Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police Part 2

Alison Chabloz ‏@Alison_Chabloz 24 mins24 minutes ago
@czarkaztik It irks me that Brenda is still being criticised for tweeting about #McCann s, writing to PM, etc. Why shouldn't she have done?

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2629697/exposed-mccann-troll-was-mired-in-loneliness/?cs=2388

Exposed McCann troll was mired in loneliness By ELIZABETH GRICE Oct. 18, 2014, 2 p.m.

Brenda Leyland was found dead after being outed as an obsessive Twitter abuser of Kate and Gerry McCann, but her case confounds stereotypes.

We know enough about trolls to realise that they are not a uniform bunch of internet thugs and it is unwise to lump them into one category of nastiness.

There are the wicked, the criminal, the drunk, the disinhibited, the sad, the obsessives. Early this month, the pitiful case of Brenda Leyland, who was found dead in a Leicester hotel soon after being unmasked as a remorseless online abuser of Kate and Gerry McCann, overturned even the broadest understanding of what the constituency of trolling really is.

There is an incontinent sort of viciousness that goes with attacking people from the anonymity of a Twitter account. No-one in the neat village of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, suspected Mrs Leyland had a cruel bone in her body, let alone the sort of mindset to pursue a vitriolic campaign again the grieving parents of the missing child, Madeleine McCann.

A likeable, churchgoing woman of no obviously strong views, she seemed more interested in gardening, photography and quizzes than any solitary obsession with tweeting. She also had a passionate, innocuous leading role in the village's annual scarecrow competition.

Yet, hiding behind the alias @sweepyface, she insinuated that the McCanns were implicated in their three-year-old daughter's disappearance during a family holiday in Portugal in 2007 - a theme that had obsessed her for four years. According to the website BuzzFeed, she was sometimes posting more than 50 tweets a day, even on Christmas Eve, from 7am until midnight.

She claimed the McCanns were trying to silence their critics. The accusations were not original but her turn of phrase was blithe and deadly. "You will be hated for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day!"

When Mrs Leyland was confronted by Sky News about her campaign of hate, her vituperation shrivelled like a pricked balloon. She mumbled about being entitled to say such things and said she hoped she had not broken the law. Soon after, she went to ground. Now she is dead. It looks certain that the two events are connected and that she could not live with the ignominy of being a named troll, suddenly outed, suddenly herself the target of torrents of abuse.

Brenda Leyland, nee Shevlin, was born in Stockport, Lancashire, the daughter of Colin Shevlin, a squadron leader in the RAF, and his wife, Doreen. As a girl, she had attended the Convent of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in West Sussex, and studied at Goldsmith's College, London University. Her marriage to Michael Leyland, a company director, ended around 2000 and he remarried in 2002.

To say that Mrs Leyland, a 63-year-old divorcee with two grown-up sons, did not conform to the image of the half-literate troller who spits poison as a reflex compensation for lack of self-esteem, is an understatement. She fitted well, if unobtrusively, into the village life of Burton Overy. She was outwardly sociable, with an element of loneliness and disappointment in her life that had intensified with age and the breakup of her marriage - and she developed such an obsession with the McCanns that almost all the 4625 tweets she sent from December 2010 were about the case, many taking issue with their supporters.

It was an industrious hidden life. Emboldened by disguise, she shared the assumption of all internet trolls that she could say anything she pleased without being held accountable. As Professor Mary Beard told the London Daily Telegraph when she was campaigning last year against misogynist trolling: "Anonymity has disguised the nature of authorship. It has allowed these evanescent creatures on the web to blast off without thinking of the victims. Somehow no-one in this conversation is real. They are just names."

Mrs Leyland tweeted triumphantly at the height of her persecution: "You can move to France, anywhere, but social media is everywhere! Our memories are long, Maddie deserves it.

Her message seemed mild compared with some of the foul-mouthed stuff that has continued to rain down on the McCanns - but there was menace in it, too. Questioned by Sky News reporter Martin Brunt, she said she was "entitled" to tweet as she did - though her justification, without the protective cloak of anonymity, sounded far from confident.

