Mccans "troll" found dead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781377/BREAKING-NEWS-Internet-troll-targeted-McCanns-dead-hotel-room-days-fleeing-home.html

There is one thing that really gets my goat about these stories at the moment. Its the statement "The trollers wrongly believe the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance."

Who said they were/are wrong in thinking the Mccans were involved. There is no proof or evidence either way and declaring something wrong does not make it wrong.

BEACAUSE ITS THE MCCANNS!

Because sphinx this is a case like no other.
Look at all the twists and turns and smoke and mirrorsC

. If this was a film it'd would be unbelievable.

Perhaps she was offed. Made to look like a suicide?

One thing is for sure; we will never know, just like we will never know what happened to little Madeleine.

There are times when I wish I could invent a time machine...........

Jack the ripper
Kennedy assassination
Madeleine Mccan disappearance

sphinx wrote:There are times when I wish I could invent a time machine...........

Jack the ripper
Kennedy assassination
Madeleine Mccan disappearance

Yes. If you do, please give me a text and I'll pack my bag and come with you!

eddie wrote:BEACAUSE ITS THE MCCANNS!

Because sphinx this is a case like no other.
Look at all the twists and turns and smoke and mirrorsC

. If this was a film it'd would be unbelievable.

Perhaps she was offed. Made to look like a suicide?

One thing is for sure; we will never know, just like we will never know what happened  to little Madeleine.

The McCanns are suspected Illiminatists. And supported by the establishment.

The Marriott is also owned by the Mormon church, who are also suspected Illiminatists.

I'm sure there'll be some interesting conspiracy theories popping up around the internet soon.

The Downing street cat farts and you get interesting conspiracy theories. Doesn't mean they are true.

I am not calling this death into question as social shame at being found out is a likely reason for suicide. I am simply asking how the DM can assert that those who think the Mccans involved in their daughters disappearance do so wrongly because that has not been ascertained.

Perhaps all free speech about this case should be banned?
No forums should be allowed to discuss it.

Or only ones that take the line thinking they had anything to do with it is wrong.

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781377/BREAKING-NEWS-Internet-troll-targeted-McCanns-dead-hotel-room-days-fleeing-home.html

There is one thing that really gets my goat about these stories at the moment.  Its the statement "The trollers wrongly believe the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance."

Who said they were/are wrong in thinking the Mccans were involved.  There is no proof or evidence either way and declaring something wrong does not make it wrong.

Eh?

It really gets your goat?
Well countless people have made an industry out of claiming they are guilty and that is okay, but the Mail is not allowed to claim they are innocent?
How does that work?

It works both ways, and like you they have as much right to state they feel they are innocent and also state if they think something is wrong, especially as in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, its called freedom of speech. You are basically contradicting your own argument, as what you are basically saying is they are guilty and people should not be able to state they are innocent (which technically by law they are) and show disgust at people who have hounded them for years.  I bet you would have had no issue if the Mail had turned around and said they were guilty. I have never seen you show such horror when they constantly bash minorities with no evidence on countless stories, does that really get your goat? What you are basically saying is the Mail is not also allowed an opinion on this, but other people are which is absurd.

This is also important:


Detectives have decided to act after being given a dossier from McCann family supporters which catalogues the abusive remarks - including death threats - aimed at the couple on Twitter, Facebook and online forums.

Are you saying the Police should ignore death threats?

Guys, watch out -- you're going to get us shut down by Scotland Yard for this!

Because, of course, that's what Scotland Yard does. They scour the internet for mentions of the McCanns, and shut down forums that contain contrary opinions. They only hire the finest police investigators to do this, of course, and those savvy folk are well-paid from UK public funds to investigate internet forums.

This has to be one of the best example of irony you will ever see from McCan haters:


Following news of the death, many Twitter users focused on Sky News, questioning whether the broadcaster was right to doorstep Leyland rather than leave the matter to the police.

