[user104658]

It's really only the British press that have furthered the idea that the disappearance = abduction is "fact". All that is actually established fact is that she did indeed disappear.

In truth, they have no witnesses, no established motive, no suspects that haven't been ruled out, no pattern of other similar offences, and no established chain of events.

It's still a complete mystery what happened to her. I suspect it's one that may be slowly unravelled in 50 year's time and be shown in a historical documentary, when everyone involved is dead and buried either way.

[Brother Leon]

Terrible parenting and they should have lost their other kids.

[AnnieK]

I actually don't think anyone will ever know what happened that night. Part of me hopes the McCanns did over sedate her because the alternative thought is too horrible to contemplate.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I actually don't think anyone will ever know what happened that night. Part of me hopes the McCanns did over sedate her because the alternative thought is too horrible to contemplate.

Yeah, definitely

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I actually don't think anyone will ever know what happened that night. Part of me hopes the McCanns did over sedate her because the alternative thought is too horrible to contemplate.

I'm afraid there is just a possibility that "poor Kate and Gerry" know exactly what happened. It is because of that suspicion they are getting all the Twitter hate. Not just because of child neglect.

I do wish they would search around the golf course that Gerry spent a few hours at, a few days after Maddie went missing. We know, with absolute certainty, he didn't play golf but he has never offered an explanation why he went there. There could be an innocent reason, of course................ but it is a bit odd.

I sincerely wish Kate would answer the 48 questions put to her by the Portuguese police:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...se-police.html

At the very least the British police should have asked her these questions. No. 41 is rather curious: not the sort of question you'd ask unless you had some prior knowledge?

I have read extensively about this case and I've concluded Maddie was actually a rather difficult child and, I'm very sad to say, I don't think she was loved as much as her parents would have us believe.

[Gusto Brunt]

I wouldn't trust the McCanns as far as I could throw them.

But I wouldn't risk arrest and jail telling THEM what the rest of us already know.

[MTVN]

There's nothing wrong with exposing trolls in principle imo, in fact I think it's deserved if people revel in bullying and abusing people from behind a cloak of anonymity. Online trolls can and do ruin peoples lives as well, of course it's sad the way this has ended up but it's unfair to pin her death on Sky news.

[bots]

Originally Posted by MTVN

There's nothing wrong with exposing trolls in principle imo, in fact I think it's deserved if people revel in bullying and abusing people from behind a cloak of anonymity. Online trolls can and do ruin peoples lives as well, of course it's sad the way this has ended up but it's unfair to pin her death on Sky news.

I think its more than fair to pin it on Sky News. As a broadcaster, they have a responsibility to behave properly. Even if the person was guilty, it had not been proven, she had not been interviewed by the police. They took the law into their own hands and pronounced a verdict and made that known to millions. There are no circumstances that can be considered acceptable, whether the person was suspected or not.

Next we will have lynch mobs following the news team round, its absurd. At its most basic level, it is no different to what isis have done

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think its more than fair to pin it on Sky News. As a broadcaster, they have a responsibility to behave properly. Even if the person was guilty, it had not been proven, she had not been interviewed by the police. They took the law into their own hands and pronounced a verdict and made that known to millions. There are no circumstances that can be considered acceptable, whether the person was suspected or not.

Next we will have lynch mobs following the news team round, its absurd.

Well for one thing I'm not convinced that online trolling is a police matter, I'm quite uncomfortable with the increased policing of the internet and think the line is becoming increasingly blurred between free speech and criminalised speech. But while I might not be comfortable with online trolls being criminalised for their abuse, I'm not opposed to them being exposed and publicly embarrassed for what they have done because they do deserve to be. It might make people think more about what they say from behind their anonymous cloak and make others realise that just because your words from an anonymous keyboard it doesn't mean they are acceptable and it doesn't have any less impact on victims. It might drum home the simple rule that you shouldn't say things over the internet that you wouldn't be prepared to say in public or to someone's face.

[bots]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well for one thing I'm not convinced that online trolling is a police matter, I'm quite uncomfortable with the increased policing of the internet and think the line is becoming increasingly blurred between free speech and criminalised speech. But while I might not be comfortable with online trolls being criminalised for their abuse, I'm not opposed to them being exposed and publicly embarrassed for what they have done because they do deserve to be. It might make people think more about what they say from behind their anonymous cloak and make others realise that just because your words from an anonymous keyboard it doesn't mean they are acceptable and it doesn't have any less impact on victims. It might drum home the simple rule that you shouldn't say things over the internet that you wouldn't be prepared to say in public or to someone's face.

I understand what you are saying however there has always been a legal distinction between saying something and writing something, and under those circumstances facebook, forums and twatter legally fall under the latter. The point remains that Sky are not the public appointed judge and jury, they have a social responsibility to act in an appropriate manner. They didn't do that in this case, and its not the first time either, its not so long ago they were sifting through the personal belongings of those who lost their lives in the downed aircraft in the Ukraine. That was interfering with evidence. They need to act responsibly.

[Ammi]

Dr Arthur Cassidy, a psychologist who specialises in social media, said Mrs Leyland appeared to have a middle class upbringing which was unusual in trolling.