Brunt, one of the most respected television reporters in the business, was invited into Mrs Leyland's house and spent time talking to her about her concerns over the McCann case off-camera. Inevitably, he has himself now become the victim of trolling, with a Facebook page set up under the title "Sack Martin Brunt".

What he could not have known when he approached her was the personal tragedy behind Mrs Leyland's confessed obsession. She was estranged from her eldest son, Daniel, and never spoke of him. Saturday, the day when her body was found in Leicester's Marriott hotel, was Daniel's 37th birthday.

A neighbour said: "Deep down it must have hurt that he cut his mum out of his life. Whether that made her anti the McCanns, who seemed to have a very loving, supportive and happy family, we will never know. We were friends but grew apart, she was a one-way ticket. She could be quite nasty and controlling.

"When Madeleine first went missing she used to go over to her home village all the time. She used to go to the local pub and the shops telling everyone what she thought about the family. It seemed very odd behaviour."

Mrs Leyland's younger son, Ben, 30, lives in Los Angeles where he works for a law firm. He posted a brief emotional tribute on Facebook saying: "I love you mum and I will miss you forever. I am love and I am light, thanks to you."

In the absence of the one person who seemed to value her, such village friendships as she had sound poor substitutes for meaningful family life. Mrs Leyland's mother died in 2004 and she had distant relations in Australia, but few in Britain, other than her estranged son. A friend described her as "lonely beyond belief".

A neighbour in Burton Overy whose son is a friend of Mrs Leyland's son, Ben, said: "I just can't understand why she would have posted those things. No-one in this village can. But then, for her to take her life is even more inexplicable. She just packed her bags and took off."

Another villager suggested the threat of being unmasked and prosecuted was overwhelming.

"She was a proud, very bright articulate and upstanding lady and the thought of a prison sentence hanging over her would have devastated her. Sadly, she couldn't live with herself."

London Daily Telegraph

I was just thinking about that. I wonder if she would have felt shame or simple annoyance at being found out.

After all, she said she was entitled to post the abuse she posted.

And from what was quoted of the private conversation her main concern was that she would not be prosecuted.

The fact is the woman had no qualms whatsoever about posting vile hate abuse.

She had no qualms whatsoever about posting disgraceful libelous allegations about former Prime Ministers (even admitting within the tweets that she had no other evidence of their truth than that she read about it on the Internet).

It is tragic that by entering so enthusiastically into the online community of hateful McCann abusers she eventually came to a position where she felt she had no choice but to end her own life. It is tragic for her sons and other family that she could not face them and sort out the problems her online activity had brought her (possible prosecution and certain villification by neighbours and friends).

But for the anti McCanns now to attempt to claim her as a martyr to their hate, for Rosalinda Hutton to suggest that she will walk around London with a banner round her neck proclaiming that she is Brenda Leyland, for Bennett to suggest a flood of anti haters should silently mob the inquest, well, the fact is that they don't have a shred of decency. They don't even understand their own crucial role in the tragedy.

Whether Brenda Leyland felt shame, remorse or was just sickened by the thought of being exposed as the abuser she (in the end) knew herself to be, she does not deserve to be further used by the disgusting ghouls who daily continue the same hate campaign which led to this tragedy.

Those who are trying to blame Brunt for doing his job should look at themselves and their direct involvement in the death of Brenda Leyland. Who was egging her on? Who was providing her with the flawed "research" on which she based her abuse? Yes, Bennett, yes Hutton, yes Brown, yes, Morais; you are far more guilty than the journalist who exposed the filth, libel and sick abuse which made up Brenda Leyland's online output.

I had no idea of the extent to which there are people fighting over fights on social media. They are all claiming that they are being stalked. No wonder the police cannot cope.

Total strangers becoming obsessed with each other online. He said, she said....

Utterly sordid

That is why the police must deal with two priorities.

