'The Mail' Mentions Brenda In Article On Internet 'Trolls'

The 'Mail Online' reports that the Government has decided to raise the maximum prison sentence for Internet 'Trolls' from 6 Months to 2 Years.

The question is - will this new sentencing & 'clampdown' be used to try to silence anyone in the UK who questions Gerry & Kate's claims about
Madeleine being 'Abducted'? (Or to try to silence any other views that the UK Government does not approve of?).

In its report the 'Mail Online' says this about Brenda:,

"Earlier this month, 63-year-old Brenda Leyland, who subjected the family of missing Madeleine McCann to online abuse, was found dead in a hotel after being confronted outside her home by a Sky News reporter.

Mrs Leyland was one of a number of trolls who compounded Gerry and Kate McCann’s distress by abusing them on social media. One tweet read: ‘#mccann To Kate and Gerry, you will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!’

Mr McCann commented at the time: ‘Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people charged.’"

Link To The Entire Article:,

http://goo.gl/RNm1fn
.

Does this mean because I don't believe and dislike the McCanns I will get two years in prison?  I guess I had better hire an extradition lawyer here in Canada pronto before I am "charged".

will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!’



Brenda never wrote that or is the the Mails interpretation off how THEY feel


Oh...and Brenda is dead, she can't stand up for herself

Hiya kitti, I wondered when I saw what The Mail said. I wonder if her son, who is a lawyer in the States, will take action on her behalf.

interested wrote:Does this mean because I don't believe and dislike the McCanns I will get two years in prison?  I guess I had better hire an extradition lawyer here in Canada pronto before I am "charged".

I think it's 2 years prison for agreeing with the original police investigation. Seem to be the biggest crime in UK these days.
Never mind that mccanns try to ruin the police officer too.

UK has became a medieval McKingdom.

I too fear that the ruling would only apply to people who do not believe the official story of controversial events.

Lot of folk unhappy about this... These are a few of the 864 Mail comments.

Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me........Apparently not!
ReplyNew00Click to rate

NODDY, North East, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
The original victim is surely the victim here ???
ReplyNew00Click to rate

Richard, York, 1 hour ago
I'll believe when it happens, joins a long list of government promises that never happened.
ReplyNew00Click to rate

NODDY, North East, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
How does this even hit the news -- unless you are rich and famous ??
ReplyNew00Click to rate

The Red Arrow, What was Cheshire, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
It's a bit of a stretch to call Chloe Madeleine a celebrity
ReplyNew00Click to rate

Snix08, London, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
OMG Chloe's law are you joking, all Chloe does is take half naked pictures of herself and live on the coat tails of her famous parents. What Judy said was bound to upset people, I don't agree one bit with threatening anyone with rape, but if the police want to target some trolls how about the ones that made the poor victims name public!
ReplyNew00Click to rate

Ce01, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 hours ago
Someone tell me how you police the internet? Please. It simply can't be done. There is pratically no way to tell who a message came from and where it was sent. UK or Siberia, you can't tell if it were in English. Scotalnd yard have over 50 people everyday trying to take terrorist messages and videos of the internet. Imagine how many people you would need 24/7 to make a difference on the internet probably 100,000 and over.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798573/crackdown-cyber-mobs-poisoning-britain-sentence-web-trolls-quadrupled-two-years-shocking-high-profile-online-abuse-cases.html#ixzz3GcfQib3A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


The McCann''s and the Madeley's are not getting the sympathy vote at all. In fact, quite the reverse...

And if doorstepping poor Brenda and outing her as a Troll was originally designed to garner sympathy and thus help stop the tide inexorably turning against the McCann's then it's definitely not going according to plan,  imo...

I think I would have to ask the judge which is the poorer judgement? Not believing the McCanns or leaving three children alone while dining elsewhere?

interested wrote:I think I would have to ask the judge which is the poorer judgement? Not believing the McCanns or leaving three children alone while dining elsewhere?

Imo, disbelieving the McCann's is not poor judgement since their 'abduction' version of events has absolutely no basis in fact.

Leaving 3 very young children alone to fend for themselves whilst dining and drinking some distance away, on the other hand, is not only incredibly poor judgement but also inexcusable child neglect, plain and simple...

weissnicht wrote:

interested wrote:Does this mean because I don't believe and dislike the McCanns I will get two years in prison?  I guess I had better hire an extradition lawyer here in Canada pronto before I am "charged".

I think it's 2 years prison for agreeing with the original police investigation. Seem to be the biggest crime in UK these days.
Never mind that mccanns try to ruin the police officer too.

UK has became a medieval McKingdom.

The way things are going, it will soon be an offence to sneeze in the general direction of Leicestershire ......

The bandwagon jumping by RM is somewhat absurd. While the keyboard threats directed against his daughter are objectionable he pehaps should also have a word with his wife. His missus is free to express a rather stupid and crass comment about rape being apparently dimished because the victim was drunk and the rape involved "no physical violence" (surely rape is physical violence whether it involves other injury or not) but others are castigated for equally stupid and crass reactions to her comments. If Judy's comments had been posted on Twitter they might equally have been regarded as "trolling".

Of course the real issue here is whose agenda is being pursued here? Let's face it the MSM (and in particualr the red tops) have been "trolling" for years but because it is in print it is not described as such.

I agree with your post, Chris.

Online threats of rape are worrying, yes.
But nowhere near as worrying as rape itself. Any invasion of someone's body without their permission is an act of violence.
And nowhere near as worrying as someone going on a public platform  and treating the subject of rape as if it were just an inconsequential pat on the head. What message does that give to those in society who just can't keep it in their trousers under any circumstances? And their damaged victims?

Way back,we can remember when Madeley labelled all those who criticised the McCanns as 'swine'.
The Madeleys have always been McCann sycophants, as have other Breakfast TV airheads. Indeed their most recent 'articles' have included a pathetic bigging up of S &S's dreadful book and a disgusting trashing of Portugal as a holiday destination. No surprise therefore that they jump on the 'troll' bandwagon which is also linked to the McCanns.

Ma Madeley DIDN'T HAVE TO air her barbaric views on rape on a tacky TV show.
Pa Madeley DIDN'T HAVE TO announce his reporting of the threats to the police in the papers.
Daughter Madeley DIDN'T HAVE TO defend her mother publicly, likewise.
But it's all PR column inches and if they can ride on McCann coat tails once again, all well and good, eh? Pfft.
In these times when 'celebrity' is favoured over genuine talent, this is the way that has-beens and wannabes manage their 'careers'.