Tick tocker in a frenzy over rather strange Times report on Leyland inquest

Agreed but I bet they don't see things that way.

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7433&start=125


Re: Rosalinda Hutton TRASHED in the MSM (by herself)
Postby tigerloaf » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:40 pm

Just a few days ago, Rosalinda (Rosalind, Linda) Hutton proved just what a stupid woman she really is when she trashed herself in the Sun and called herself a trolling bitch for the world to see. I really did not think that she could show herself up much more than that but of course I was wrong.

This woman has once again today demonstrated just how lacking in logical thought she truly is.....complete post at link.

Indeed; do the hater idiots truly believe that the coroner doesn't know all about Leyland's internet activities, especially as the REAL police have had access to Leyland's computer/s?

Do they honestly believe that the coroner will not be shocked by Leyland's vile tweeting? The obscenities, the abuse of the family of a missing child, the triumphant cackling from Leyland because she thought her stalking and abuse had driven a young woman off the internet?
.

It's all part of their delusions but if that weren't bad enough, they display a woeful ignorance in matters of the world.

So they keep adding 2 + 2 and making it out to be 56.

Incidentally, haven't the haters noticed that the coroner didn't actually 'demand' anything?


Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets.

Where's the word 'demand'? It was the reporter that used that word, not the coroner. But then, haters never were capable of processing information.

And why on earth would Leicester police be asking Sky for information already held by the police? Nothing striking the haters as odd?

No. Impossible for them to think it's odd, Bonny. It is reading what they want to read....

So, assorted carpet-chewing haters are still demanding that Brunt is forced to reveal his fabled Source, despite the NUJ code of practise, and UK and EU human and similar laws.

Look, you can't be in favour of Free Speach, Je suis Charlie, etc, when it suits you to portray yourself as cool and edgy, right on, man, but not when it doesn't suit your agenda.

It's like being a little bit pregnant - you either are or you aren't.

It's glaringly obvious that the McCann-haters would happily tear up all these hard-won rights and protections if it meant they were thrown a new victim to stalk, abuse, harrass and smear - all they want is fresh meat.

Mind you, they all also support dirty cops and creeps like Tavares de Almeida, who torture innocent men in police custody, so it's probably not surprising they don't support human and civil rights, a free press, or the protection of whistleblowers.

Injustice:


You seem to have forgotten that if it was not for BL's vindictive on-line campaign against the McCanns she would not have been included in any dossier. It was her own choice - and she obviously thoroughly enjoyed doing it - especially when she thought someone had been outed - and was laughing at the thought of how scared that person must be.

IMO the people who are most likely to have had a depressing affect on BL are those 'friends' who viciously turned on her and accused her of letting them down, being a plant/actor etc. etc. That must have been a terrible blow. You seem to have forgotten that too.

Yes, Leyland's cackles of glee because she imagined she'd terrified a young woman so much, that woman had been scared off the internet, are there for all to see.

I doubt if the court is going to be impressed by that sort of insight into her character.

Oh, I wonder if Leyland found out that her 'good friend' McFadden - the one that continually egged her on to further excesses - was also 'Kiki', who criticised her?

That would be a bit of a shock to anyone.

Today's hater meme:

I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT.....

Hypocrites.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sky-news-may-face-demand-inquest-reveal-source-story-about-twitter-troll

A journalist may face a demand to disclose his source over a story about a woman who posted abusive tweets about the parents of missing Madeleine McCann - and was later found dead after being unmasked.

Sky News journalist Martin Brunt has been called to give evidence at the inquest next month into the death last October of 63-year-old mother-of-two Brenda Leyland.

Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, was found dead in a hotel room three days after she was confronted as part of an expose by Brunt and Sky News of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann, whose three-year-old daughter, Madeleine, vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

It was reported at the time that Leyland, using the Twitter handle @sweepyface, had posted thousands of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the "worst of humankind".

The Times reports that Leicestershire police has written to Sky News on behalf of Coroner Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets.

Sky News has said that it will protect its source, and has refused to disclose it to the police, arguing that its rights are protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering and operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to testify at the inquest on 20 March.

Coroners were given new powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago, and under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Should she do so, Brunt and Sky News would be able to argue that they did not have to disclose the information because they were protected by section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which says: "No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."

Media law specialist Gavin Millar QC told The Times: "I don't think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It's a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers.

"As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists."

