Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police Part 2

Nick ‏@xxxxxFernxxxxx 3h3 hours ago
@MsLeFaye @1matthewwright1

Brenda Leyland was murdered ?? Where has this been confirmed ? #mccann
11:52 AM - 11 Oct 2014 · Details

Or maybe Brendas death was the plan all along, to scare off other investigators and to 'make an example' of, as Gerry Mccan said, thus giving the go ahead for more internet control. Maybe Pamela is a real fruit cake who, along with other fruit cakes, went all vigilante and finished Brenda off themselves.

Mirror

Tragic death of Twitter troll Brenda Leyland does not mean we shouldn't investigate online thugs

Oct 11, 2014 21:20  CaroleMalone

Sunday Mirror columnist Carole Malone says it is more important than ever that we expose vile online trolls for what they are

Brenda Leyland took her own life just days after she was confronted for posting abusive tweets about the McCanns.

Her death was tragic and shocking. But does it mean those hard core trolls who spew out lies and filth on Twitter should not now be exposed?

Surely it’s more urgent than ever because now we know trolling costs lives and it’s many victims now want the bullies reined in and in the worst cases prosecuted.

Because if we allow this tsunami of hatred on social media to continue there will be more deaths with victims AND abusers taking their own lives.

In my column last week I asked what had been going on in Brenda’s Leyland’s head – why for four years she had obsessively been tweeting vicious messages about Madeleine’s parents.

I asked was she sad or lonely or did she got some kind of twisted kick from hurting this broken family.

Only Brenda Leyland knows that. Only Brenda knows why she took her own life. Nothing I said impacted on her as she was dead long before my column was published.

But the fact remains the media has a bigger responsibility than ever to expose this kind of bullying and to try and minimise the harm these people do.

And so we have to balance tackling those who may be unstable with our duty to expose vile and totally unacceptable behaviour.

And it IS vile and totally unacceptable to threaten people’s lives and relentlessly abuse them.

Brenda Leyland didn’t threaten anyone’s life.

But this year alone it’s reported she sent 2,136 abusive tweets about Kate and Gerry McCann – some days up to 50. And since 2010 she’s sent a staggering 4,625 almost all of which were about them.

(Access link at end of this article for short video report

She knew that was wrong and she said she regretted it. And I believe she did because some trolls don’t connect the abuse they dish out anonymously on Twitter with real world or real people.

But for their victims it’s devastating.

Brenda Leyland was catapulted into the public eye for just two days as a result of her tweets about the McCanns.

But they have been hounded and viciously abused for SEVEN years. As have many others. Yet the trolls refuse to accept that’s wrong.

They call their vicious missives “my opinion” when it’s actually online thuggery.

I’ve had a taste of that thuggery this week, the kind of depraved abuse the McCanns and others have been dealing with for years.

As a female journalist it goes with the territory. But it cannot be the case these bullies and cowards – often hiding behind false names – can terrorise people without legal consequences.

And as tragic as Brenda Leyland’s death is police and journalists cannot be expected NOT to confront those who have threatened murder or been vicious for fear they might kill themselves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tragic-death-twitter-troll-brenda-4422995#ixzz3FuDWrX00
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook  

anon357 Today at 11:59 am

Marian wrote:
There have been intermittent problems on all forums in the last few weeks due to Forumotion updates.

This was different Marion, I was looking at a thread and everything went white. I could reopen the home pge but not post on any thread and so I tried to pm a couple of names I recognised quickly.
I seem to have blotted my copybook yet again after being accused of spying last night. I do hope poor Brenda didn`t get that response.
It is all too much for me to cope with now so Im out.

Mods please remove all my posts and close my account. If this isn't the correct way to do it sorry.
I was bloody terrified.

Comments:  
1.  I smell WUM-ming troll......no-one can be that dumb. Can they?

2. Terrified of what, exactly?

3. That post is very revealing.

Either this person who joined that site precisely a month ago is a WUM and has been playing them for a particular reason (nothing to do with T day I don't imagine) or that person is so ashamed of the authorities, media, family, friends etc. finding out that he or she is a member there that they have become terrified of anything a bit out of the ordinary, even knocks at the door.

