The alledged evil bully that has for a long time used twitter to abuse others from hiding has found out what it really means to do this it would seem.
Do I wish her dead, of course not, but you live by the sword you die by the sword.
She has spent a long time using twitter to abuse people whom she has no proof deserve anything especially hate mail.
Personally I would prefer she had been charged with the offence she committed and tried, then if convicted, punished but she chose to avoid this option.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Twittersnipe dies
last reply
40 replies
2.3k views
0 watchers
0 likes
From her son today
Mrs Leyland's son tweeted a tribute to his mum, writing simply: "I love you mum and I will miss you forever."
Regardless of her alleged cyber crimes she was still a mother and who now has a son missing one
Also, give that the McCanns do not have a twitter account there was no abuse actually against them personally.
Mrs Leyland's son tweeted a tribute to his mum, writing simply: "I love you mum and I will miss you forever."
Regardless of her alleged cyber crimes she was still a mother and who now has a son missing one
Also, give that the McCanns do not have a twitter account there was no abuse actually against them personally.
I have nothing but sympathy for her son, especially as I doubt he had any knowledge of his mothers alleged secret life of bullying.
Things said on twitter have a way of reaching people, through friends or the media.
There is NO excuse for bullying or running hate campaigns, we have a justice system to deal with things.
The McCanns were not the only recipients of such vile abuse and accusations from the person who wrote under that name on twitter over a long period.
Surely you cannot defend abusers when they are caught no matter what their mental state, it could be a reason or trigger but that does not make them any less guilty of a crime, or do you think we should decide which laws to uphold and which to let slip by ? something I have been accused of advocating on many occasions in these forums.
As for the Sky Reporter, I have always said that they should be treated like Politicians, they are scum of the same tar but of course protected by the "freedom of reporting/freedom of the press shield they hide behind.
How many people have took their own lives because they have been verbally bullied, no I don't have sympathy for people who do this, and ask myself, was the person aware of what they were doing, that it is hurtful, causes people to take their own lives, leaves them living in misery, is illegal ? taking your own life when caught would steer my thoughts towards thinking they are aware.
In the UK we are all to quick to sympathise with those who commit crimes whilst forgetting the victims.
Things said on twitter have a way of reaching people, through friends or the media.
There is NO excuse for bullying or running hate campaigns, we have a justice system to deal with things.
The McCanns were not the only recipients of such vile abuse and accusations from the person who wrote under that name on twitter over a long period.
Surely you cannot defend abusers when they are caught no matter what their mental state, it could be a reason or trigger but that does not make them any less guilty of a crime, or do you think we should decide which laws to uphold and which to let slip by ? something I have been accused of advocating on many occasions in these forums.
As for the Sky Reporter, I have always said that they should be treated like Politicians, they are scum of the same tar but of course protected by the "freedom of reporting/freedom of the press shield they hide behind.
How many people have took their own lives because they have been verbally bullied, no I don't have sympathy for people who do this, and ask myself, was the person aware of what they were doing, that it is hurtful, causes people to take their own lives, leaves them living in misery, is illegal ? taking your own life when caught would steer my thoughts towards thinking they are aware.
In the UK we are all to quick to sympathise with those who commit crimes whilst forgetting the victims.
Sex God
it's a very divided and contentious subject with many valid arguments for all sides
this is one of many twists in the macann story and not the last
this is one of many twists in the macann story and not the last
Have to say....my sympathy with the McAnns is very thin. They go over to Spain to contest a libel case and win damages.....yet don't bother to go over when land was being cleared and they thought a body might be found. They seem very obsessed with money, and seem to gladly take all the contributions without any guilt. Lets not forget at the very best....it was them that left their daughter unattended, whilst they went out frolicking with friends and drinking !! For me there are a lot of unanswered questions around their movements and certain evidence.
The lady on twitter that was hurling abuse, I think was also very wrong. But no way did she deserve to be driven to suicide.
I ask what is worse....hurling abuse on twitter or leaving your young child unattended in a foreign country, whilst you go out for a drink !!!!
The lady on twitter that was hurling abuse, I think was also very wrong. But no way did she deserve to be driven to suicide.