A Facebook page was quickly set up entitled Sack Martin Brunt. The introduction to the page reads: "Martin Brunt should be sacked after stalking and hounding an innocent woman, leading to her tragic untimely death. RIP Brenda Leyland."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/05/sky-news-pilloried-on-twitter-following-death-of-brenda-leyland_n_5935860.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


You cannot make it up how bad their comments are and so much of a contradiction.
Now imagine the McCans or one of them took their lives due to being hounded, would they repeat the same statements in regards to the many people that have hounded them and made death threats?

Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Guys, watch out -- you're going to get us shut down by Scotland Yard for this!

Because, of course, that's what Scotland Yard does. They scour the internet for mentions of the McCanns, and shut down forums that contain contrary opinions. They only hire the finest police investigators to do this, of course, and those savvy folk are well-paid from UK public funds to investigate internet forums.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Guys, watch out -- you're going to get us shut down by Scotland Yard for this!

Because, of course, that's what Scotland Yard does. They scour the internet for mentions of the McCanns, and shut down forums that contain contrary opinions. They only hire the finest police investigators to do this, of course, and those savvy folk are well-paid from UK public funds to investigate internet forums.

Don't you put laughing smilies on this thread!!! SY will sniff them out and you will be seen to be mocking them!!!

JUST IN CASE SCOTLAND YARD DECIDE TO LOOK AT THIS THREAD......
ID LIKE THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THREAT THAT I'D RECEIVED FROM AN INTERNET TROLL:


[CONTACT] A BLACK CAB WENT KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Guest To eddie, Today at 12:47 am

Did an address get passed on Eddie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

Sender e-mail address: eddiecuntface@yahoo.co.uk

========

**the original is in the basement section along with the others I've been sent

Isn't it horrible when people threaten violence?
I do hope that the people who know this internet troll will have a little word in this person's ear.
Can't be seen to be condoning it surely?

Thank you in advance Scotland Yard.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Guys, watch out -- you're going to get us shut down by Scotland Yard for this!

Because, of course, that's what Scotland Yard does. They scour the internet for mentions of the McCanns, and shut down forums that contain contrary opinions. They only hire the finest police investigators to do this, of course, and those savvy folk are well-paid from UK public funds to investigate internet forums.

Only when they are not investigating computers being hacked!

eddie wrote:JUST IN CASE SCOTLAND YARD DECIDE TO LOOK AT THIS THREAD......
ID LIKE THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THREAT THAT I'D RECEIVED FROM AN INTERNET TROLL:


[CONTACT] A BLACK CAB WENT KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Guest To eddie, Today at 12:47 am

Did an address get passed on Eddie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

Sender e-mail address: eddiecuntface@yahoo.co.uk

========

**the original is in the basement section along with the others I've been sent

Isn't it horrible when people threaten violence?
I do hope that the people who know this internet  troll will have a little word in this person's ear.
Can't be seen to be condoning it surely?

Thank you in advance Scotland Yard.

Well it is threats of violence and death threats being investigated. Lets hope they make arrests very soon!

It's funny isn't it. But the people who protest the loudest about things often end up with egg all over their face.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781377/BREAKING-NEWS-Internet-troll-targeted-McCanns-dead-hotel-room-days-fleeing-home.html

There is one thing that really gets my goat about these stories at the moment.  Its the statement "The trollers wrongly believe the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance."

Who said they were/are wrong in thinking the Mccans were involved.  There is no proof or evidence either way and declaring something wrong does not make it wrong.

Eh?

It really gets your goat?
Well countless people have made an industry out of claiming they are guilty and that is okay, but the Mail is not allowed to claim they are innocent?
How does that work?

It works both ways, and like you they have as much right to state they feel they are innocent and also state if they think something is wrong, especially as in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, its called freedom of speech. You are basically contradicting your own argument, as what you are basically saying is they are guilty and people should not be able to state they are innocent (which technically by law they are) and show disgust at people who have hounded them for years.  I bet you would have had no issue if the Mail had turned around and said they were guilty. I have never seen you show such horror when they constantly bash minorities with no evidence on countless stories, does that really get your goat? What you are basically saying is the Mail is not also allowed an opinion on this, but other people are which is absurd.