Either way, doesn't look good having such rubbish plastered across the forum does it?  

4.  If memory serves, that's the loony that accused Pam Gurney of bumping off Sweepy the Troll.

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 2m2 minutes ago
If an attempt is made on me life like has been threatened people KNOW where to look @Cerb32 #mccann

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 3h3 hours ago
I politely invited you announced to my home to attempt to stop it - but it didn't fit your agenda did it ? Any of you?@Cerb32 #mccann trolls

Iris wrote:
She was neither a troll nor unhinged.
And there's now twitter evidence that she was being stalked by members of STM - who DO have proven links to the McCanns - as far back as February.
But don't worry. It's all been put in another "dossier" and passed on to the Coroner.

The Suppressionals ‏@1matthewwright1 41m41 minutes ago
@martin_liz you should get in touch with the coroner & tell them the #mccann cult M O...#sweepyface @IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Liz Martin ‏@martin_liz 39m39 minutes ago
@1matthewwright1 @IWILLNOTGOAWAY No problem, have #McCann
Expand

Re: An open letter to the compiler of the infamous dossier,
Post margaret Today at 7:03 pm

LG wrote:
Message in my "others" FB account....

"Pamela Gurney

Because I am not on the public domain.

I dpoubt any of you will be for very much llonger."
7th August 2014

pmsl xx

That needs screensaving and sending to Scotland Yard LG.

I don't find it funny in light of Brenda's death.

ETA: not getting at you, just saying.

tigerloaf » Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:47 pm
You really could not make it up and expect anyone to believe it.

I have just seen the most wonderful example of numpty "research" in action.

A plonker on the Not Bennett forum has anonymously compiled an open letter which begins with the claim

"Much has been written lately about the vile practice of hounding people via social media and, quite rightly."

and has then done precisely that within the letter.

This plonker has described his or her own activity as a "vile practice", has shown us that he or she is guilty of doing precisely what he or she complains about. Stupid or what?

And on top of that this plonker is, within a matter of just a few hours of posting the letter, freely admitting that he or she is not even sure that the letter is targetting the person who they claim it is targetting.

The perfect example of hounding and trolling all laid open for all to see on the forum which Bennett claims not to administrate.

They make a mockery of themselves. Its beautiful to watch.

ps The reliance of another plonker, on the same thread, on Spivey's claim that there is nobody in the dossier who has committed any crime is the icing on the numpty cake. How in the name of all that is holy would he have had access to the dossier to be able to pontificate about its contents?

pps A little birdy tells me that the original plonker is 100% wrong in his or her allegations but don't let that little fact get in the way of hounder "research" and troof.

Exposing troll was the right thing to do

I DO NOT buy into this idea that Twitter troll Brenda Leyland should have been ignored instead of exposed.

By: Camilla TomineyPublished: Sun, October 12, 2014

There have been calls for Martin Brunt, the Sky News reporter who outed her, to be sacked after she was found dead in a hotel room two days later.

Talk about shooting the messenger.

Yes, Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son. The solution is not for victims to simply grow a thicker skin.

Should Stella Creasy, the Labour MP who was threatened with rape for supporting a crusade to have women featured on the new £10 note, just have shrugged her shoulders and got on with it? Of course not.

Trolls like Leyland publish these online diatribes precisely because they have been able to get away with it for so long. Even Creasy said the police did not take the harassment seriously at first because it was happening online rather than in person. She was one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to her high-profile position as a leading politician, her perpetrator, Peter Nunn, was jailed for 18 weeks last month.

However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to justice then the task inevitably falls to journalists like Brunt. Some have criticised his decision to target Leyland because she did not actually threaten to kill the McCanns, unlike other trolls. But she did send thousands of hate tweets. Some days she would send more than 50 messages attacking the McCanns.