The first is the online posting (FB, Twitter or any other form) which suggests direct and immediate threats to the victim of the abuse. That is the most important priority but, and this cannot be emphasised enough either as a matter of law or as a matter of morality, that is not the only involvement the police must have. Few are involved in this among the anti-McCanns but any who are should be dealt with immediately.

Their second priority must be dealing with organised campaigns of harassment or cyber-bullying. And the specific priority within this must be the targeting of the ringleaders of such bullying and harassment. There are a number of people who have taken on the mantle of organisers of hatred of the McCanns. We know of people like Joana Morais, Lizzy Taylor, Frances McCarthy/Gallagher, Tony Bennett, Rosalinda Hutton, Pat Brown. Be they in this country or elsewhere the police should become involved. But there are others who have specifically made themselves leaders of the hate campaign too. All those FB admin can easily be traced (even the fools who post there under fake IDs) and they should be tracked down and dealt with. I am perfectly prepared to assist the police in any way I can as a citizen to ensure that those who post this abuse are dealt with by the laws which are available and in making sure that the media are aware of the depths of depravity which these people have permitted on the sites they have organised and encouraged. There are others more, cowardly or less intelligent, who have nonetheless also been encouraging the hate for years and have been deliberately instrumental in causing distress to both the parents of Madeleine and have even stated that their intent is to distress her siblings. Among these are people like Sean Hyland who was unable to justify his actions to the press, JillyCL, the RothleyPillow freak and others. They should also be dealt with as soon as possible.

It is my belief that the officers of Operation Grange are pursuing investigations into a wide range of people and are liaising with police and organisations in other jurisdictions and that the media are following these investigations very closely indeed. The story of online abuse is now becoming massive because the public actually despise those who choose to spend their time attacking others online and the press are not going to hold back from the big headlines as soon as they feel the time is right.

 I, personally, am now convinced the McCanns handed that dossier to police.

Wonder what the police investigation into Brenda's death will make of it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/columnist-1033629/Rachel-Johnson-The-Mail-Sunday.html

Rachel Johnston equates internet goons to muttering nutters who sit upstairs on buses. She says they should just be ignored.

In the main, I would agree with her, but not when there is an organised group of them who have conducted an orchestrated campaign of abuse and harassment against you for years which includes posting photos of your house, your children and your address along with suggested scenarios on how best to hurt you.

One big problem which Johnson does not touch upon is that you can SEE muttering nutters on buses and therefore ascertain how much of a threat they are likely to be. You can choose to get off the bus and not see the muttering nutter again. Also if that muttering nutter DI bcome violent, the police would take action without question. It is much harder to get away from internet abusers and you have no way of knowing how much of a threat the abusive online stalker is - especially when they claim to be male, angry and watching you.

There is also a big difference between one anonymous personna making threats against another anonymous personna. The threats are unlikely to be carried out when they haven't a clue who each other really is. But when the anonymous abuser targets a known person, it must be terrifying. You can leave your house and have no idea whether the person making the threats is the man in the supermarket or the woman at the bus stop. That is the terrorism aspect of it.

There is also a difference between two people going hell for leather at each other on social media. They have both chosen to be there. The McCanns are not on social media (good grief, can anyone imagine if they were?). They do not put themselves and their opinions "out there". The haters have chosen a soft target for their campaign of abuse, and one which has thus far offered little defence against their actions. It is therefore despicable that the haters not only abuse this family day in and day out, but express outrage at the very notion that the McCanns might dare to complain about this obscene and often threatening abuse which understandably causes them fear and alarm.

What kind of mindset thinks like that? That they can literally TERRORISE a family for years, but consider that the family have no right to defend themselves or complain about it? These are the very people who would immediately run to police if anyone threatened them. I am constantly reminded of those school bullies who hound their victims until the victim eventually tells someone in authority. When challenged, the bullies are invariably furious that the victim "got them into trouble". They take no responsibility for their own actions and will always blame their victims for "snitching" when they are caught and dealt with.