This is also important:


Detectives have decided to act after being given a dossier from McCann family supporters which catalogues the abusive remarks - including death threats - aimed at the couple on Twitter, Facebook and online forums.

Are you saying the Police should ignore death threats?

Not what I am saying at all.
When my neighbour - and ordinary joe - declares Elvis was kidnapped by aliens, people in general take that with a pinch of salt and assume he does not know what he is talking about.
If on the other hand a major news organ like the DM were to declare Elvis had been kidnapped by aliens then a significant number of people in general would accept that declaration as fact and assume the DM knew what it was talking about. (replace DM with the name of any daily newspaper).

If you read my OP you will see I clearly state there is neither proof nor evidence either way - the Mccans could have been involved, they could be completely innocent. We do not know.

My problem is that papers are not saying they think the Mccans are innocent and presenting their reasoning but are instead saying that the people who think the Mccans were involved do so wrongly implying that the matter has been settled - which it has not. They would be fine putting "in our opinion wrongly" - but they do not.

Where have I said the police should not act on death threats - even I cannot follow your leap of logic from me stating papers should not declare as fact something that is still unknown you conclude I think the police should not act on death threats.

Incidentally my complaint with the DM here is consistent with my usual complaint - they are stating facts based on data that is a long way from conclusive.

No you are not, you are going off them saying it is wrong for the Mail to claim others are wrong, which they have very right to do and they do not have to present anything on why, as this has been over killed countless times whether they are guilty or not.
You are going off now how you assume a paper should run its stories, when they never concern themselves over many stories that are based on no facts but in many cases hearsay ad you only seem to care now on this story, fuck me, you do tell a good load of babble Sphinx


The Police should not act on death Threats?

WTF, call the loony brigade.


They are stating facts, are they guilty of any crime?

Nope

Didge wrote:No you are not, you are going off them saying it is wrong for the Mail to claim others are wrong, which they have very right to do and they do not have to present anything on why, as this has been over killed countless times whether they are guilty or not.
You are going off now how you assume a paper should run its stories, when they never concern themselves over many stories that are based on no facts but in many cases hearsay ad you only seem to care now on this story, fuck me, you do tell a good load of babble Sphinx


The Police should not act on death Threats?

WTF, call the loony brigade.


They are stating facts, are they guilty of any crime?

Nope

Again the Mail is not claiming people are wrong they are stating they are wrong as if the matter were proven - which is it not.

Again where have I said police should not act on death threats?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:No you are not, you are going off them saying it is wrong for the Mail to claim others are wrong, which they have very right to do and they do not have to present anything on why, as this has been over killed countless times whether they are guilty or not.
You are going off now how you assume a paper should run its stories, when they never concern themselves over many stories that are based on no facts but in many cases hearsay ad you only seem to care now on this story, fuck me, you do tell a good load of babble Sphinx


The Police should not act on death Threats?

WTF, call the loony brigade.


They are stating facts, are they guilty of any crime?

Nope

Again the Mail is not claiming people are wrong they are stating they are wrong as if the matter were proven - which is it not.

Again where have I said police should not act on death threats?

They are correct to say people are wrong, they have not been charged or found guilty of any crime, again people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. So factually the Mail is correct in this instance, unless you think people should be guilty until proven innocent?

No they are not correct - they would only be correct if the couple had either been charged and found not guilty or if someone else had been found guilty or if she had been found alive.

I am not saying the Mccans are guilty. I am saying that people do not know because there have so far been no answers. It is possible that evidence may come to light that leads to them being prosecuted and found guilty. It is possible evidence may be found and someone else may be found guilty. It is possible that she may be found alive with evidence that her parents were not involved.

At the moment none of these things have happened.

