Brenda (sweepyface) on FB

I don't know why you are being like this Marky.


Your either trying to wind people up.


Drunk..or


Insinuating that she deserved to be outed by Brunty and has faced the consequences for speaking her mind.

All of us here speak our mind on the case.

Some of Brenda's comments were in language that I wouldn't have used but I agree with most of what she said.

Do we deserve to be "outed" in that fashion, Marky?

Mind you, if you are like your avatar - brandishing a knife - you'll be safe!

Marky wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I need to say much other than to point out it is somewhat laughable to see a supporter of Hacked Off trying to justify media intrusion when it suits.

kitti wrote:I don't know why you are being like this Marky.


Your either trying to wind people up.


Drunk..or


Insinuating that she deserved to be outed by Brunty and has faced  the consequences for speaking her mind.

nope and nope. kitti, i think she was naive. probably lonely and thought this would help her connect. didn't realise that there were consequenses. there are always consequenses. she ended up on a list. the rest we know.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:All of us here speak our mind on the case.

Some of Brenda's comments were in language that I wouldn't have used but I agree with most of what she said.

Do we deserve to be "outed" in that fashion, Marky?

Mind you, if you are like your avatar - brandishing a knife - you'll be safe!

it's plastic.

Marky wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black...

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I need to say much other than to point out it is somewhat laughable to see a supporter of Hacked Off trying to justify media intrusion when it suits.

i got no truck with hacked off but we're not talking about some z list nobody caught with his hands down someone's panties in the back of a black cab. this is a story. ms leyland claimed she was entitled to an opinion. brunt was entitled to investigate. it's how it works. if you don't like the rules then don't play.

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black...

don't flatter yourself huckleberry. you're not in my league.

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

margaret wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

It's all well and good for Sky News to report on someone who was charged, fined and/or jailed, but Brenda wasn't charged, fined, jailed or even cautioned by the police.

The fact the police had not acted meant that Martin Brunt was confronting and terrifying a woman who had broken no law and so, under those circumstances, what Sky News and Martin Brunt did was wholly inappropriate, disproportionate and completely unacceptable...

Oh, and the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant...

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

margaret wrote:

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.

It's all well and good for Sky News to report on someone who was charged, fined and/or jailed, but Brenda wasn't charged, fined, jailed or even cautioned by the police.

The fact the police had not acted meant that Martin Brunt was confronting and terrifying a woman who had broken no law and so, under those circumstances, what Sky News and Martin Brunt did was wholly  inappropriate, disproportionate and completely unacceptable...

Oh, and the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant...

brunt was following up a legitimate news story. ms leyland, who looked anything but terrified, claimed she was entitled to her opinion. brunt was entitled to investigate. that's how it works. that you don't like it is irrelevant. now, if you have anything else that i might find remotely worthy of comment then fire away. if not may i suggest twitter, hashtag mccann i believe. you can amuse yourself there.



ps. did you ever sum up the courage to confront payne over that silly gaspar statement? no, didn't think so.

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

It's all well and good for Sky News to report on someone who was charged, fined and/or jailed, but Brenda wasn't charged, fined, jailed or even cautioned by the police.

The fact the police had not acted meant that Martin Brunt was confronting and terrifying a woman who had broken no law and so, under those circumstances, what Sky News and Martin Brunt did was wholly  inappropriate, disproportionate and completely unacceptable...

Oh, and the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant...

brunt was following up a legitimate news story. ms leyland, who looked anything but terrified, claimed she was entitled to her opinion. brunt was entitled to investigate. that's how it works. that you don't like it is irrelevant. now, if you have anything else that i might find remotely worthy of comment then fire away. if not may i suggest twitter, hashtag mccann i believe. you can amuse yourself there.



ps. did you ever sum up the courage to confront payne over that silly gaspar statement? no, didn't think so.

Why would I go anywhere else when I can amuse myself here with you... You're already rattled.... And this time round, Marky, you haven't the Administrative power to make me go away...

Okay, that you won't like this is truly irrelevant...

Ms Leyland was absolutely entitled to her opinion and to share it with others. Brunt doorstepped her, which is a classic bullying tactic designed to knock people off their guard. However, when Brunt asked her if he could talk to her about her tweets, she had the presence of mind to give him an emphatic 'no'. Not just once, but several times. And that should have been an end to it. But no, he continued to chase and harass her and even told her that the police were investigating her which frightened her enough to respond.

And just how did Brunt get hold of this 'legitimate' news story he was 'entitled' to investigate? How did he find out her name and address? Certainly not from the police. Perhaps you would care to elucidate...

Oh, by the way. I don't really care if you think this worthy of your comment. Rest assured however, your posts will most certainly be worthy of mine...

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black...

don't flatter yourself huckleberry. you're not in my league.

You're right, I'm not... I'm a league or two above you...

Roy Greenslade: "The unusual aspect in the Sky News case is that it took place during a live broadcast. Although Brunt did not reveal Leyland’s identity or the location of her home, her face was, of course, seen on screen. That’s identification enough."

This is the problem with Brunty's vigilantism. Had he not approached Brenda on live TV, I suspect she would still be with us today. She was not a psedo-celebrity like the McCanns, nor had she committed any crime, so she did not deserve this harassment.

