her mum.It's a bit rich for Greensale to overshadow the victim and pity Brunt.

Thanks, frencheuropean.

Surely a sensitive man would have:

Spotted the pitfalls and dangers in this assignment.
Worried that something might go wrong that would give him nightmares for the rest of his life.
Fretted about how it would affect his own family and the family of the victim if it did end in tears.
Raised himself up to his full height and told the boss to shove it.

Here's a story. It's not an important one or a large-scale tragic one. But it is relevant albeit in a small way.
A long time ago in the Thatcher years, a town and its surrounding villages were suffering - and it showed.
Traditional industry was on its knees. Shops and other businesses were closing down at a rate of knots. Many people could not pay their mortgages anymore.
A joiner was working on a long-term job for a local construction business. His boss came in one day and told him to drop everything and go to a house where a young family had just been evicted. It had to be boarded up and have the locks changed in case they tried to get back in and to deter vandals. He looked the boss straight in the eye and said: "No. I'm not doing it. I'm not going to make money out of other people's misery."
The boss was taken aback but said that was fair enough, and someone else did the job.
The joiner knew it wouldn't help the family concerned - it was too late for that. But he felt he had to make a stand. He didn't want to part of the whole sad, dirty process. It was only later that he realised he might well have got the sack and been in dire straits himself, but he said that he would still have refused if he had.

A sensitive man.


It's just one of the reasons I've stuck with him for 36 years.

almostgothic wrote:Thanks, frencheuropean.

Surely a sensitive man would have:

Spotted the pitfalls and dangers in this assignment.
Worried that something might go wrong that would give him nightmares for the rest of his life.
Fretted about how it would affect his own family and the family of the victim if it did end in tears.
Raised himself up to his full height and told the boss to shove it.

if you applied these guidelines nobody would probably ever undertake to do a news story again.

almostgothic wrote:Thanks, frencheuropean.

Surely a sensitive man would have:

Spotted the pitfalls and dangers in this assignment.
Worried that something might go wrong that would give him nightmares for the rest of his life.
Fretted about how it would affect his own family and the family of the victim if it did end in tears.
Raised himself up to his full height and told the boss to shove it.

Here's a story. It's not an important one or a large-scale tragic one. But it is relevant albeit in a small way.
A long time ago in the Thatcher years, a town and its surrounding villages were suffering - and it showed.
Traditional industry was on its knees. Shops and other businesses were closing down at a rate of knots. Many people could not pay their mortgages anymore.
A joiner was working on a long-term job for a local construction business. His boss came in one day and told him to drop everything and go to a house where a young family had just been evicted. It had to be boarded up and have the locks changed in case they tried to get back in and to deter vandals. He looked the boss straight in the eye and said: "No. I'm not doing it. I'm not going to make money out of other people's misery."
The boss was taken aback but said that was fair enough, and someone else did the job.
The joiner knew it wouldn't help the family concerned - it was too late for that. But he felt he had to make a stand. He didn't want to part of the whole sad, dirty process. It was only later that he realised he might well have got the sack and been in dire straits himself, but he said that he would still have refused if he had.

A sensitive man.


It's just one of the reasons I've stuck with him for 36 years.

What a lovely story AG, nice to read something to help us remember there is good out there too 

frencheuropean wrote:RE:http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/737590281?-17657:19554

Greensales is not at ease in this article because he knows that Brunt's attitude was wrong but he defends a friend, rather akwardly I would say and his conclusion is a good example:

"Then again, I can’t help feeling that it is a bit rich to accuse Brunt of being a bully for having revealed the existence of a genuine bully. He is a sensitive man, quite unlike the stereotypical foot-in-the-door reporter of yesteryear legend, and I am sure he is upset at her death."

If you know the existence of a really bully and think he may be dangerous, you go to the police and tell them why you think he is dangerous or abusive. You let them conduct the enquiry if necessary.
You have not the right to take the matter in your own hands by confronting directly the alleged bully , filming him and plaster the video all over the net. And it's not because you are a journalist that you are allowed to ignore the law.
According to Greensales, he "revealed the existence of a genuine bully". First, was B.Leyland a genuine bully? It was not prooved, she was not charged and some specialists now say she had not the profile of a troll. He "revealed" what he or his editor thought could be a source of good sales. The lure of profit was behind the "revelation", not  a concern about the general interest.
The fact that Brunt is "upset at her death" is not relevant here and not the proof that he  has less responsability. Same for "a sensitive man". Sensitive men also make errors. Sensitive women also.