The DM should not state that the Mccans are guilty. Equally it should not state that they not guilty. It should simply allow that there is no evidence either way and that people have conflicting opinions.

sphinx wrote:No they are not correct - they would only be correct if the couple had either been charged and found not guilty or if someone else had been found guilty or if she had been found alive.

I am not saying the Mccans are guilty.  I am saying that people do not know because there have so far been no answers.  It is possible that evidence may come to light that leads to them being prosecuted and found guilty.  It is possible evidence may be found and someone else may be found guilty.  It is possible that she may be found alive with evidence that her parents were not involved.

At the moment none of these things have happened.

The DM should not state that the Mccans are guilty.  Equally it should not state that they not guilty.  It should simply allow that there is no evidence either way and that people have conflicting opinions.

Yes they are correct, again in this country are people guilty until proven innocent?
Second have they been charged with a crime?
No
It is all well and good if you think they are guilty, but the law states they are innocent until proven otherwise, so they are very much correct in their statement, whether you like it or not, others have been wrongly claimed to be guilty and if the Mail stated they otherwise they would be sued, because at this present status, the McCans are innocent of any crime, all of which seems to go above your comprehension

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:No they are not correct - they would only be correct if the couple had either been charged and found not guilty or if someone else had been found guilty or if she had been found alive.

I am not saying the Mccans are guilty.  I am saying that people do not know because there have so far been no answers.  It is possible that evidence may come to light that leads to them being prosecuted and found guilty.  It is possible evidence may be found and someone else may be found guilty.  It is possible that she may be found alive with evidence that her parents were not involved.

At the moment none of these things have happened.

The DM should not state that the Mccans are guilty.  Equally it should not state that they not guilty.  It should simply allow that there is no evidence either way and that people have conflicting opinions.

Yes they are correct, again in this country are people guilty until proven innocent?
Second have they been charged with a crime?
No
It is all well and good if you think they are guilty, but the law states they are innocent until proven otherwise, so they are very much correct in their statement, whether you like it or not, others have been wrongly claimed to be guilty and if the Mail stated they otherwise they would be sued, because at this present status, the McCans are innocent of any crime, all of which seems to go above your comprehension

So a person says that in their opinion such and such happened and if the police did X they would find the evidence to convict.

The police have not done and are not doing X.

Therefore the DM cannot state that the person is wrong. They can only state that they believe the person is wrong.

Again I have not said I think they are guilty I have said (so bloody often it is getting boring for me because it seems every asshole is determined to no hear what I am saying because it does not agree with their world view) that we do not know. The DM does not know. You do not know.

Put it this way - if a person says it is guilty and the DM says they are wrong and causes that person suffering because people think it is stating a fact then the person turns out to be right then that person can also sue.

I mean the fact that the woman who I believe killed herself was not the one actually making the nasty threats she was simply one who expressed her belief in their guilt (which is allowed) does not seem to be bothering you and Sky News culpability in naming her and broadcasting her picture has not been mentioned.

By your argument because this woman had not been tried or even arrested she is innocent and Sky had no right to broadcast that she was guilty. Or is she different in your world?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes they are correct, again in this country are people guilty until proven innocent?
Second have they been charged with a crime?
No
It is all well and good if you think they are guilty, but the law states they are innocent until proven otherwise, so they are very much correct in their statement, whether you like it or not, others have been wrongly claimed to be guilty and if the Mail stated they otherwise they would be sued, because at this present status, the McCans are innocent of any crime, all of which seems to go above your comprehension

So a person says that in their opinion such and such happened and if the police did X they would find the evidence to convict.

The police have not done and are not doing X.

Therefore the DM cannot state that the person is wrong.  They can only state that they believe the person is wrong.

Again I have not said I think they are guilty I have said (so bloody often it is getting boring for me because it seems every asshole is determined to no hear what I am saying because it does not agree with their world view) that we do not know.  The DM does not know.  You do not know.