Even if it was a legitimate story, Brunty could have behaved in a more professional manner. Besides, what is crime-correspondent doing reporting on a non-crime?

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black...

don't flatter yourself huckleberry. you're not in my league.

You're right, I'm not... I'm a league or two above you...

you deluded twat.

jinvta wrote:Roy Greenslade: "The unusual aspect in the Sky News case is that it took place during a live broadcast. Although Brunt did not reveal Leyland’s identity or the location of her home, her face was, of course,  seen on screen. That’s identification enough."

This is the problem with Brunty's vigilantism. Had he not approached Brenda on live TV, I suspect she would still be with us today. She was not a psedo-celebrity like the McCanns, nor had she committed any crime, so she did not deserve this harassment.

Even if it was a legitimate story, Brunty could have behaved in a more professional manner. Besides, what is crime-correspondent doing reporting on a non-crime?

That's the bit I just don't get. Brunty has never demeaned himself by behaving like that before, not ever. If it had been the guys from Rogue Traders or something I could have understood it. But it's such a departure from Brunt's usual jobs that I just can't understand why he did it at all.

Well he had plenty off time to think about it and back off.


It wasn't decided on the spur off the moment either...she had been stalked and watched before she was pounced on.


They had to get the right person, they had to be right otherwise 'outing' the wrong person would cost .


She was also followed AFTER she was 'outed', look at the clothes she had on so...she MUST off been followed to that hotel, the press must off known and they must off waited for her to come out...


We know Leicester paper went to her house AFTER she was outed and she wasn't in...and we know the neighbours were worried about her because she hadn't been seen for a couple off days, how must they be feeling, will her closest friends speak out, prob. Not, after all, look at the way Brenda was treated , can you blame them for NOT speaking out, no.


Poor Brenda..

Please could someone give me a link to where I can "like" Katie Hopkins remark about the McCanns? I gather there are about 20,000 "likes" at the moment and I would really like to make that "one more" but don't know how to!

Cherry1 started a "condolence book" in the thread "Brenda Leyland". It would be lovely if lots of people could sign it and, who knows, one day it might be possible to send a copy to her son, Ben?

Does anyone happen to know what Brenda Leyland's profession was before she retired? Also her husband's before she was divorced/separated?... or how long ago they split up. I'm pretty sure she was living alone at the time she was doorstepped.

comperedna wrote:Does anyone happen to know what Brenda Leyland's profession was before she retired? Also her husband's before she was divorced/separated?... or how long ago they split up. I'm pretty sure she was living alone at the time she was doorstepped.

I'm pretty sure MB knew she would possibly be alone too!

He wasn't going to 'risk' a man coming out to 'stand' by her, was he?

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

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

Pot, kettle, black...

don't flatter yourself huckleberry. you're not in my league.

You're right, I'm not... I'm a league or two above you...

you deluded twat.

Well, that was rude and unnecessary... Just like you, Marky...

Another great blog post from Johanna:

All in the Family

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-family.html?spref=tw

And another great one from Anna:

Brenda Leyland: hounded by the media and the real "trolls."

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/brenda-leyland-hounded-by-media-and.html

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Pot, kettle, black...

don't flatter yourself huckleberry. you're not in my league.

You're right, I'm not... I'm a league or two above you...

you deluded twat.

Well, that was rude and unnecessary... Just like you, Marky...

unnecessary? not at all. you're a cheerleader and that's being polite. personally i prefer the word groupie. your function was to blow air up whoever's ass you were attracted to. to feel loved and important. to be part of the crowd. you hooked into whatever topic was in fashion and sucked up to those who were driving it for forward and on those few occasions you actually felt big enough to offer an opinion it was like watching someone open their mouth and see their brains fall out. and then they all went away and like the sheep you are, so did you. and now you're back. two days and all you've done is troll me. i can't believe it. trolled by a comic book character. so be it. if you are able to offer a rational, logical or intelligent contribution then you go right ahead but i've stopped holding my breath already. so, to put it in a manner even you couldn't fail to understand...

shove it.

Very interesting article on this blog ( open to comments)



http://margerrisons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/rest-in-peace-sweepyface.html



The C.O.N.


Welcome to my cult...


Direct link to twitter: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison
Direct link to podcast: http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...



Rest in peace @sweepyface




Dehumanisation is often the starting point of cruelty. Nazis didn't see Jews as human, that's how they could throw them into ovens. Slavery in America worked along similar lines, people were treated as cattle because they were labelled "niggers", a word used to denote someone who was not quite "one of us", not quite a person. Religions do this kind of thing a lot, in Islam it's "kuffar", in Judaism it's "goyim", in Christianity it was "heathen".


In a modern context the word "troll" does the same. This was how @sweepyface, the Twitter handle of Brenda Leyland was described. She was "doorstepped" by Sky News who then ran a headline which implied she was 'evil'. After this she was then thrown to the infamously unjust court of public opinion as she featured in a variety of print media such as, The Independent, The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Star, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail and The Guardian. All mentioned her unpleasant tweets relating to the McCann family and, in my opinion, prejudiced any chance she ever had of a fair trial. Should the matter have gone to court, which is now impossible because she's been found dead in a hotel room not far from her house.