TREACLE ‏@TREACLEW12QPR 5h5 hours ago
Why didn't @KTHopkins or @SoniaPoulton mention #BrendaLeyland her death after @skymartinbrunt @MailOnline trolling
#mcann what was the point

Challenge Gov't ‏@ChallengeGovUK 5h5 hours ago
@TREACLEW12QPR Have you read this, TREACLE? https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/523839988161855488 … @KTHopkins @SoniaPoulton @skymartinbrunt @MailOnline

TREACLE ‏@TREACLEW12QPR 4h4 hours ago
@ChallengeGovUK @KTHopkins @SoniaPoulton @skymartinbrunt @MailOnline I watched it but no mention of Brenda x

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 4h4 hours ago
@TREACLEW12QPR I was told this has now become a legal issue so to discuss it on there would be prejudice. I mentioned mccann and dossier

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 3h3 hours ago
sorry you were disappointed @TREACLEW12QPR but I am disappointed when people leap without checking why. As I said legal now @ChallengeGovUK

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 3h3 hours ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK for my part I am involved in something that will remember Brenda.

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 3h3 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK DEAD Brenda is DEAD.Disappointed in you & Katie as both saw threats sent by pro #mccann trolls

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 3h3 hours ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK be disappointed, you don't know what I am doing, I have expressed feelings about Brenda

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 3h3 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK You did not today - I am disappointed by both of you.Who silenced you? Didn't see reply #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 3h3 hours ago
@IWILLNOTGOAWAY @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK who are you to me? I answered you and that is enough. You are missing things

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 3h3 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton @TREACLEW12QPR @ChallengeGovUK I'm nothing to you , you didn't answer & I will be riveted awaiting pro to be aired ! #mccann

 Re: Police investigate McCann trolls
Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:13 am

BL admitted on and off camera to a online campaign against the McCanns. She was quite proud of it and said she was 'entitled' to do it. She didn't deny it. Her tweets..etc are on record. Now we know that she also took her campaign into real life, by going to Rothley and spreading her 'gospel' about the McCanns to their village community.

The day of the broadcast, her fellow trolls were so disappointed at her failure to defend herself and her failure to attack the McCanns on camera, that they accused her of being a 'plant'; a Sky News actress, of being a 'pro' all along, and one of them said she was a 'nobody' who clearly knew nothing about the case. In other words, they turned on her, betrayed and abandoned her.

Now, to add insult to injury, they are going to bombard the Coroner with their insane ramblings (as if the Coroner were the editor of the Leicester Mercury :rolleyes: ) which will confirm to her just how deeply BL was involved within this trolling community.

I'm guessing within those insane ramblings will be the claims that BL was 'bumped off' (as many of them are now claiming) by MI5/6 or the illuminati, to prevent her 'talking'. That will go down well with the Coroner and her family.

Added to that - Bennett's call to flood the inquest with her fellow trolls - to show she was not a troll :s_fool

All the trolls will achieve is showing the Corner that BL was associating with some very unhealthy and unhinged people online, and found herself dragged into an online community dedicated to harassing, abusing and inciting hatred against the family of a missing child.

Round-up of hilarious hounder and hater stupidity:

Gem from pretendypete:  
Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"
Post PeterMac

Does anyone know if anyone has collated a list of the foul insults and threats which have emanated over the years from the McCann supporters on Facebook and Twitter ?
We know that several accounts have been cleared or shut down recently, so is there a central depository of what has been going on anywhere. ?

If not, perhaps that might be a good Thread to start.
No comments - just screen shots and pasted copies of what the McCann supporters have been doing. with or without the consent, payment, direction or whatever of anyone !
And available to the Coroner, the Police, and to all the world to see the sort of people who attach themselves to the McCanns,
and from whom neither the McCanns, nor Mitchell, notably ever distance themselves. !
I wonder why not.