Had she hurled this abuse at the couple in the street, she would have been hauled off in handcuffs. Instead she continued to publish with impunity, safe from scrutiny at home in Burton Overy, just 15 miles from where the McCanns live in Leicestershire. Yes, these were the acts of an obsessed loner but "being an oddball" is not a defence to this sort of criminal behaviour.

Which brings us to Leyland's state of mind. As the inquest has not yet been carried out into her "non-suspicious" death, it would be wrong to pre-empt the coroner's verdict. But why has there been so much focus on Leyland's mental health and not the McCanns'? I cannot imagine they have been faring well psychologically since three-year-old Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz in 2007.

There is an old adage that you should not dish it out if you cannot take it back.

We are all responsible for what we say, and that includes on social networking sites. What goes online, stays online. These words do not just disappear into the ether once you press "post", they are preserved for eternity.

A "Sack Martin Brunt" Facebook page has been set up in Leyland's memory which has already attracted more than 1,000 likes. While I feel sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one, what are her supporters trying to achieve? Brunt was not trolling Leyland. All he did was reveal her identity. I hope he exposes as many others as possible.

Speaking after she was confronted, Leyland admitted: "I regret what I've done". She might have lived a lie but at least she died with the dignity of finally being honest with herself. Her death will not be in vain if it finally makes trolls think twice before tweeting, serving as a reminder that they are only ever a mouse click away from being unmasked.

 The mass media is jumping to conclusions that Brenda's death will be classed as a suicide.

Well, it's more sensible than jumping to the conclusion that she was either:

1. Involved with Brunt and the police in some ridiculous, complicated 'false flag' and is currently in hiding till she is produced as a star witness to....something or other, some stupid conspiraloon nonsense.

or

2. Murdered by an enraged Pam Gurney.

And yes, both of those scenarios have been suggested by hounders.  

I have my own challenge for Mr Murray.

I would like him to respond to the claims of Denise Thompson, aka Syn0nymph. Over the years she has claimed:

Murray and his journalist friends all believe the McCanns are guilty as sin;

Murray offered her money in a brown paper envelope to get him a copy of the (nonexistent) 'first' FSS report;

She reported this fact to Grange (18 days later)

Murray asked her to ask Grime to bring the (dead) dogs back to the UK to do some dodgy 'searches'.

Now she's in touch with him again, so she claims, as he publishes a mendacious pile of offal about a troll no one had ever heard of.

Comments, James?

As far as I am concerned, she threw her life away for - nothing, just her entitlement to secretly spread hate and lies about the family of a missing child.

She had a life many, many women would give their right arm for, and it counted for nothing. Not her family, not her animals, nothing mattered. Her supposed 'Christianity' went no further than skin-deep.

She didn't end her life to save others, she wasn't, as far as we know, suffering some terrible illness. She was doing something nasty and got caught, and left her family with a God-awful mess rather than face the consequences, or even defend herself.

And now she's a martyr? I don't think so.

Rothley Pillowcase™ ‏@RothleyPillow 3h3 hours ago
THANX to tweeple who pointed out #McCann "dossier" WATERBOARDING tweets > But alas > I'm miffed! > THEY WEREN'T MINE! :- (( Maybe next time!  

 Online abuse and the law

This post relates to online abuse and the current state of the law - given recent developments it may be handy to have a basis for discussion.

The law relating to this is complex and undeveloped, with little modern case law as yet. But it may be helpful to try to make some sense of all this:

In law, you can distinguish between

(a) real, identifyable people. (e.g. The McCanns, Amaral, Bennett etc)

(b) Those who are anonymous, and hide behind a username (e.g Sweepyface, Biretta, Stephen2500, Wonderfulspan, jean-pierre).

And also between

(c) Combatants (for want of a better term ) - those who actively participate in discussions online on twitter, facebook, blogs, forums etc - e.g. those in (b) and those in category (a) who do engage in online activity. (e.g. Bennett, and those whose real identity is revealed

(d) Non Combatants - those who do not engage in online stuff - e.g. The McCanns, Amaral.