I ask what is worse....hurling abuse on twitter or leaving your young child unattended in a foreign country, whilst you go out for a drink !!!!
They are equally abhorrent is the simple answer.
People seem to have forgot all the people who have committed suicide because of the abuse they receive at school or work.
Bullying is disgusting behaviour be it physical or verbal abuse.
Thousands in the UK live in fear of going to work or school or even outside because of bullies and the UK says "oh poor person that they abused others" not poor victim of abuse.
Last week all the sympathy was with the girl who went to join ISIS not the victims of ISIS this week it is an abuser happy to drive others to suicide and getting pleasure from doing it not the abused victims.
It has little to do with the McCanns, this woman has been abusing people for a long time.
Southampton striker Billy Sharp has been subjected to vile abuse on Twitter over the death of his baby son.
Luey Jacob died in November aged just two days when Sharp was a player at Doncaster. One Twitter user, believed to be a Doncaster fan, posted four abusive messages on Sharp's site.
A cyber stalker who bombarded Rachel Riley with hundreds of abusive tweets was banned from contacting her yesterday.
Anthony Wells, 31, sent the Countdown beauty more than 500 messages on Twitter – some of which threatened her life.
NICOLA Sturgeon has revealed she was sent 'death threats' on Twitter, stoking up the debate on anonymous thugs who post vile abuse on the Internet.
Caroline Criado-Perez: 'Twitter has enabled people to behave in a way they wouldn't face to face'
Deluged with tweets threatening death and , the feminist campaigner is still determined to defeat the trolls
Gary Lineker says he felt "physically sick" when an anonymous internet user taunted his son about his childhood battle with cancer.
The former Leicester City star and his son George this week became victims of "trolling" – where people make insulting anonymous comments on social networking sites.
An unknown Twitter user sent a message to George Lineker in which he called him "leukaemia boy" and wrote "pity ya didn't die".
George was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia weeks after he was born in 1992.
People seem to have forgot all the people who have committed suicide because of the abuse they receive at school or work.
Bullying is disgusting behaviour be it physical or verbal abuse.
Thousands in the UK live in fear of going to work or school or even outside because of bullies and the UK says "oh poor person that they abused others" not poor victim of abuse.
Last week all the sympathy was with the girl who went to join ISIS not the victims of ISIS this week it is an abuser happy to drive others to suicide and getting pleasure from doing it not the abused victims.
It has little to do with the McCanns, this woman has been abusing people for a long time.
Southampton striker Billy Sharp has been subjected to vile abuse on Twitter over the death of his baby son.
Luey Jacob died in November aged just two days when Sharp was a player at Doncaster. One Twitter user, believed to be a Doncaster fan, posted four abusive messages on Sharp's site.
A cyber stalker who bombarded Rachel Riley with hundreds of abusive tweets was banned from contacting her yesterday.
Anthony Wells, 31, sent the Countdown beauty more than 500 messages on Twitter – some of which threatened her life.
NICOLA Sturgeon has revealed she was sent 'death threats' on Twitter, stoking up the debate on anonymous thugs who post vile abuse on the Internet.
Caroline Criado-Perez: 'Twitter has enabled people to behave in a way they wouldn't face to face'
Deluged with tweets threatening death and , the feminist campaigner is still determined to defeat the trolls
Gary Lineker says he felt "physically sick" when an anonymous internet user taunted his son about his childhood battle with cancer.
The former Leicester City star and his son George this week became victims of "trolling" – where people make insulting anonymous comments on social networking sites.
An unknown Twitter user sent a message to George Lineker in which he called him "leukaemia boy" and wrote "pity ya didn't die".
George was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia weeks after he was born in 1992.
Quote by Katniss
There is some poorly people in this world, but why even start a forum post about a woman who was so obviously ill???
Was she ill ? for every person who commits acts of bullying because they are ill there are 10 more who do it because they get a kick out of it, because it makes them feel big and brave and better about their own sad existence, check out how many bullies at school are actually mentally ill and how many do it for pleasure, sadly some go on to do it throughout their adult life, often on their partners but sometimes on perfect strangers.
Was she, she is ALEDGED to have committed this act of abuse and bullying, it has not been proved, I said she should be tried and if convicted punished, does the same rule not apply to a possible mental illness ?
and then go to the trouble of researching so many quotes about other cases of cyber-bullying?
