McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

[Guest]

The rest is behind a paywall, but here's the start of it, at least.

A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.

The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4357525.ece

At least they had the decency to put "trolled" in quotes.

[Guest]

Just posted same so have deleted, how interesting that it will be on public record.

And clear why so many pros locked their accounts after Brenda died and others went into hiding after the appalling tweet from one of them a couple of days ago.

None of them heard of the concept of moral courage?

And Gamble furiously trying to distance himself yesterday... from the rabid pro rabble. Too late mate.

[Dee Coy]

Bearing the brunt...

He looks shocking. I hope he bows to his conscience for his own sake as well as everything else.

[Poppy]

Doesn't look good for the Sky news and the McCanns, Bye bye Martin, Rupert is no longer your friend,the McCanns  summer and Swan and Gamble have played you like a kipper.

[cherry]

I haven't seen Sky News report it yet!

[Guest]

Bearing the brunt...

He looks shocking. I hope he bows to his conscience for his own sake as well as everything else.

O dear! That Justin Bieber hairdo didn't work for Clarrie either 

Good news about asking for the evidence. A month to wait!

[Guest]

Surprise surprise, the coven have not gathered around their bubbling cauldron since 11 pm last night.

  Twitter pros - most have  locked their accounts, some doing so weeks ago and one or two of the most manic seem to have shut up shop.

 The woman given anonymity might simply be the elected spokesperson. It would be interesting to know who decided on compiling the dossier and who gave it to the family, because BHH said the family handed it to the police. There will be more than one name revealed possibly.


THE FULL PIECE IN THE TIMES :



Reveal source of story on McCann internet abuser, reporter ordered.
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent

A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had "trolled" the parents of Madeleine McCann

The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists' rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

Martin Brunt, Sky's crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October. Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt's expose of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousand of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the "worst of humankind".

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. Sky has said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since. Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.

Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago. Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: "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."

Bob Satwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was "always worrying" when a journalist was asked to reveal their source because they should "obviously" remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities to know journalistic sources, which had previously been "sacrosanct". He added: "Its (sic) almost like they think the media is a far game, and that's a highly dangerous position."

The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge's agreement before they can snoop on journalists.

Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.

[Bampots]

NUJ code of conduct has these 12 points;


1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4 Differentiates between fact and opinion
5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare
12 Avoids plagiarism
The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

A look at the above raises several question in regard to Brunt/Leyland
At least in IMO points 2,4,6,9 should be looked at.

[Poe]

I know we shouldn't be surprised but the hypocrisy of Team Murdoch is breathtaking when it's laid bare like that.

On one side of the team we have Sky who did their utmost to destroy Brenda Leyland, tearing up their own rule book in the process and ignoring their legal duty of care while on the other we have The Times whimpering that the Coroner isn't following the rules by asking Sky to reveal their source.

Sky/Martin Brunt will eventually give up their source to the Coroner or the police will get the name using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

[dogs don't lie]

Poor Brenda (RIP) was a pensioner, living on her own and completely vulnerable. She would have been living in fear for her life after what MB and sky had done to her, wrong on so many levels. Why not challenge a younger person with worse tweets? Poor lady had her house shown all day on the news. How was Brenda supposed to cope with that? Could have even lead to a heart attack through stress alone
Imo

[Inca]

Poor Brenda (RIP) was a pensioner, living on her own and completely vulnerable. She would have been living in fear for her life after what MB and sky had done to her, wrong on so many levels. Why not challenge a younger person with worse tweets? Poor lady had her house shown all day on the news. How was Brenda supposed to cope with that? Could have even lead to a heart attack through stress alone
Imo

[Mimi]

Martin Brunt has already reported that the dossier was handed to the Leicestershire police, so surely the police can provide the coroner with the source. The police wouldn`t take action merely on a journalist`s say so, they would investigate the source, so they must know who it is.

[Poe]

Martin Brunt has already reported that the dossier was handed to the Leicestershire police, so surely the police can provide the coroner with the source.  The police wouldn`t take action merely on a journalist`s say so, they would investigate the source, so they must know who it is.