I wonder, will the Bouncing Haters see that little word, MAY? Nah, of course not, they never were any too good at accurately processing information. They haven't even grasped that the coroner didn't 'demand' anything, the word 'demand' was written by a Murdoch journo.

The Bouncing Haters are too busy sucking up to Butler the Thief and chanting

I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT.....

to do anything difficult like THINKING.

Online Alfred R Jones

Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
« Reply #753 on: Today at 03:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 02:57:38 PM
In the interest of the justice that they claim to hold in such high regard ? If they have done nothing wrong surely they have nothing to fear ?

Nothing but having their name blackened, their family photos commented on, their reputations trashed on the internet by dozens of "sceptics" - and then there is the real prospect of having Sonia Poulton turning up on your doorstep - nothing to fear? Hmm...I'd rather not have that sort of attention if it were me.

Quite - we all know what the haters are like when they get fresh meat. Look how quickly they turned on Leyland when she didn't do wot they would off.

And wasn't that line about people having nothing to fear if they've done nothing wrong first heard in the Third Reich? Mind you, it goes nicely with

I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT

Quite - we all know what the haters are like when they get fresh meat. Look how quickly they turned on Leyland when she didn't do wot they would off.

I wonder how she felt about that at the time?

Dreadful, I should think. Especially if she found out about her two-faced 'friend' McFadden/Kiki at the same time. And was faced with scorn from her neighbours, and anger and disgust from her estranged family - remember, she died on her estranged son's birthday.

IMO, the haters are in for a few nasty shocks from the coroner's court, because they have, as usual, foolishly jumped to conclusions to suit their own agendas, when they actually have very little reliable information.

She may very well have felt that she had nowhere to turn.

I know we have mentioned the date that she decided to take her life on too. Since suicide is often considered to be the ultimate F.U. I do hope her reason was not because of her son.

The reason(s) will all most likely come out at the Inquest?

Yes, it should do, Lily. But - the haters are going to go into meltdown when the coroner fails to stick to the script they've dreamed up in their empty heads. They will start on her, accusing her of being IN IT, frantically googling to find ways of connecting her to the McCanns.

It's going to be very unpleasant, though I am sure the coroner will have been forewarned of the sort of reaction she can expect from the McCann-hating obsessives.

I'm sure you are right that she will have been warned. It comes to something when we can write the script for them.

They must be so angry at the world.

Don't forget, the nutjob obsessives have already inundated the poor woman with their deranged ravings...

Dear Cornoner,

That fluffybunny wot is on twitter called me a stupid ar@e. Please jail her for live cos I know they is all shrills wot get paid by them MCCann's.

Signed,

A. Truthseeker.

Some horrid Pros have been upsetting Stephen.

This must stop immediately.

I just looked. Oh my very dear.

That's what he's been raving and rambling about? He must be the only person in the English-speaking world that's never seen that 'question' before. Oh dear.

Neil Wilby ‏@Neil_Wilby 15m15 minutes ago
@DaftNelly @justice4maddie @TheCatwoman2 Can I ask, again, please untag me?

Quite right. No decent person would want to be associated with Butler the Thief.

bb1 wrote:I just looked. Oh my very dear.

That's what he's been  raving and rambling about? He must be the only person in the English-speaking world that's never seen that 'question' before. Oh dear.

Doesn't do logic very well at all, does he?  Priceless!



ETA: Thanks so much J-P for bringing that to our attention.

Yes, thanks indeed, I nearly missed it - it's a classic. I'm surprised the other Amazon bores didn't stop him from making such a complete idiot of himself.

It appears that it has hurt his feelings.....poor baby.

Pompous forker:


There is little doubt of Sky's agenda here, whatever the sequence of events and I hope the coroner asks Sky when was the last time they showed a clip on a half hour loop which was what was done at one stage that day.

Probably only a few days, or a week or so previously. If they watched anything besides EastEnders and reality TV, they would know that when it's slow for important news, Sky often spends an entire day focussing on some social issue or other.

Which is one of the many reasons I generally switch Sky News off after a few minutes and watch something more intelligent like AJ or RT.

Incidentally, why do the haters keep insisting it was Brunt who contacted Leyland?

If they bothered to wade through her nearly 5,000 vile tweets, they would know it was HER that contacted BRUNT. She contacted him by email, and on twitter.

Oh, I can't imagine why he might think she actually wanted attention from him, can you?