Lady Farq-Hall ‏@LadyFarqHall
#MCCANN So Sonia, where did you get all of this information? From JillyCL hey? - JESUS CHRIST!! #forgetitthedealsoff

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Hello @JimGamble_INEQE I'm doing #mccann documentary & would like to interview you. Serious rumours surrounding your involvement to address.

JillyCL ‏@JillyCL 16m16 minutes ago
@czarkaztik @Twittwoonic @SoniaPoulton @justmebeingme4 @JimGamble_INEQE
Sunday Times yesterday said #McCann s handed the dossier to police.

Hounder:

What makes Jim Gamble such a staunch supporter of the McCanns?

What makes Jim Gamble write tweets about online abuse of the McCanns?

Hounder:

Did Brunty's team know what time Brenda Leyland would emerge from her house? or did they just take a chance on turning up unnoticed in a very small village and lie in wait with a pile of televisual equipment and a van?

Well actually we don't even know if the dossier names anyone, Tigerloaf.

   Facebook screenshots would show an account name but as far as I'm aware the twitter stuff need not have identified anyone. Brunt happened to use as his 'doorstep' someone that could be discovered, as you say, by a Google search. That suggests he didn't have other real identities to go on.  

Tigerloaf:  An excellent point which I had not considered. You are absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing to confirm that the dossier offers any real identities. It is merely supposition on their part (more of that guesswork for which the numpties are famed).

However, I will say that I would have no problem whatsoever if the dossier did contain names and identities of people collected from their own public presence on the Internet. I would heartily applaud anyone who went that far as it would only be of assistance to the police and media and would save both time and tax-payers' money.

And I would suggest to the numpties who are so annoyed by the dossier that they have absolutely no reason to worry if they are absolutely certain that they have committed no crime. If someone is identified (either through their online ID or their easily found real ID) within the dossier but there is no evidence of any wrong doing by that person then the fact is neither the media, nor the police are going to do anything about that person. But, if as would appear in the case of Brenda Leyland, the dossier contains clear evidence of abusive behaviour or worse, then the media and police will hopefully expose every single person involved. The funny thing is that these people do seem very perturbed by the dossier and that suggests that they know the media and police may have good reason to follow up what has been presented to them. Interesting times ahead for all those who were in that dossier and cannot be sure they have not done anything wrong online.

Thankfully I know that there is not a single thing anywhere online for which I can ever be "exposed" by the media or investigated by the police. The worst that could ever be said of me is that I have stood up for law, decency, better control of the Internet and the prevention of online abuse and I would, quite frankly, be proud to be known for that. Can the numpties say the same? Are they certain that nothing they have posted will cause the media to look at them and "expose" them? Can they be certain that they have not been part of an illegal campaign of harassment of innocent people? I wonder?

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda
Post Ristretto Today at 5:23 pm

Let's not kid ourselves. Though Brenda Leyland wasn't what you might accurately call a troll, though she wasn't the most profane of tweeters, what she posted wasn't nice and I wouldn't find it acceptable if somebody was posting that kind of stuff about me online.

She did imagine kicking Gerry in the head and she did post slurs against Brown and Blair which were very likely to get her in trouble. While I think Sky hounded the woman with their day long torrent of video and speculation about her, I don't think we should forget that she admitted being sweepyface and that sweepyface was no angel.

And, yes, I know this opinion will probably get me a lot of criticism here but I don't think we should avoid telling the truth.

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda
Post juliet Today at 7:28 pm

What Brenda Leyland said about ***** and ***** is common knowledge. It is all over the internet. It didn't justify Brunt and his Sky lynch mob, any more than her oft-repeated suspicions of the McCanns and their backers did. However the powers-that-be are anxious to shut up all doubters and dissenters.

