To feel sorry for this woman?

[Mammanat222]

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

OK so her hobby of internet trolling (and her subjects!!) was a bit dodgy BUT I cannot help to feel quite sorry for how she was treated??

AIBU

I feel sorry for everyone in this story - there are no winners are there. Yes, she behaved badly, but her dying doesn't make it any better. I certainly can't see how her suffering balances out what she did. I guess she was powerful behind the keyboard but once exposed she crumbled. Poor her and her poor family. I guess to behave how she did she could have been very unhappy herself or even not well.

Some of the people on that link sound mentally disturbed, particularly that woman talking about kidnapping them and taking a leaf out of the nazis' book to get them to tell the truth.

Yes, it is cowardly behaviour to hide behind a keyboard and abuse others who quite often have no redress. I think it is truly dreadful that this woman took her life because of her own actions and maybe shame. Her poor family have to now cope somehow. Perhaps it it could make just one person think twice before hurling abuse and vitriol from the comfort of their armchair. Words can hurt beyond belief. Yes, there are no winners here.

There are all sorts of tv programmes involving "dodgy traders" being door stepped, chased down the road, accused of hurting people, of committing crimes of perhaps just of behaving despicably and without morals.

The only difference here seems to be slight shift in genre, going after people who abuse others and potentially commit crimes of harassment whilst enjoying the supposed anonymity of the Internet.

If it was unfair to target her should we also be complaining about "Rogue Traders" and it's ilk?

Roussette that blog is bonkers.

As much as internet trolls annoy me, they don't deserve to die. Or to have posters on here rubbing their hands with glee at her death.

They don't deserve to die I agree but had they not trolled they wouldn't be in a position where they felt that suicide was their only option.

Let's not forget what damage trolls do.

Knee yes it probably is, but it does illustrate what's out there. It's not my blog by the way!

I didn't think it was don't worry!

I gather that the owner of that blog is one of the people who seem to engage in some sort of battle with those who call themselves 'truthers'.

That blogger doesn't cover themselves in glory TBH.

No one's 'rubbing their hands with glee' usualsuspect.

Bluegrass Personally I think we should stop programmes like that. I watched one today in which people accused a builder of doing a bad job, the chap when harassed by the permanently angry Dominic Littlewood said yes the job was not good enough but the family would not let him put things right. He might be a rogue but he might be a good chap who did one bad job and who knows the accuracy in the attempt to make "good tv". Should he be publicly shown up like that? Probably not. These cases should be solved in the courts not on tv

This Brenda/McCann thing is an awful situation and everybody loses except the media who have another story for a day or two

Yes, I'm not comfortable with rogue traders and the like. I await the day one of the "rogues" punches smarmy in your face man on the nose.

Brenda Leyland's views about the McCanns aren't exactly uncommon - people I know have ventured that opinion, too. OK they didn't become obsessed or post venom about it online (afaik), but in itself it's just an opinion.
Posting nasty and even abusive things online isn't a crime, in itself. If it becomes criminal it would be prosecuted, usually under the harassment or malicious communications acts. (Aside: BustiKate, at last someone explaining what 'trolling' actually is! Thank you! This annoys me too).

This is an interesting article: www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns#28tkkha

From what I have read the McCanns weren't even on SM and (sensibly) ignored these vitriol campaigns. I think they have more to worry about than what some rather sad people said about them online, tbh, and they don't exactly lack power. They've been through a devastating loss, and I'm not condoning the vile campaign against them, but they seem to have dealt with it in a resilient way and not to be particularly vulnerable.

Like many others here, I find the trial by media the most disturbing aspect of this. Doorstepping, humiliation on national TV, harassment by Sky media? No-one, but no-one, whatever they have done, deserves that. Does it actually make Sky any better than these alleged online?
And note, nothing has actually been proved. Police were investigating.
We have a justice system, police would have investigated what she tweeted, and her mental health would have been assessed. (I think it's very likely she had MH issues, but armchair diagnosis is a bad idea). If mental health professionals had found she did, of course, it's likely she would just have got a stern warning - and some professional help for her mental health issues.

There were many people out there posting things as bad or worse, you have to wonder why Brenda Leyland was singled out like this. Easy target? Probably.

This was a witch hunt.

In the end this is a tragedy and no-one has gained except the disgusting Murdoch gutter press, which something needs doing about. Sky News have blood on their hands.

Posting nasty and even abusive things online isn't a crime

Well why the bloody hell isn't it? It should be.

Maybe the laws will be revised after this sad episode.

Similar things to what she tweeted have been posted on MN.

Admittedly HQ delete them, but they have still been posted.

Sky News and Twitter trolls deserve each other.

Bowlersarm, how do we distinguish between "nasty and abusive" things online and people having a different point of view to the majority, or making a stand against injustice?
We shouldn't let go of free speech without a fight.

Did she actually get HOUNDED though? From what I saw it was 1 day story that would have blown over except that people she knew would now know how spiteful she was.

Bowlersarm - as I said, this can be a crime; if the posts constitute harassment or malicious communications, the person can be prosecuted.
I think freedom of speech is important though. People do have the right to say things that are nasty and vile- or where do we draw the line? Should the police spend their time prosecuting people who are having a bad day and snap at someone, saying something nasty & offensive? I was recently told off in my local library for the heinous sin of saying 'oh for f*ck's sake' (stupid computer had had a meltdown, meaning I lost an hour's worth of work). I know, bad me . Should that be a police matter?

For what its worth, and given its the Daily Mail maybe not much, but the DM have reported this morning that she did not send post threatening tweets, but that she hated the McCanns. This leads us back to Butterflywings post upthread- is it a crime to post that you hate someone? There is a thread in AIBU at the moment calling Jeremy Clarkson a Twat, and another accusing Enrique Iglasias of assaulting some girl in his latest video- all under usernames which hide real identities- should the police get involved with those cases? Where do we draw the line? There has to be clear guidelines about what is acceptable and what isn't, otherwise how do people know when posting an opinion turns to committing a crime?

Nasty things have undoubtedly been said about the McCanns, but then nasty things have been said about the Portuguese police, including individual officers, because they failed to find Madeleine. Should that be let go as acceptable venting of frustration or should the UK police be investigating on behalf of their Portuguese colleagues?? I think this case throws up so many areas which need clarification.

Sending poison pen letters is a crime. Surely posting malicious and often slanderous stuff about the McCanns on websites anonymously is also a criminal offence?

I said earlier I struggle with this one and am not sure what I think.

But, if she can be free to tweet or post so many negative and unpleasant things publicly then surely people or media are free to ask her her thoughts on it or ask her why she feels the need to post what and as she does.

When I first saw this, I did think she had played a larger part - more sending messages directly to the McCanns and directly harassing them. I'm also not completely comfortable with the media being able to publicly push people out into the public eye like this. I also think that if people post publicly online on forums or whatever - they should only write what they wouldn't be ashamed of to admit in publicly without hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

I do feel sorry for her. I read the buzzfeed article that lists some of her tweets. She wasn't a troll, she had a cause. She believed that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearance and that they profit financially from donations, she was part of a large online community that believe that. She was guilty of harassment, but not trolling. She wasn't being hateful for the sake of it. She probably thought she was trying to get justice for Madeleine. It's a sad case and I feel for her children.

It's awful that she felt the only way out was to kill herself. She has left behind her children, family and friends who all would have loved the good in her. I would never condone any form of bullying or abuse and what she did was very wrong but I think she should not have been outed in the media the way she was, out of all the trolls she was the only person who was shown