Trouble, no trouble I simply googled Twitter abuse and found all those quotes on page 1, lord knows how many I would have come up with if I had researched "suicide after bullying"
Suicide is not a subject to be commented on in a negative way
I did not comment in a negative way, I stated that I would have preferred her to stand trial and if guilty be punished accordingly under UK law.
We have to stop this culture of apologising for people who break the law, they were ill, they had a bad upbringing, they had no job, they were poor, they were addicts and all the rest of the excuses, we have to think of the victims of which there are many usually more than the criminals since the criminals do it more than once and to more than one person.
Would we have been able to help her given the state of our Mental Health capabilities, would spending a long time in treatment for mental illness be a benefit to her ?
Sex God
if your looking to attach blame mids then I'm afraid it can only be planted on technologies ability to create anonymous profiles,
if you did some proper research you will find many studies on cyber bullying and why it has become so common
to make us invisible allows our dark side to come out of hiding
if you did some proper research you will find many studies on cyber bullying and why it has become so common
to make us invisible allows our dark side to come out of hiding
Quote by Lizaleanrob
if your looking to attach blame mids then I'm afraid it can only be planted on technologies ability to create anonymous profiles,
if you did some proper research you will find many studies on cyber bullying and why it has become so common
to make us invisible allows our dark side to come out of hiding
Totally agree with that, but just because the technology is there is not an excuse for it being done and those convicted of it should be brought to justice which I am sure most here agree.
In this instance the victim is not getting much sympathy because of the circumstances that brought about the abuse, that is irrelevant though, cyber abuse/bullying is wrong.
I would say the same if it was abuse of one of the convicted paedophiles, two wrongs don't make a right. The justice system is the only correct way to deal with people not cyber abuse or physical abuse because we cannot differentiate when it is justified and when it is simply bullying, as I have said, there have been far too many people driven to suicide or permanent mental damage by the bullies and not enough thought given to the victims.
We cannot permit vigilante action of this nature especially since there is no evidence against the victim other than one of failing to secure their daughters safety, personally I think the relative Social Services with Police and CPS assistance should have taken action against the parents who left a child unprotected but that is a whole different issue, it is not for individuals to carry out punishment of people.
I also say again, if the woman is guilty and carried out the persistant attacks on twitter she could have a mental health issue or could have just been a bully attacking anyone who couldn't defend themselves as bullies do, but the fact that when caught she apparently knew exactly what she had done and how wrong it was does not support mental health issues.
The other victim in these verbal attacks is her son and other family members.
Quote by MidsCouple24
, but the fact that when caught she apparently knew exactly what she had done and how wrong it was does not support mental health issues.
How do you arrive at the above? Are you a Consultant Psychiatrist? Mental Illness manifests itself in many ways where diagnosis is perhaps best left to those trained to deal and not to self-appointed armchair shrinks such as yourself. You have zero right to comment on the mental state/health of a woman (particularly a dead one) of whom you know nothing about save for what you've read in the garbage newspapers and their online similars.
You whittle on about respect and yet in my opinion you appear to show none yourself.
Sex God
Quote by Toots
, but the fact that when caught she apparently knew exactly what she had done and how wrong it was does not support mental health issues.
How do you arrive at the above? Are you a Consultant Psychiatrist? Mental Illness manifests itself in many ways where diagnosis is perhaps best left to those trained to deal and not to self-appointed armchair shrinks such as yourself. You have zero right to comment on the mental state/health of a woman (particularly a dead one) of whom you know nothing about save for what you've read in the garbage newspapers and their online similars.
You whittle on about respect and yet in my opinion you appear to show none yourself.
Spot on iToots...
:thumbup:
Quote by ziltoid
So no sympathy for a woman with a history of mental health issues?
Or vilification of the hateful Sky News reporter who 'doorstepped' her and indirectly drove her to end her own life?
Nice.
I have found no evidence of a "history of mental health issues" I have found evidence that she was a member of an online group who regularly abused people on twitter.
so, I HAVE EVERY RIGHT to comment because if others can presume she had mental health issues I can believe she didn't, it is my opinion and I have a right to it, unlike you I will NOT give abuse because your personal opinion is different to mine.