He said: "In this particular case, her whole repertoire of trolling is slightly different from those of well-seasoned trolls because of her uniqueness and the way she has done this.

"It would signify to me that she has been quite a novice at this."

Dr Cassidy said typically, trolls sought and enjoyed a response from their victims but that did not appear to have been the case here.



....I'm not sure that this would deter a 'determined' troll though..maybe it was easier to expose her because she made it easy because she wasn't a 'typical troll' and maybe someone who wasn't mentally healthy and would have needed help but the method in which she was 'exposed' prevented that...what he did and how he did it would have no doubt probably have led to her receiving abuse herself if that had not already started, so where is the irony in that...and how does it do anything but actually encourage more trolling and more abuse...

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

There's nothing wrong with exposing trolls in principle imo, in fact I think it's deserved if people revel in bullying and abusing people from behind a cloak of anonymity. Online trolls can and do ruin peoples lives as well, of course it's sad the way this has ended up but it's unfair to pin her death on Sky news.

You Are Most Wise

[Sticks]

A side question, it is reported that the police are investigating all posts "attacking" Kate and Gerry

Various theories on this forum have been discussed in other threads, some of which when voiced by certain tabloids, precipitated legal action which was successful.

Is this forum considered a private place or a public place?

Should those who voiced certain opinions here about what happened in this case be worried about the possibility of arrest?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Sticks

A side question, it is reported that the police are investigating all posts "attacking" Kate and Gerry

Various theories on this forum have been discussed in other threads, some of which when voiced by certain tabloids, precipitated legal action which was successful.

Is this forum considered a private place or a public place?

Should those who voiced certain opinions here about what happened in this case be worried about the possibility of arrest?

To be honest.....I don't think the police will be able to look at all posts, there are endless forums where this case has been discussed and to dedicate manpower to investigate them all would be ridiculos. I would imagine it is posts like those seen on twitter that are aimed directly at the McCanns rather than in open discussion that they will be looking into.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Sticks

A side question, it is reported that the police are investigating all posts "attacking" Kate and Gerry

Various theories on this forum have been discussed in other threads, some of which when voiced by certain tabloids, precipitated legal action which was successful.

Is this forum considered a private place or a public place?

Should those who voiced certain opinions here about what happened in this case be worried about the possibility of arrest?

Nobody on here has personally attacked anyone, it is an objective debate which as far as I know isn't illegal... yet.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Sticks

A side question, it is reported that the police are investigating all posts "attacking" Kate and Gerry

Various theories on this forum have been discussed in other threads, some of which when voiced by certain tabloids, precipitated legal action which was successful.

Is this forum considered a private place or a public place?

Should those who voiced certain opinions here about what happened in this case be worried about the possibility of arrest?

I will attack them
Get the Fecklers Off My HD News




OK Copper

[Jamesy]

Problem is, what does one deem as "attacking" the McCanns? That's where things get messy and people could be arrested for stupid comments that can be perceived in multiple ways.

I doubt the police will push manpower towards going through internet forums though. It's just all talk to make the public aware of police presence. In reality the already overstretched police force will be concentrating on more serious cases they have in hand.

The only things they will look at are direct messages towards the McCanns. Not the opinions of a dozen or so people on a Big Brother forum... nothing for people like us to worry about. Just more of something for people to keep in mind who might be sending hate mail to the McCanns directly via Twitter, email and other means.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jamesy

Problem is, what does one deem as "attacking" the McCanns? That's where things get messy and people could be arrested for stupid comments that can be perceived in multiple ways.

I doubt the police will push manpower towards going through internet forums though. It's just all talk to make the public aware of police presence. In reality the already overstretched police force will be concentrating on more serious cases they have in hand.

The only things they will look at are direct messages towards the McCanns. Not the opinions of a dozen or so people on a Big Brother forum... nothing for people like us to worry about. Just more of something for people to keep in mind who might be sending hate mail to the McCanns directly via Twitter, email and other means.

How can an opinion be considered a direct attack though, it wasn't to them personally was it?

A comment made on a general site/forum/twitter I fail to see how that is a direct attack, unless you stated ' I X intend to attack X'.

[Jamesy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How can an opinion be considered a direct attack though, it wasn't to them personally was it?

A comment made on a general site/forum/twitter I fail to see how that is a direct attack, unless you stated ' I X intend to attack X'.

That's why I said how does one make a difference between an opinion and an 'attack'. It's not so black and white.

It doesn't really matter in this context though.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jamesy

That's why I said how does one make a difference between an opinion and an 'attack'. It's not so black and white.

It doesn't really matter in this context though.

It does
a SkyNewsHD reporter
got her on Live News
she admitted doing the attacks
then sadly few days later
topped herself

[Jamesy]

Originally Posted by arista

It does
a SkyNewsHD reporter
got her on Live News
she admitted doing the attacks
then sadly few days later
topped herself

That's nothing to do with my post...

[Marsh.]

I Marsh intend to attack you Fizzy Kizzy!

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I Marsh intend to attack you Fizzy Kizzy!

You Dirty Devil

[Gusto Brunt]

It's sad she died.