Of course the boundaries between these can get blurred, but for the sake of this they will have to do.

In law, while someone is identifyable only by a usename, they cannot suffer injury. i.e. J-P can call Stephen2500 or wonderfulspam or biretta whatever he wants, and accuse them of whatever he likes, with no consequences at all in law. So getting exercised about Vee's posting is not correct - at this point. There is no criminal or civil action that can be taken.

All users must be aware that they may be identified. Maybe by being "outed" But also their ISP can be forced to reveal details of the user, where there is a possibility of civil or criminal action.

So people in categories (b) and (c) can go at each other hammer and tongs, if they so wish. In fact some forums have a sort of "rumpus room" where anything goes.

But as soon as they start on categories (a) and (d) they run a serious risk of falling foul of the criminal law, or of facing action for defamation.

Of course, once someone is actually unmasked, they may themselves then fall into both category (a) and (c). At this point they may be able to take action against those abusing them, and invoke a criminal complaint or a civil action. However, their own posting history would be considered, and the principle of volenti non fit injuria (to he who is willing no harm can be done) will come into play, and so someone with a vitriolic posting history who is subsequently unmasked and identified would be unlikely to succeed in any legal action.

Which underlines the sense of only posting things online that you would say face to face.

Forker:

I just can't get over the fact that Martin brunt hasn't even apologised or sky news hasn't even apologised on his behalf.

Comments:  And why should they? What exactly is it they imagine Sky has done? Are they absolutely, 100% sure that Sweepy wasn't expecting Brunt, hence her lack of surprise when she found him on her doorstep?

Brunt neither named her, nor her home town. The Mail did that. I don't follow the tedious minutiae of Twitter, so I hadn't a clue who she was. The first time I saw her name was after a fellow-hater named her.

I understand that she had previously been tweeting under her own name, and her FB hate posts were certainly in her own name.

So again, what is it they imagine Sky did?

It might be a good idea for them all to show some respect for the deceased's family, to stop exploiting her death and generally STFU. The whole story will come out at the inquest, and it's guaranteed that the haters aren't going to like what they hear.

And that it will bear no resemblance to the bizarre scenarios and ridiculous conspiracy theories they've invented.

Correction. Brunt and Sky did make one mistake.

Brunt didn't drag Zoe Pillock kicking and screaming into daylight and rub her nose in her endless threatening tweets about waterboarding, the obscenities she spews, and how she'd be f****** gutted if Madeleine was found alive.

Kadaver Kate ‏@BigPhiIIyStyle 17 mins17 minutes ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY Oh give it a fekcing rest. YOU don't get to decide who remains anon and who doesn't. Idiot. @LarryPKay #mccann

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 16 mins16 minutes ago
Shut up & type @BigPhiIIyStyle @LarryPKay #mccann

Kadaver Kate ‏@BigPhiIIyStyle 13 mins13 minutes ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY Take your own advice you hysterical twat. STFU imbecile. @LarryPKay #mccann

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 36 mins36 minutes ago
If you had spoken to Brunt would they have gone for Brenda ? @veniviedivici @MsLeFaye @B_balou #mccann

pleb-nobby-Lobby ‏@veniviedivici 43 mins43 minutes ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY @MsLeFaye @B_balou go away, in short jerky movements !

Offline Benice
Executive Member
******
Posts: 2865
Newbie

Re: Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police
« Reply #607 on: Today at 04:27:13 PM »

Quote from: carlymichelle on Today at 03:18:08 PM
mcann supporters are hypocrites they love the mcanns but hate everybody else yet call us [censored word]

If that's what you think then why do you read their posts? No-one forces you to. There are other forums where you would never have to read a single word in support of the McCanns - and so wouldn't have to spend your time insulting posters because they happen to have a different opinion to yours.

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 3h3 hours ago
You're an execrable liar @PortugalBound you better watch out what you say I've zero patience for your duplicitous & defamatory games #McCann

Joe Skerratt ‏@JoeSkerratt 3h3 hours ago
@xklamation @PORTUGALbound ooooh look at that, another nasty threat from pro #mccann aren't you a lovely bunch.