I might even go so far as to use the same reason for my opinion as she used for her abuse without evidence "BECAUSE I CAN".
Sex God
people become enraged over things that others of us consider menial, not that the macanns situation is in anyway menial
however you only have to read the thread to know there are reasonably Strong views on where the blame was proportioned, also that at one of the macanns libel cases a group of very strong minded people made their views about the macanns known to them outside the courts
Brenda Leland's tweet/s was ONLY directed at the macanns there seems to be no other records of any other abuse to anyone else unless of course you read the filth rags that parade as NEWS papers
as a mother and a grand mother i think she probably felt strongly,the very same as many others about the macann episode for doing the unthinkable, the only difference being she published her thoughts on twitter and probably would have told the macanns face to face given the opportunity
its interesting that sky news may be the bearer of legal action reckless reporting
however you only have to read the thread to know there are reasonably Strong views on where the blame was proportioned, also that at one of the macanns libel cases a group of very strong minded people made their views about the macanns known to them outside the courts
Brenda Leland's tweet/s was ONLY directed at the macanns there seems to be no other records of any other abuse to anyone else unless of course you read the filth rags that parade as NEWS papers
as a mother and a grand mother i think she probably felt strongly,the very same as many others about the macann episode for doing the unthinkable, the only difference being she published her thoughts on twitter and probably would have told the macanns face to face given the opportunity
its interesting that sky news may be the bearer of legal action reckless reporting
Sexpert
I am no legal expert but reading the transcripts of what has been alleged, I can not see what laws have been broken. It may be abhorrent, it maybe shocking but I have not seen anything where anybody wants to cause harm to the Mcanns. Yes, they do not wish the Mcanns well but are more suggesting situations the author would like them to populate.
These views seem quite extreme and because the author has made them public, it should not be a surprise that when the cloak of anonymity has been lifted that the media will investigate.
Not withstanding what I have said, I will personally wait till after the inquest to form a view. Who sent the tweets, were they against the law, the authors state of mind and cause of death but what I will say is that high volume social media is there for everybody to use. I choose not to use it (this is the nearest I get to high volume social media) people who want to show off a new car to people who want to insult others to those who actually brutally murder others and post it on you tube. The question has to be do we want a censored social media?
Because I don't use social media, I accept my view is not relevant so I will choose not to share it, other than to say if as many people think censorship is too harsh is about the same as the number as those who don't think it goes far enough, it seems set at just about the right level.
National laws on censorship would be next to useless as it would not cover those outside that particular country. It would need international agreement which although probably not impossible, it would be very difficult.
So if you tighten up the law in the UK, some of these tweets if produced in the UK may fall foul of the law but if the same tweets came from a country with it would be defined by the laws in that country or the country that contains the registered office of the social media company.
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
These views seem quite extreme and because the author has made them public, it should not be a surprise that when the cloak of anonymity has been lifted that the media will investigate.
Not withstanding what I have said, I will personally wait till after the inquest to form a view. Who sent the tweets, were they against the law, the authors state of mind and cause of death but what I will say is that high volume social media is there for everybody to use. I choose not to use it (this is the nearest I get to high volume social media) people who want to show off a new car to people who want to insult others to those who actually brutally murder others and post it on you tube. The question has to be do we want a censored social media?
Because I don't use social media, I accept my view is not relevant so I will choose not to share it, other than to say if as many people think censorship is too harsh is about the same as the number as those who don't think it goes far enough, it seems set at just about the right level.
National laws on censorship would be next to useless as it would not cover those outside that particular country. It would need international agreement which although probably not impossible, it would be very difficult.
So if you tighten up the law in the UK, some of these tweets if produced in the UK may fall foul of the law but if the same tweets came from a country with it would be defined by the laws in that country or the country that contains the registered office of the social media company.
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
Quote by herts_darlings1
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.
Quote by MidsCouple24
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.
I think you're getting censorship and against the law mixed up.
Sex God
Quote by Rogue_Trader
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.
I think you're getting censorship and against the law mixed up.
I dont know much about these things, so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the laws that set our bounderies for our freedom to exspresion?
Sexpert
Quote by Bluefish2009
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.
There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.