Put it this way - if a person says it is guilty and the DM says they are wrong and causes that person suffering because people think it is stating a fact then the person turns out to be right then that person can also sue.

I mean the fact that the woman who I believe killed herself was not the one actually making the nasty threats she was simply one who expressed her belief in their guilt (which is allowed) does not seem to be bothering you and Sky News culpability in naming her and broadcasting her picture has not been mentioned.

By your argument because this woman had not been tried or even arrested she is innocent and Sky had no right to broadcast that she was guilty.  Or is she different in your world?

All utterly irrelevant based again on opinions and your daft analogy because again unless they are convicted, the the Mail is quite within their rights right to state they are innocent, all of which you are ignoring..
What you claim based around if a person is guilty is not counted by the law, the law states that they have to be proven guilty, of which at this present state they are innocent. So it does not matter who knows the truth, by law they are innocent, whether you like that or not, you cannot decide to change the law, that is a fact and you need to learn to deal with that.
If the Mail which it has accused others wishes to do so, that is up to them, no matter if you disagree again, unless you wish to censur papers on what they say and I thought you were all for free speech?

She admitted she sent messages on sky, she thus clearly felt she was exposed to what she had been doing and killed herself all of her own making, I mean why would she kill herself unless there is truth to what she had been doing. She created this situation for herself, which she openly admitting to sending nasty messages, all of which you are ignoring and what moral right do people have to do so based off a hunch?
None
Sky questioned her and she admitted, so what is the harm in that, what happened is she was exposed and clearly could not live with being found out, so there is no difference in my argument you just try to make things up as you go along

The messages she sent were not necessarily illegal.

So she sent messages. Does not make her guilty of anything. She had not been convicted. The police may have investigated the messages she sent and found no crime. So she was innocent.

Yet Sky felt fit to broadcast that she was guilty and guess what - you agree with them.

While agreeing with the DM when they state that people saying that the Mccans are guilty are wrong.

Then while managing to believe the polar opposite in 2 cases when measured by your own logic which you have explained here you criticise me for taking the steady and consistent opinion that before any court case happens the only position that can possibly be proved to be true is that I do not know and nobody else knows either.

sphinx wrote:The messages she sent were not necessarily illegal.

So she sent messages.  Does not make her guilty of anything.  She had not been convicted.  The police may have investigated the messages she sent and found no crime.  So she was innocent.

Yet Sky felt fit to broadcast that she was guilty and guess what - you agree with them.

While agreeing with the DM when they state that people saying that the Mccans are guilty are wrong.

Then while managing to believe the polar opposite in 2 cases when measured by your own logic which you have explained here you criticise me for taking the steady and consistent opinion that before any court case happens the only position that can possibly be proved to be true  is that I do not know and nobody else knows either.

No I agree with her admitting that she did send messages, which again you miss the point as to why?
So I never agreed with Sky, where they questioned her, this is you losing a debate and trying to come out with babble to save face, that is the reality of your replies, because you know full well, people are innocent until proven guilty.
I never claimed this woman was even guilty of a crime, but guilty of being nasty, of which she certainly was, based off a hunch she has on her view the parents are guilty. What did she hope to achieve by doing this?
Nothing, because it will not bring Maddie back and it is counter productive, because all it does it achieve more hate, it does not solve the crime, but allows for people to think they can be as abusive as they like.
The reality is you can hold what ever opinion you like, but by law they are innocent, whether you like that or not.

I know by law they are innocent.

What you seem totally unable to get a grip on is that I am not debating that.

I am stating that nobody can declare an opinion to be wrong before the matter is factually settled.

Innocent in law is not the same as did not do it.

Innocent in law is not grounds for stating the opinion did do it is wrong.

sphinx wrote:I know by law they are innocent.

What you seem totally unable to get a grip on is that I am not debating that.

I am stating that nobody can declare an opinion to be wrong before the matter is factually settled.

Innocent in law is not the same as did not do it.

Innocent in law is not grounds for stating the opinion did do it is wrong.