What are the antis on about?
Someone saw threats etc being posted online and copied them and handed them to the police. That's perfectly legal and moral regardless of who sent it in. There is no evidence it had anything to do with the McCanns but who could blame them if they did report it to the police. I would have reported it.
Secondly these postings were all made publicly so the media had every right to be sent them too. The media had every right to do a report on it, isn't Bennett always claiming the case is of huge public interest ( although he doesn't seem to know the difference between something in which the public is interested, and something which is on the public interest). Investigative reports is what the media do.
As for targeting Brenda Leyland, she contacted the sky reporter directly via twitter using an account that she used to have in her own name. Even with just knowing the name sweepyface it takes minutes to find her real name, address,number etc.

 Who, what, why: What laws currently cover trolling?



Internet trolls could face two years in jail under new laws. But how does the British legal system currently police online abuse, asks Tom de Castella.

The sending of rape threats to Chloe Madeley is the latest disturbing case of trolling. Now the government says it will act to put trolls in jail for two years.

Nick McAleenan, a media lawyer at JMW Solicitors, says there are three main ways that trolls are prosecuted at the moment.

In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety". Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland. Sean Duffy was jailed under the act for 18 weeks in 2011 after he made "grossly offensive" comments about children who had killed themselves. Then there's the Communications Act 2003 which applies across the United Kingdom. It covers threats but often overlaps with the 1988 act, McAleenan says. It was used to jail a man who posted offensive messages aimed at the families of Jade Goody and John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog.

The third Act is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which deals with stalking both on and offline. It applies in England and Wales, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar legislation. It can be pursued in both civil and criminal courts. It might have been used to prosecute Brenda Leyland, who killed herself after she was revealed to have sent up to 50 tweets a day about the parents of Madeleine McCann. It might be argued that what she did could also have been prosecuted under libel law.

The police are often reluctant to get directly involved in online stalking, McAleenan says. But recently there has been a rise in the police issuing warnings - known as a Police Information Notice - to suspected trolls.

Critics sometimes question the balance between enforcement and the right to free speech. It can be a fine line. When someone on Twitter accused Tom Daley of letting down his dead father by not winning gold at the London Olympics, the police made an arrest, apparently under the 1988 act. And the 2003 act was used to convict a man who made a joke about blowing up Robin Hood airport in 2010. It was later quashed after a campaign backed by comedians. McAleenan believes the current laws are sufficient. The problem is a lack of resources, and the need for further education of the public and police about what constitutes an offence.

Hounder:

Brunt/Sky and the Murdoch empire terrorised Brenda, putting her details out in public, leaving her at the whim and mercy of any vigilante group or threat of retaliation for something she had not even been accused of, tried and proven guilty of.  

Scoobydoo: People who ask questions want answers, people who spend every waking minute inviting hate and spreading lies about strangers occasionally with a question mark have no interest in answers as these hinder their hate campaign. This is why people like Brenda Leyland actively tried to stop people giving or reading answers and went so far as to try to sabotage a book that answered each question the antis have ever had about the cases and debunked their myths.

Jayelles: That is true - they did try to sabotage the book which answered the questions and they don't listen to answers given in reponse to their questions when they aren't the answers they want to hear. And yes, Sweepyface was involved in the sick little campaign to sabotage the book via the review system. She and her pal Isabelle Mcfadden evidently thought it would be good fun to do that. They also joined forces to target the McCann creche nanny. I hope she went to the police.

I don't know how many times Jim Gamble has answered their questions about how the Mccanns were in possession of the (100% publicly available) CEOPS manual and yet they STILL keep asking about how they came to have these "secret" manuals and how Jim Gamble is "in on it" because he is refusing to answer their question.

I've seen him clear this up on numerous occasions, but they seem to feel entitled to attack him because he has better things to do than waste time explaining the same thing over and over to ever eejit who demands it. I think he is very patient with them. Jim Gamble is a really good man and he is highly respected. The people who attack him are wasters who aren't fit to lick his boots.

Chinagirl: You are so right, Scooby. None of the so-called"sceptics"/haters are interested in answers to the questions they occasionally ask. They are only interested in maintaining their hate campaign against the parents of an abducted child.