"He is a sensitive man, quite unlike the stereotypical foot-in-the-door reporter of yesteryear legend"

For me, B.Leyland was  a sensitive lady quite unlike the stereotypical nasty troll of today internet. She went,imo, too far in her comments but never threatened directly the McCanns or was a danger for them. The victim here , it's she, not Brunt.
Ok, he is upset by her death, it's normal because he is upset by the death of a woman he is partly responsible of.  Brenda's son is  far more upset by the death of her mum.It's a bit rich for Greensale to overshadow the victim and pity Brunt.

nope, like i said above a thoughtful and measured observation. he seems concerned over the report going out live but like others who share his overall standpoint, is probably a damned site more wised up about the background to this story than most who don't, who really appear to be going off on some holier than thou crusade against anyone who does or says anything they don't like. i don't know if ms leyland was a sensitive soul because like 90 some odd % of the country i hadn't heard of her until last week.

that aside, a good post well thought out.

Marky wrote:she was engaging in the sort of behaviour that has seen many people fined or jailed. it is therefore news and what followed therefore acceptable. that you don't like it is irrelevant.

Well perhaps you would like to tell us Marky who has been fined or jailed for having online conversations which are about someone but not addressed directly to them. I am only aware of people being prosecuted for writing bullying texts directly to their victim, knowing their victim will read it.

Or, I am aware of the type of bullying in schools, which schools do have to take action over, whereby the bullies send text messages directly to another child which are cruel or they will write about him/her in an unkind way on social media sites knowing full well he/she will read it. And I agree its cruel because the child victim has done nothing to deserve it - they might have an acne problem, or a stutter, or be overweight, and they become victims for those reasons.

But, in this case of the McCanns, haven't they themselves created the controversy that still to this day surrounds them? By leaving three little children alone in a separate building to the point that it became neglectful. And then they did something else controversial after Madeleine disappeared by telling the police how to do their jobs and they did something else controversial by claiming shutters were damaged when there is no obvious evidence of this. Then there was the way that Kate McCann unkindly wrote about the elderly lady in the apartment above who had heard the children crying. The list of controversies just goes on and on and on .....

And they have put themselves into the public spotlight to such an extent that they are now instantly recognisable (unlike other parents of missing children who I would not know if I passed them in the street). They have brought fame or infamy upon themselves.

Therefore, it is par for the course to find yourself talked about, even if the talk is offensive. I'm afraid once you stand in the spotlight you become the focus of other people's interest. And people are going to be very unforgiving and say what they think of two responsible adults who leave three little children alone in a strange holiday apartment.

almostgothic wrote:Thanks, frencheuropean.

Surely a sensitive man would have:

Spotted the pitfalls and dangers in this assignment.
Worried that something might go wrong that would give him nightmares for the rest of his life.
Fretted about how it would affect his own family and the family of the victim if it did end in tears.
Raised himself up to his full height and told the boss to shove it.

Here's a story. It's not an important one or a large-scale tragic one. But it is relevant albeit in a small way.
A long time ago in the Thatcher years, a town and its surrounding villages were suffering - and it showed.
Traditional industry was on its knees. Shops and other businesses were closing down at a rate of knots. Many people could not pay their mortgages anymore.
A joiner was working on a long-term job for a local construction business. His boss came in one day and told him to drop everything and go to a house where a young family had just been evicted. It had to be boarded up and have the locks changed in case they tried to get back in and to deter vandals. He looked the boss straight in the eye and said: "No. I'm not doing it. I'm not going to make money out of other people's misery."
The boss was taken aback but said that was fair enough, and someone else did the job.
The joiner knew it wouldn't help the family concerned - it was too late for that. But he felt he had to make a stand. He didn't want to part of the whole sad, dirty process. It was only later that he realised he might well have got the sack and been in dire straits himself, but he said that he would still have refused if he had.

A sensitive man.


It's just one of the reasons I've stuck with him for 36 years.

 
What a lovely story "almostgothic" - congratulations, you sure picked a "keeper".  Best wishes to you both.

LJC wrote:

Marky wrote:she was engaging in the sort of behaviour that has seen many people fined or jailed. it is therefore news and what followed therefore acceptable. that you don't like it is irrelevant.

Well perhaps you would like to tell us Marky who has been fined or jailed for having online conversations which are about someone but not addressed directly to them.   I am only aware of people being prosecuted for writing bullying texts directly to their victim, knowing their victim will read it.  

if you think that it's okay as long as it's not sent direct then you're a little naive