What a contradiction oh my.
You can declare it because by law they are, unless convicted, then they are guilty, where again you are innocent until proven guilty, how many times do I have to point this out for you?
You can hold what opinion you like, but our law states innocent until proven guilty, even if I think someone is guilty. So they can declare an opinion to be wrong, because at present they are innocent, if that changes, then the position changes, just as it does in science and many other factors when something is found to be incorrect. The position will stay innocent until proven guilty until prove otherwise. The fact you ignore there is no evidence to even charge them with something also is beyond you, but that is not the point, the correct position is right to say they are innocent. Thus to say people are wrong to say they are guilty is correct, the burden of proof is on them and the state to find them guilty.

I have my own thoughts on the McCanns which I keep to myself.

This woman is a good example of people who are prepared to post anything they like whilst hiding behind an anonymous user name.  Many people like this would not dream of saying this stuff if their identity was known.  This things tis woman posted were not nice, but there are lots of  people who have tweeted worse things than this woman did, wishing torture and death upon them.  

I believe this woman was so embarrassed and humiliated at being found out that she took her own life but I think Sky News was out of order to doorstep her in the way they did.


ETA - I posted something similar earlier but it disappeared, so my apologies if it pops up in another thread 

Frazzled wrote:I have my own thoughts on the McCanns which I keep to myself.

This woman is a good example of people who are prepared to post anything they like whilst hiding behind an anonymous user name.  Many people like this would not dream of saying this stuff if their identity was known.  This things tis woman posted were not nice, but there are lots of  people who have tweeted worse things than this woman did, wishing torture and death upon them.  

I believe this woman was so embarrassed and humiliated at being found out that she took her own life but I think Sky News was out of order to doorstep her in the way they did.


ETA - I posted something similar earlier but it disappeared, so my apologies if it pops up in another thread 

Is it because she is dead, they are out of order?
Because they do this daily to people and the reality is if they did not there would not be much of a news story to cover in most cases.
I mean are we to now censor how reporters conduct interviews?
The reality is they found this one person out, it is a story asking about why and how some people maybe prosecuted, where this person was happy to make accusations, as you state quite happily behind the PC with no fear of repercussion, with no care of what harm she was doing, to then have the roles reversed and find herself center of the attention around this case. If she did not want to be known, then she should not have been so vindictive towards two people, of which she clearly was and then none of this would have happened. As I have stated before, what purpose do these people hope to achieve, because there constant abuse would be enough to drive some people to suicide as well, is this their aim? The reality is some people may think they are guilty, but this abuse achieves nothing, when if they were so adamant they were guilty, there time would be better spent trying to prove that or better yet that they care about children, second there time and effort trying to find many missing children. These self made Spanish Inquisitions achieve bugger all except self attention and acceptance by others for their views. As you state, people do not act like this with others in the real world, what makes them think they can hide behind anonymity and be abusive?
The internet is great but it has also allowed people to become stupid also.

I don't think it was wrong to report the story and name her, but I despise the kind of sensationalist reporting where reporters turn up on the doorstep and publicly humiliate people.  They know nothing of this woman's history and was her abuse really bad enough for her to be singled out and put on TV?  
I think I'm correct in saying that her worst tweet was "How long must the McCanns suffer?  For the rest of their miserable lives".  Not very nice I agree, but not bad enough to be treated like that.  They should have let the police deal with it.

Frazzled wrote:I don't think it was wrong to report the story and name her, but I despise the kind of sensationalist reporting where reporters turn up on the doorstep and publicly humiliate people.  They know nothing of this woman's history and was her abuse really bad enough for her to be singled out and put on TV?  
I think I'm correct in saying that her worst tweet was "How long must the McCanns suffer?  For the rest of their miserable lives".  Not very nice I agree, but not bad enough to be treated like that.  They should have let the police deal with it.

