http://citiblogmk.co.uk/2014/10/06/opin ... nds-death/

When I saw Brenda Leyland 'doorstepped' by Sky Reporter Martin Brunt on the news the other day, I remarked that she looked so ill and maybe Sky should have waited to see if the police would be investigating, and to see if there were medical problems. There seems to be more discussion now on whether she was an Internet Troll than her sudden death and in the few articles
I have read, I have only seen a mention in one of them that she had said later that she regretted what she had done. Also, that she had hoped she had not broken the law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... weets.html

If she said these things which could have amounted to a sort of apology and remorse, these facts surely should be given some space in the articles.

I don't condone the way she seems to have written. I have only seen the one which is being quoted because I have never looked on Twitter and I don't want to read the posts on there.

The above link confirms in the comments section the confusion which only fuels the fire of the discussion.


All I can see is that someone is dead, and we don't know yet whether there is a direct link.

Also, there is a lot of confusion about what Free Speech actually allows people to be able to say and where Libel comes into the picture. Also, confusion and differing opinions on what a 'Troll' actually is or does.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ll-mccanns


I

There were some good pieces in various papers about this today. The main conclusion seems to be that a lot of otherwise respectable people use what they think is the anonymity of the internet to say and do things they wouldn't dream of doing in real life. They never expect their online activity to merge with real life, and if it does - as when Sky turned up on Brenda Leyland's doorstep -it comes as a massive shock.

There's shock they've been found out, possibly horror at themselves at what they've done, shame that others will know what they've done and then the added fear of possible prosecution.

And while there was some sadness over the turn of events, the consensus seemed to be that no-one is to blame for what happened, except the poor woman herself. Certainly not the Sky reporter, who was doing his job and by all accounts, handled the situation with great sensitivity.

There are quite a few points I made, though, which were that, because Brenda Leyland looked ill, maybe he should have changed his mind about 'showing her up to the public' and waited until any medical reports were made if the police were going to investigate.

Also, that she had actually shown some remorse before she ended her life, (if she did). Maybe others would know if that was reported in any other articles except the one I happened to see in the Daily Mail. If so, then my comment that maybe more space should have been allowed for her remorse becomes less relevant.

My other points were about the confusion which seems to be obvious in the comments written by readers following articles. This confusion is on the subject of where Free Speech stops being a justification for horrible comments because of entering into the realms of libel.
The other confusion I meant was where people in the comments sections were discussing what a 'troll' actually is and whether Brenda Leyland actually was one of those people.

I have read many comments which were very interesting, seeing other people's points of view on the subject, besides what the journalists have written in the few articles I had a chance to read.

Maybe it is too early to decide who was to blame until we know the facts, but if the ending to the interview when she asked the reporter into her home resulted in someone with possible medical problems disappearing and ending her life, it is a terrible, shocking story.. But we don't know yet.

Lets hope the legacy of this needless tragedy is that everyday 'normal' people will be less likely to become bullies when sitting at their PC screens - but I doubt that will be the result

The web has offered society so many positive changes, but sadly some negative changes too. There is no place for bullying & harassment anywhere, and especially in the virtual world. Bullying via text or the net invades an individual's private space so makes it extremely personal (say, compared to a letter to a newspaper, or someone shouting abuse in the street)

Free speech is something we all take for granted, but with it comes responsibilities. Intentionally harming somebody in a malicious, unnecessary and anonymous way breaches those responsibilities - and in high profile cases you must expect to get burnt if you are playing with fire.

I do hope the Sky reporter was being sensitive, but this woman was bullying a couple who have almost certainly lost a child, and the bullying was about the same subject. What ever you feel about this couple (and I think they were negligent beyond belief that evening), they do not deserve the sort of personal and relentless attack this Twitter troll gave them

Its all very sad as surely there's already been enough grief and tears over the McCann case without this???

I agree.

Post now deleted. In this space was my description of a painful experience I went through which was relevant to tell at the time. Now, some time has passed and viewing has ceased, I feel it is time to remove what I had written. I am keeping a copy for future reference if required. Thankyou to those who read and I hope may have a better understanding now, even though complete understanding is impossible without a full story being related and this is not the place to do that, I believe.

Marian

Critics of the McCanns may have a valid point.

They themselves have never been good at handling this and tend to 'exaggerate' response. As has already been pointed out they were the ones who lefty the child on it's own when they went out on the pi$$. In the UK this would be called negligence.

Yes what this lady did was not pleasant but she may simply have been expressing an opinion if it was unlawful and that is a big if then the police would become involved and prosecute.

Both the OP's original links citiblog and the DM say these tweets contain no threats as such and although not nice simply expressed an opinion. I don't use or understand twatter but they apparently were also issued in hashtags which means they were simply put on the net (in much the same way as expressing an opinion right here) and not sent to the McCanns. Gerry McCann is on record in the DM as saying he never saw any of the material posted by this woman.

Sky were out of order. It is of no doubt that this doorstepping led to this woman's death. I would be interested to discover how Sky and Martin Brunt came by the name and location (and allegations of the woman in the first place as real laws may have been broken in the passing of that information.

Just something else which would have been before Leveson if it had happened earlier.

Also rather worrying that some names are put out there but when it comes to banking fraud and convictions identities are protected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rate.html



Luckily Russia Today have no scruples and have heavily implied that the Bank is Barclay's. They stop short of naming the individual though.

Deleted post as this was connected to the above deletion and explanation.

Thankyou again
Marian

Marian. Thanks for sharing this most personal grief, which I am sure is (thankfully) unimaginable to most of us

Words can be a mighty powerful tool/weapon when in the wrong hands

xxx for understanding. xxx

It was very hard to describe and relive a nightmare I have had no closure from.