The answers to their questions have been available since July 2008 in the released Portuguese files; in the Attorney-General's final report; in statements by the re-opened Portuguese investigation; in statements from the SY investigation. The have CHOSEN to ignore what these law enforcement bodies have stated; they have CHOSEN to vilify innocent people; they have CHOSEN to believe the lies propagated by the disgraced Amaral, legal lack-brain Bennett, foolish Liz Taylor and others including conspiracy nutters; they have CHOSEN to spew hatred in their online activities; they have CHOSEN to grovel in a moral cesspit. It is time they paid the price.

Here's a thing. The current top meme with the haters is, Oh, we can't talk about the McCanns, it's evil Orwellian nazi censorship!

Have any of them ever asked themselves WHY they imagine they are entitled to talk about a family of total strangers 24/7/52? Why do they even want to? Have they nothing else in their lives, no other interests, or are they all like Ms Leyland, obsessed with the McCann family to the point of madness?

Far from being Sceptical Truthseekers, as they imagine themselves to be, they're more like deranged groupies, with their obsession with the McCann family and their hero-worship of a disgraced ex-cop, and would, IMO, be well-advised to seek help from mental health professsionals.

I have heard today that a number of people have contacted Leicester Police to ask them to be vigorous in their investigation of the hounders in the dossier passed to them by officers of Operation Grange and I hope others do likewise.

I also saw today that some hounders and haters have taken the word of a journalist in one of Murdoch's papers that the McCanns passed the dossier to the police. That was not how it was initially reported. Personally, I doubt very much any involvement of the McCanns for the simple reason that they have no history of using or interacting with social media.

But whether it was the McCanns or as I believe simply one or more persons who having researched the available material over a period of time felt that there were crimes being committed against the McCanns does not really matter at all. It is the duty of anyone (victim or witness) to report crimes and to provide the Police with as much detail as they can of what they have endured or witnessed. Richard Madeley has rightly provided the police today with a full dossier of the online attacks on his family.

The hypocrisy and warped mentalities of the hounders and haters is once again demonstrated when they try to suggest that the handing over of the information whether by the McCanns (highly unlikely) or by another person or persons, when they try to suggest it was wrong. At the slightest indication of any reporting of their hateful abuse they scream that they have reported the 'sbuse' to the police, that they have crime numbers to prove it (though they never ever show evidence). They lie about reporting pro McCanns to the police because they know that there is nothing to really report or they maliciously waste police time with idiotic reports which are laughed at.

Now that the reporting has been done about them and they know it has been done and that the real police (not those imaginary ones they refer to so often) are actually investigating all the people named in the dossier, they have suddenly decided that reporting abuse is not appropriate. That its tantamount to destroying free speach (sic) etc.

They are warped people who simply don't like living now with the fear that they could well receive a knock on the door any morning not from a journalist (though that remains possible) but from a uniformed officer with a warrant and the intention of removing their computers and with a list of questions to pose under caution.

Tough. They chose to take part in the campaign of hate.

How many of them can say with absolute certainty that their online activity has not crossed the line and that they have not committed any offence (either by inference, by collaboration with others or by posting libel or by deliberately attempting to harass the McCanns or their friends and supporters? I am 100% certain that there is nothing I have ever posted which could bring a police officer to my door. Even when I have called Bennett a legal lackbrain and a buffoon, I have provided clear-cut evidence of why those comments are valid and truthful. That is the key. So many hounders and haters rely on third-hand accounts and simply repeat them. That's stupidity.

Hounder:

What has Brenda left to benefit the greater good after her death? Her research about this case, perhaps? Or the revealed bullying that led to her death being used to turn a corner en route for justice?

Mario H. ‏@CrazyHorser 6 mins6 minutes ago
@xklamation Surely you don't mean to use a dead woman's name to pursue your agenda? #mccann

Jencalo_Amoral ‏@TheJENReturns 3h3 hours ago
@basilandmanuel @nikki2777 @Randomleigh1 @smashytashy1 @SafariSara ~ ah Pillow has gone? Are police getting their accts shut down? #mccann