Again i am sure if this had been a women that had swindled old people out of money being exposed many would not bat an eyelid, thus the concern on sensationalist reported is then a matter of levels of which people decide which is okay and which is not okay, which would be silly. You would thus either have to be against this type of reporting full stop, which would make the news rather tame to be honest. It is up to the news whether they decide to run a story on its merits, where there is an industry of hate around the McCans themselves, what you should be asking is why people are spending their lives centered around one couple, when if they really cared about children, they would use that time to far better benefit. The reality is the world is now trying to make an argument for it to be acceptable for people to be as hateful as possible abusively online, which in the real world meeting people they would not. It is a cowardly act, one of which people poorly try to defend as seen. The reality is the abuse and claims made against this family seem to have one purpose, that either the MCCans kill themselves, based off views they feel they are guilty and what will it achieve?
Will it give us the truth of what has happened to Maddie?
No, she had ever intent to to cause harm and I have read her comments, they were vile, based around a conspiracy theory she based off little evidence.
People need to look at the bigger picture here and people bemoaned that the police be allowed to do their job with this woman, the same people who ignore this advice and hound the McCans daily, that is irony for you

there really is only one question needs be dealt with.....


was the wonam, by any reasonable definition a "troll"

did she "cause alarm or harrasment" to the mcCans
did she repeat unsubstantiated "rumour"
was she in fact an evil gossip (as opposed to someone mearely "discussing" a subject)

if any of the above are true then my POV is ...tough
clearly she could "hand it out" but couldnt "take it" just like most net trolls......

Among those who took to Twitter to comment on the circumstances of Mrs Leyland's death was businessman Lord Sugar.

Brenda Leyland:If she took her own life by pressure from media.There maybe a legal case against the media for incitement to commit suicide

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11142421/Twitter-troll-who-abused-Madeleine-McCanns-parents-found-dead.html

I feel for her family, as usual in these cases there are multiple people affected.  She had two children and no doubt other friends and family.

Her behaviour was without doubt disgraceful. There are many people who behave poorly on the net believing themselves to be faceless.  

I will be interested to see if anything comes of Lord Sugar's comments, will the media be taken to task?  I doubt it.

Frazzled wrote:I don't think it was wrong to report the story and name her, but I despise the kind of sensationalist reporting where reporters turn up on the doorstep and publicly humiliate people.  They know nothing of this woman's history and was her abuse really bad enough for her to be singled out and put on TV?  
I think I'm correct in saying that her worst tweet was "How long must the McCanns suffer?  For the rest of their miserable lives".  Not very nice I agree, but not bad enough to be treated like that.  They should have let the police deal with it.

If that's true then this has all been a complete overreaction.
I've read much worse than that! I thought it was the same huge anti called Brenda who used to post on a forum I was on, but she ended up turning pro lol

Either way, as someone has said; you have to take responsibility for what you write or say.

This could only happen in the McCann case though really....like all the odd things that happen

So basically if you say you hope the Mccans suffer everyday for the rest of their lives for leaving 3 young children in an unlocked apartment people will consider it taking responsibility if you kill yourself.

Nice world.

Someone dies because of what was written on a social media outlet. It's happened before and it will happen again.

It's a tragedy by any standard you care to mention but lessons will probably never be learned.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Guys, watch out -- you're going to get us shut down by Scotland Yard for this!

Because, of course, that's what Scotland Yard does. They scour the internet for mentions of the McCanns, and shut down forums that contain contrary opinions. They only hire the finest police investigators to do this, of course, and those savvy folk are well-paid from UK public funds to investigate internet forums.

In the UK cyber crime is not policed by Scotland Yard. That has been turned over to the National Cyber Crime Unit (NCCU). The NCCU has brought together specialists from the Police Central e-Crime Unit in the Metropolitan Police Service and SOCA Cyber to create expert technical, tactical intelligence and investigation teams. It has the capability to respond in fast time to rapidly changing threats and collaborates with partners to reduce cyber and cyber-enabled crime.

So put the number on speed dial: :0370 496 7622.