I think you're getting censorship and against the law mixed up.
I dont know much about these things, so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the laws that set our bounderies for our freedom to exspresion?
I think by and large that is correct, but it doesn't stop personal views which can be hurtful and indeed are deliberately hurtful. I give this as an example only, I would never utter these words other than to give an example. You could, by any medium tell someone you "hope they rot in hell for eternity!" If it were said to me, I would not bat an eyelid, I would not be offended and just carry on with my life. Someone wants me to inhabit a particular place when I do not wish me any harm and I would probably just think "sad arse hole". Now if that same comment was made in relation to a terminally ill child and was also in the public domain so those close to the child were aware, the response would quite rightly be different but the person who made the comment is still not breaking any law that I know of.
If someone said "I hope you get brutally murdered and rot in hell for eternity!" I would still think sad arse hole but then that person is breaking the law as far as I am aware. If you then through race, gender, sexuality in the mix then guilty as can be!
Let's not forget, if the McCann's had done the proper thing in the first place and properly arranged supervision of their children whilst going out on a 'bender' with their friends then none of this would have happened.
I subscribe to the view that Mr McCann is an arrogant b*stard and messianic in his view that he can do no bad - particularly as he is a doctor, a godlike twat of the first degree.
My conspiracy theory tendancy on here is (or should be by now) legendary.
Remember Soham? The school caretaker who thrust himself into the limelight to attempt to deflect the possibility of being identified as the culprit? The MP's and other of the arrogant political class who have been imprisoned for lying through their teeth and taking newspapers and others to court for making apparent falsehoods which turned out eventually to be true.... These all remind me of McCann. A desparate man intent of 'proving' his innocence when we all know he is as guilty as hell.
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. A truly despicable excuse for a human being.
I subscribe to the view that Mr McCann is an arrogant b*stard and messianic in his view that he can do no bad - particularly as he is a doctor, a godlike twat of the first degree.
My conspiracy theory tendancy on here is (or should be by now) legendary.
Remember Soham? The school caretaker who thrust himself into the limelight to attempt to deflect the possibility of being identified as the culprit? The MP's and other of the arrogant political class who have been imprisoned for lying through their teeth and taking newspapers and others to court for making apparent falsehoods which turned out eventually to be true.... These all remind me of McCann. A desparate man intent of 'proving' his innocence when we all know he is as guilty as hell.
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. A truly despicable excuse for a human being.
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
Let's not forget, if the McCann's had done the proper thing in the first place and properly arranged supervision of their children whilst going out on a 'bender' with their friends then none of this would have happened.
I subscribe to the view that Mr McCann is an arrogant b*stard and messianic in his view that he can do no bad - particularly as he is a doctor, a godlike twat of the first degree.
My conspiracy theory tendancy on here is (or should be by now) legendary.
Remember Soham? The school caretaker who thrust himself into the limelight to attempt to deflect the possibility of being identified as the culprit? The MP's and other of the arrogant political class who have been imprisoned for lying through their teeth and taking newspapers and others to court for making apparent falsehoods which turned out eventually to be true.... These all remind me of McCann. A desparate man intent of 'proving' his innocence when we all know he is as guilty as hell.
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. A truly despicable excuse for a human being.
I could also point out I have never seen them show any emotion in public with regard this, however!
We are where we are! A not so young girl (anymore) is still missing and I really don't care what her parents are like at this point. She didn't choose her parents and that should not detract from the search for her. It has also brought to the attention of the media that Ben Needham is still missing! last seen on the isle of Crete probably about 20 years ago now.
So back to the twittersnipe GnV, any thoughts?
I don't subscribe to twitter so have never twatted (if that's the correct past particle of the verb to twit).
However, I saw the street 'interview' by the Sky reporter on TV and my first impression of the dear lady was that very little arrogance or misdemeanour was apparent. I was saddened and surprised to learn of her demise and from what I have read of her, whilst she had strong views about the McCanns, she had not been party to some of the vitriol (justified or not) levelled elsewhere.
I wasn't alerted to any health issues until I read them in this thread but she appeared to me to be coherent and balanced when unexpectedly confronted in front of her house - rather unlike the pictures the popular press have since released of her which are a dreadful attempt at demonising her.