Imagine a picture of you there with the word "evil" above it.


The many opinion pieces since her TV appearance bemoaning "trolls" had already annoyed me. A casual glance at the Sunday papers left me with the impression pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry with a platform in the mainstream media was moaning about how terrible it is ordinary people like her suddenly seem to think they also have a right to express personal views. In the past newspaper columnists used to aspire to be "the voice of the people". Nowadays many of them are upset by the fact that position is filled as "the people" now have a voice, thanks to the net.




Brenda Leyland never agreed to become a public figure. I don't know why she'd decided to post her thoughts anonymously but I respect that she did. And so should you, if you value hearing the thoughts of others. Many cannot speak freely under their real names in the UK because their employers or others would punish them for doing so. Anonymity protects their right to free speech.

In theory her privacy was invaded by the mainstream media because they decided the public good would served as a result. Even before her death that was obviously not the case as most of the public had never heard of @sweepyface. In practice I suspect Sky wanted some lively footage to go with their "investigative journalism". There cannot be many who think her online voice was so powerful she needed to be unmasked. Most of the newspapers concerned probably wanted to republish a cheap story which involved little effort to reproduce. Furthermore all of them will have likely been driven by a conscious or subconscious need to attack their most dangerous competitor, the online public and social media.




Some don't realise the state commercial media is falling into. They still buy this idea that The Sun can swing elections and Murdoch controls your mind. It's a convenient myth for all concerned but the reality is that many of our newspapers are facing bankruptcy because journalism is not profitable. I believe it won't be long until the so called mainstream media will be impossible to point to as its audiences are eclipsed or surpassed by outfits which are purely online enterprises.






If this happens poorly thought out "doorstepping" like this may well become routine. I can imagine a world where people are regularly confronted by strangers for daring to express their controversial views. Humiliations and punishments will also likely be meted out and recorded on camera but I suspect they will be worse than a few questions. Already people's home addresses and personal details, alongside specific threats, are frequently published online in an attempt to silence. That's a trend likely to continue. The police must start focusing on actual harm like that rather than debating what is and is not "offensive" or "politically correct" in a free speech society.




The ins and outs of the McCann case are available elsewhere. They were cleared in court of any involvement in their child's disappearance. To me their story seems so unspeakably sad that I've avoided reading too much about it. I know my limits when it comes to expressing a view and the sad story of two people searching for their missing child is one of them. Losing a family member like that is not something I can pretend to relate to.




Partly I suspect a lot of the hate aimed at them is a backlash to the huge level of press and media generated by their search for Madeline, for a while pictures of their missing child's face were ubiquitous in the UK. A new reality in our modern world though is that for every big story in the mainstream there will be a counter narrative waiting for you online, should you choose to look hard enough. In the main, what I've seen is a lot of people who go with the "well, I'd never leave my child out of my sight for even a second" line. It seems like a self-satisfied, inane way to comfort yourself with the thought tragedy only befalls those who deserve it. It's probably easier to deal with the story if you think like that. However, although unpleasant, it's not an opinion forbidden by law.




Most of the further speculation goes beyond opinion and introduces, often unsubstantiated or deeply questionable, "facts". Either which way allegations such as those, with unexamined or unsubstantiated "evidence", once published should be examined by the law of the land alongside those who are making them. This is how investigative journalism used to work. If you could prove an allegation you would publish it in the hope of taking the matter to court. Why should the internet not also work like that?




The right to a fair trial is an aspect of the UK which its citizens both have a right to be proud of and a duty to defend. In civilised societies the court of public opinion is not where justice is done. That's why we have a judicial system with concepts such as "the burden of proof" and "innocent unless proven guilty". In searching for their daughter Madeline, the McCanns have become public figures. That won't have been an easy decision to make. In a sense this has turned them into people who cannot expect to avoid unpleasant criticisms. However, there's a legal line and clearly some comments published about them appear to have crossed it. It's been reported police have been given a dossier detailing abusive remarks and death threats aimed at them on Twitter, Facebook and in online forums. That must be looked into.



Serious advocates of free speech understand specific threats and unsubstantiated harmful allegations are not covered by it. If someone is making threats online or passing on libelous information it seems right to me that the law should get involved. However, Brenda Leyland was not confronted by Her Majesty's police. Instead she was being tried by the court of public opinion and during that process she was found dead. If you think this a shameful fact you may wish to retweet her son's tragic reaction to the news on his social media feed:
As far as I'm concerned she is innocent unless proven guilty and now that's no longer possible. Her death is not being treated as suspicious. Before she died she already had my sympathy.

Nick Margerrison.

FURTHER READING:

Sky News's editorial guidelines are here.

They have this to say on "door-stepping":

"Any invasion of privacy – such as secret recording or ‘door- stepping’ – must be warranted, usually by demonstrating that the amount of public good that will be delivered by broadcast and/or publication of the story will outweigh the intrusion." ...

They were cleared in court of any involvement in their child's disappearance

Oh yes, when was that? I must have blinked and missed it.