Re: Brenda Leyland Inquest

**Claudia79** Sat 17 Jan - 14:07

Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

Guest Sat 17 Jan - 14:39

Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 294124

Guest Sat 17 Jan - 14:49

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

hmmm, so did mr jerry and its wife. FACT. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

Judge Dread Sat 17 Jan - 16:42

Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Not Born Yesterday wrote:What it boils down to is that we are all entitled to our opinions on this and any other subject.

I'm not sure if there's any point arguing further one way or the other on this one.

ah yes, the war cry of the mob. insofar as your opinions break no laws, you carry on. as for any point? no, not really. the police have stated there will be no criminal charges relating to the brenda leyland incident or to put it another way, sky and martin brunt have broke no laws and did no wrong. get over it.

Brenda Leyland also did not break any laws yet she was unjustifiably hung, drawn and quartered by SKY News...

fortunately for you no one is likely to prove you wrong and sky were justified in pursuing the story, a story that has its origins in one gerry mccann as i have said already or didn't you read that far back?

So, because Gerry McCann stated that internet Trolls should be investigated and prosecuted by the Police, you think SKY News was justified in choosing to pre-empt whatever the Police might decide to do by jumping to it and deliberately selecting, targeting and ‘outing’ Brenda Leyland without any warning.

Then, every hour on the hour, unremittingly ‘outing’ her and using her as an example.

By any stretch of the imagination, that was a reprehensible act that is not only immoral, but fundamentally wrong and unjustifiable.

Oh, and make no mistake, if SKY News had done anything like that to the McCann’s, they would have been Carter Rucked in double quick time… Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sat 17 Jan - 17:48

Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Not Born Yesterday wrote:What it boils down to is that we are all entitled to our opinions on this and any other subject.

I'm not sure if there's any point arguing further one way or the other on this one.

ah yes, the war cry of the mob. insofar as your opinions break no laws, you carry on. as for any point? no, not really. the police have stated there will be no criminal charges relating to the brenda leyland incident or to put it another way, sky and martin brunt have broke no laws and did no wrong. get over it.

Brenda Leyland also did not break any laws yet she was unjustifiably hung, drawn and quartered by SKY News...

fortunately for you no one is likely to prove you wrong and sky were justified in pursuing the story, a story that has its origins in one gerry mccann as i have said already or didn't you read that far back?

So, because Gerry McCann stated that internet Trolls should be investigated and prosecuted by the Police, you think SKY News was justified in choosing to pre-empt whatever the Police might decide to do by jumping to it and deliberately selecting, targeting and ‘outing’ Brenda Leyland without any warning.

Then, every hour on the hour, unremittingly ‘outing’ her and using her as an example.

By any stretch of the imagination, that was a reprehensible act that is not only immoral, but fundamentally wrong and unjustifiable.

Oh, and make no mistake, if SKY News had done anything like that to the McCann’s, they would have been Carter Rucked in double quick time…

In a radio interview, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that the dossier had been handed to the police by "the family." I guess we are left to wonder if Hogan-Howe assumed we'd all know which family. If the dossier had been handed to the police, would the police have passed it to Sky News? I doubt it very much. So, who gave Sky News a dossier that was in the hands of the police? And if Brunt believed that there was a police investigation, why did he think it was OK to stalk and then doorstep Brenda Leyland? There are serious questions here, one of the most important being why Sky News was potentially interfering with a police investigation.

interested Sat 17 Jan - 18:15

As "AnnaEsse" has pointed out there are VERY "serious questions here".

Guest Sat 17 Jan - 20:12

interested wrote:As "AnnaEsse" has pointed out there are VERY "serious questions here".

no, there aren't and the inquest won't go anywhere either. get over it. if brenda leyland is your martyr then you're howling at the moon.

Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

Guest Sat 17 Jan - 20:44

oh, and just in the interests of discussion, judge dread is a schoolboy. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**Claudia79** Sat 17 Jan - 21:28

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

**AnnaEsse** Sat 17 Jan - 21:29

Marky wrote:
interested wrote:As "AnnaEsse" has pointed out there are VERY "serious questions here".

no, there aren't and the inquest won't go anywhere either. get over it. if brenda leyland is your martyr then you're howling at the moon.

Marky, the object of this forum is to discuss issues, giving our opinions. If all of the issues presented here as topics had already been decided by a court, we wouldn't be discussing them. If you have no intention of expressing an opinion, other than being rude to people, please stay off the topic.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 0:01

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
interested wrote:As "AnnaEsse" has pointed out there are VERY "serious questions here".

no, there aren't and the inquest won't go anywhere either. get over it. if brenda leyland is your martyr then you're howling at the moon.

Marky, the object of this forum is to discuss issues, giving our opinions. If all of the issues presented here as topics had already been decided by a court, we wouldn't be discussing them. If you have no intention of expressing an opinion, other than being rude to people, please stay off the topic.

well well well. who'd a thought it. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 6:14

Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 10:26

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 10:29

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 10:32

Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 10:50

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum.

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 11:09

Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum.

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then.

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 11:18

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum.

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then.

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

could mean anything. means something different to me. Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 11:21

Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Whatever is deemed to be on topic and not libelous, immoral, illegal or offensive to other members prevails here. Sarcasm and snide remarks as comment do not.

we're discussing the media not this forum.

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then.

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

OFF TOPIC COMMENT REMOVED. PLEASE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OR LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 11:27

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then.

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

OFF TOPIC COMMENT REMOVED. PLEASE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OR LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

okey doke. what are the 'serious questions' you refer to page 7? Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 11:31

Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

ah, sarcastic and snide emoticons are okay then.

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

OFF TOPIC COMMENT REMOVED. PLEASE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OR LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

okey doke. what are the 'serious questions' you refer to page 7?

I am quite sure you are intelligent enough to work that out for yourself.

Guest Sun 18 Jan - 11:43

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky, rolly eyes meant to imply that I am close to the end of my tether.

OFF TOPIC COMMENT REMOVED. PLEASE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OR LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

okey doke. what are the 'serious questions' you refer to page 7?

I am quite sure you are intelligent enough to work that out for yourself.

in which case i've come up with none. just because you don't like or agree with something doesn't make it wrong.

Brenda Leyland Inquest - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Sun 18 Jan - 11:55

Topic locked for the moment because it's going nowhere.

**Claudia79** Sun 18 Jan - 14:25

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Here in Portugal Sky wouldn't be able to air those images unless they had authorization from Brenda. Or they could air them but in a way that she couldn't be identified (blurred face and distorted voice, for example).

there are many in this country who would see our press subject to the same restrictions and more, most of whom are politicians for reasons we can guess.

And unless there's a criminal charge in question, then it's the right thing. Especially if we're talking about people who aren't public figures. Here in Portugal no one can tape you and air images of you if you don't consent. If anyone does that, then they're breaking the law and they can be sued.

Well, aside from the obvious, whatever is deemed to be in the public interest prevails.

Not when there are laws which go against that. Not all is fair.

Sponsored content