Interesting that the Coroner is struggling to publish a cause of death...
However, I saw the street 'interview' by the Sky reporter on TV and my first impression of the dear lady was that very little arrogance or misdemeanour was apparent. I was saddened and surprised to learn of her demise and from what I have read of her, whilst she had strong views about the McCanns, she had not been party to some of the vitriol (justified or not) levelled elsewhere.
I wasn't alerted to any health issues until I read them in this thread but she appeared to me to be coherent and balanced when unexpectedly confronted in front of her house - rather unlike the pictures the popular press have since released of her which are a dreadful attempt at demonising her.
Interesting that the Coroner is struggling to publish a cause of death...
The basic problem I have is with society and it's acceptance of criminality in general.
Every way you turn people are supporting those who break the law no matter how bad the crime but nobody has any time for the victims. People talk about "innocent until proven guilty" and jump to the defence of those accused but only if it suits them. The McCanns for instance have not been tried or convicted of any crime, yet it seems open season on abusing them and violating their rights.
I do not support the McCanns but I will not abuse them for anything other than leaving their child unsupervised and I will do that privately in my own mind.
Yesterday in the local café I made the mistake of reading the local paper, something I normally try to avoid, a drug dealer who was found to have £12,000 worth of cocaine in his TAXI and was growing weed in his home was given 3 years (serve less than 18months) when the judge accepted his defence that he kept it for personal use so he could drive his taxi for longer hours with the cocaine keeping him awake and the caught with thousands of pictures on his PC which the prosecution showed to be of the worst category (ie young children involved in sexual acts) sentenced to 5 years on the Sex Offenders Register and that was all, the Judge even said that had the Police not found the images he would no doubt of been facing him on more severe charges in the near future, that and fact that he was "remorseful".
It is just typical of the UKs judicial system these days, we simply do not have a deterrent worthy of the crimes committed and an unwillingness to punish the guilty and as a consequence the majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders and the more we accept the situation the worse it will get.
Every way you turn people are supporting those who break the law no matter how bad the crime but nobody has any time for the victims. People talk about "innocent until proven guilty" and jump to the defence of those accused but only if it suits them. The McCanns for instance have not been tried or convicted of any crime, yet it seems open season on abusing them and violating their rights.
I do not support the McCanns but I will not abuse them for anything other than leaving their child unsupervised and I will do that privately in my own mind.
Yesterday in the local café I made the mistake of reading the local paper, something I normally try to avoid, a drug dealer who was found to have £12,000 worth of cocaine in his TAXI and was growing weed in his home was given 3 years (serve less than 18months) when the judge accepted his defence that he kept it for personal use so he could drive his taxi for longer hours with the cocaine keeping him awake and the caught with thousands of pictures on his PC which the prosecution showed to be of the worst category (ie young children involved in sexual acts) sentenced to 5 years on the Sex Offenders Register and that was all, the Judge even said that had the Police not found the images he would no doubt of been facing him on more severe charges in the near future, that and fact that he was "remorseful".
It is just typical of the UKs judicial system these days, we simply do not have a deterrent worthy of the crimes committed and an unwillingness to punish the guilty and as a consequence the majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders and the more we accept the situation the worse it will get.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Yesterday in the local café I made the mistake of reading the local paper, something I normally try to avoid, a drug dealer who was found to have £12,000 worth of cocaine in his TAXI and was growing weed in his home was given 3 years (serve less than 18months) when the judge accepted his defence that he kept it for personal use so he could drive his taxi for longer hours with the cocaine keeping him awake
Mids, now you see when you make a claim like this, which sounds preposterous that a judge would accept a defence plea of using cocaine to keep you awake, I have to do a bit of digging to find the truth...
1. The Taxi Driver was a courier, not a dealer
2. His please was entered but not accepted
3. 140 grams of cannabis vegetation was found at his girlfriends home, no indication there was any cultivation
4. He was to be paid 2 grams (£140) for his task of being the courier
So really 18 months for transporting 68 grams of the colombian marching powder from Derby to Stoke seems quite appropriate.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
.....It is just typical of the UKs judicial system these days, we simply do not have a deterrent worthy of the crimes committed and an unwillingness to punish the guilty and as a consequence the majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders and the more we accept the situation the worse it will get.