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 3h3 hours ago
Wake up! Ask your friend @JoeSkerratt » @PORTUGALbound why did she have a pro troll account @kiki_barnes that she recently deleted? #McCann
View conversation Reply Retweet Favorite M

Lady LeFaye ‏@MsLeFaye 3h3 hours ago
@xklamation @JoeSkerratt @PORTUGALbound wait, what? > @xklamation < is this factual? #McCann
The Suppressionals ‏@1matthewwright1 3h3 hours ago
@MsLeFaye I was told who Kiki is & it isn't Isabelle #mccann @xklamation @JoeSkerratt @PORTUGALbound
Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 3h3 hours ago
It was her! having a pro account 4 whatever reasons wasn't the worst. I'm seriously fed up of people who play games @1matthewwright1 #mccann

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 3h3 hours ago
Search her twitter cache - how she threatened to beat Kate #McCann @JoeSkerratt @PORTUGALbound http://greptweet.com

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 14m14 minutes ago
@inspireme55 She used 2 be @portugalonline until sky news exposed @sweepyface then changed 2 @portugalbound Her pro #Mccann was @kiki_barnes  

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 4h4 hours ago
Online Troll Sentenced For Assisting Suicide http://news.sky.com/story/1353835/online-troll-sentenced-for-assisting-suicide …

Seeking justice ‏@justice4maddie 3h3 hours ago
@SkyNews How dare you ? have you forgotten what #mccann puppet did to #BrendaLeyland under your orders? Shame on you

I thought they agreed with kh assessment that her death was due to the mccanns not saying they were negligent. Apparently if the mccanns had said this then Brenda Leyland would not have spent every waking minute posting diatribe about them including posts claiming Madeleine was Lolitaish and posts addressed by name directly to the twins, would not have visited their village to spread her bile, would have had a fulfilling life, not been a divorcee whose husband married another woman, would not have been estranged from her son and living thousands of miles away from her other son and instead of dying alone in a hotel room she would have spent her son's birthday surrounded by her children and grandchildren hand in hand with her husband! Yes of course its the mnccanns fault that didn't happen.

Its sad that Brenda Leyland felt she couldn't continue her life, but its not the fault of the mccanns or anyone elses except Brenda Leyland herself and to some extent those that encouraged her by feeding her lies about the family.

'A Twitter printout is a witness which will never lie . . . the internet has a long memory'

Internet trolls who think they can get away with spouting abuse online should think again, according to a top Manchester media lawyer.

Steve Kuncewicz, head of intellectual property and media at law firm Bermans, says people who post vile comments online can fall foul of a number of laws - and courts are duty bound to take offences seriously.

He said victims who feel their reputation has been tarnished could also sue in the civil courts for defamation.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “You cannot stop people from voicing their opinions, but there is a very fine line between voicing an opinion and abuse, which is something that courts will take very seriously.”

Trolls could fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which prevents people from pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment.

They could also be found to have breached the Communications Act 2003, which prevents the sending of a message that is ‘grossly offensive’, or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

It is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to send messages to another person which are ‘indecent or grossly offensive’, threatening or false.

Any indecent or grossly offensive message could be considered under this act as an offence if it causes distress or anxiety to the recipient, or ‘any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated’.

Anyone who is found guilty of malicious communication could face jail for up to six months or a fine.

Trolls could also fall foul of offences under terrorism legislation and of inciting racial harassment.

Just last month, a man was jailed for 18 weeks after he sent abusive Twitter messages to Labour MP Stella Creasy after she campaigned to put Jane Austen on the £10 note.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “When there have been a few high-profile cases, perhaps the public will start to take notice. That doesn’t seem to be happening at the moment.

“People need to realise that, in the eyes of a judge, there is very little difference between what you say online and what you say offline.

“The witness that will never lie is the printout of what an offender is saying to a victim on Twitter.

“They are creating their own chain of evidence for the prosecution. The internet has a long memory.”