Sadly tarring the whole UK Judicial system based on some aspects of Criminal Law, where the vast majority is Case Law there Jed ?
Anyway as its Criminal Law that you seem to be referring to is this actually the Criminal Law's fault OR the associated Sentencing Guidelines for those convicted of these offenses ?
Each of us will probably have different views, which is why Criminal Law is developed via the Parliamentary system by MPs who you elect and therefore have the opportunity to influence via correspondence, local MP surgeries, local Constituency campaigns, etc. whilst proposals from MPs are reviewed via House of Lords who we don't elect.
Oh but you hear people say 'I don't vote', that case given you've foregone a fundamental opportunity to voice an opinion (for which many die around the world each year trying to obtain), then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to comment elsewhere ?
As for the McCanns, they went out and left the kids behind un-supervised. Every year we hear of lots of similar cases, kids coming home from school to an empty house due to working parent (s) not being there. So some one got excited about this on Twitter, a Social Media application the majority of the population don't use, but where the possible Criminal penalties have been well explained via traditional media in recent years.
Not interested :yawn:
However we all have different interests, so in respect of "...we simply do not have a deterrent worthy of the crimes committed and an unwillingness to punish the guilty..." personally have an issue with the sanctimonious law abiding wrapped in traditional respect values church goers who set all that aside and on Sundays mornings decide to litter the local roads by parking in restricted areas, double yellow lines, on junctions, blocking residents in, etc. Highway code explains the Law, but doesn't stop them, so it's the Sentencing Guidelines we need to review.
Simple just police it on a Sunday with the Police allowed to keep the fines raised by tickets on the 1st offense, shareing the recovery fees when cars towed away on the 2nd offense, and on the 3rd offence marksmen are allowed to shoot the driver, with the Church making money via the associated funeral fees.
Next is 2 birds with one stone. With the scrapping of 'car tax discs' due the prevalence of ANPR cameras, allows lots to be monitored and I'm sure the motorway gantry ones can be supplemented with a machine gun as well so as to shoot the un-taxed and/or un-insured plus with a software tweak monitor and similarly deal with the 'middle lane owners' as well. Might be chaos on the roads for a couple of days, but sure the message would be learnt that there's a high profile deterrence.
Tax Evasion ? Simple, for individuals up to £10,000 equals 1 month in custody increasing on the basis 1 month extra per £10,000. For corporates the same to apply to their directors, though when sums in excess of £500,000 are involved/proven, then automatically place the company into Administration and sold to new owners.
Do the penalties fit the crime ?
Maybe not in some peoples views, but each to their own.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Yesterday in the local café I made the mistake of reading the local paper, something I normally try to avoid, a drug dealer who was found to have £12,000 worth of cocaine in his TAXI and was growing weed in his home was given 3 years (serve less than 18months) when the judge accepted his defence that he kept it for personal use so he could drive his taxi for longer hours with the cocaine keeping him awake
Mids, now you see when you make a claim like this, which sounds preposterous that a judge would accept a defence plea of using cocaine to keep you awake, I have to do a bit of digging to find the truth...
1. The Taxi Driver was a courier, not a dealer
2. His please was entered but not accepted
3. 140 grams of cannabis vegetation was found at his girlfriends home, no indication there was any cultivation
4. He was to be paid 2 grams (£140) for his task of being the courier
So really 18 months for transporting 68 grams of the colombian marching powder from Derby to Stoke seems quite appropriate.
I don't care if he was a courier or a dealer but why were "small cellophane bags" found in a COURIERS possession, is that not what the dealers use ? what is the difference between a courier and a dealer they are both drug dealers.
He got 3 years, he should serve 3 years and time added on for bad behaviour not time off for good behaviour.
Coupled with the information known about her bf she should also have been charged
Exactly, saying it was for personal use to keep him awake was not accepted as a reason for such possession so why was he given such a lenient sentence ?
Why was he not banned from driving for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, something he stated he did every day ?
It is such a joke in this City (stoke on trent) that people who cannot get taxis when the need them say "the junkies must be keeping them busy tonight" because everyone knows that so many taxi drivers here deal in drugs.