The person who handed the dossier to the police isn't necessarily the same person who handed the dossier to Sky.

Edited to add:

Regarding the handing of the dossier to Sky, I suspect that this was done by Gerry or Jim Gamble.

It wasn't simply handed over to Sky who decided to run with it. Whoever handed it over would have needed to make sure that Sky knew what was expected of them in return. I can't see Gerry or Jim Gamble trusting that to anyone else.

The anonymous duck-feeder could have been used to deflect from the true source.

All IMO.

[Popcorn]

Martin Brunt has already reported that the dossier was handed to the Leicestershire police, so surely the police can provide the coroner with the source.  The police wouldn`t take action merely on a journalist`s say so, they would investigate the source, so they must know who it is.

The person who handed the dossier to the police isn't necessarily the same person who handed the dossier to Sky.

Edited to add:

Regarding the handing of the dossier to Sky, I suspect that this was done by Gerry or Jim Gamble.

It wasn't simply handed over to Sky who decided to run with it. Whoever handed it over would have needed to make sure that Sky knew what was expected of them in return. I can't see Gerry or Jim Gamble trusting that to anyone else.

The anonymous duck-feeder could have been used to deflect from the true source.

All IMO.

That's a good point. Given that the case against Brenda seemed pretty thin (no direct messages to the McCanns, no threats to them or their family, just a consistent disbelief of their version of events and a determination to repeat this view), you do wonder why on earth a massive news group like Sky would send one of their chief reporters out after this woman on the say so of a fat-ankled duck-feeding nobody. If the dossier-giver was a trusted source, that may have lent the story more weight, even if they weren't naming the source at the time. Maybe the dossier-giver was going to be more helpful to Sky when stories around whether the McCanns were going to sue the "troll" - and all the other "trolls" - started filling news pages and airtime?

[Poe]

The tweet that on initial reading looks like a message of support for Martin Brunt's journalism now looks like a pat on the head for an obedient lap dog.

[candyfloss]

JillyCL ‏@JillyCL · 2 mins2 minutes ago
@Neil_Wilby @frank_fisher #BernardHoganHow audio re #McCann https://audioboom.com/boos/2544211-bernard-hogan-howe-confirms-it-was-the-mccann-s-who-gave-police-the-dossier-he-also-mentions-murder-in-ref-to-madeleine-but-corrects-himself …

[candyfloss]

REALPanicTimes ‏@PoIiticalTales  · 14 mins14 minutes ago  
@B_balou @jontait42 Not that it matters one iota since the police already know who handed it over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6c1aRUUPgE#t=55 … #mccann

[Guest]

Martin Brunt has already reported that the dossier was handed to the Leicestershire police, so surely the police can provide the coroner with the source.  The police wouldn`t take action merely on a journalist`s say so, they would investigate the source, so they must know who it is.

The person who handed the dossier to the police isn't necessarily the same person who handed the dossier to Sky.

Edited to add:

Regarding the handing of the dossier to Sky, I suspect that this was done by Gerry or Jim Gamble.

It wasn't simply handed over to Sky who decided to run with it. Whoever handed it over would have needed to make sure that Sky knew what was expected of them in return. I can't see Gerry or Jim Gamble trusting that to anyone else.

The anonymous duck-feeder could have been used to deflect from the true source.

All IMO.

That's a good point. Given that the case against Brenda seemed pretty thin (no direct messages to the McCanns, no threats to them or their family, just a consistent disbelief of their version of events and a determination to repeat this view), you do wonder why on earth a massive news group like Sky would send one of their chief reporters out after this woman on the say so of a fat-ankled duck-feeding nobody. If the dossier-giver was a trusted source, that may have lent the story more weight, even if they weren't naming the source at the time. Maybe the dossier-giver was going to be more helpful to Sky when stories around whether the McCanns were going to sue the "troll" - and all the other "trolls" - started filling news pages and airtime?

I agree entirely with your post.

re my highlights in red: I can't imagine for a second that the McCanns weren't contacted by Sky News regarding the non-stop reporting on Brenda and what the contents of the news reports were going to be.  Can you imagine anyone having a dossier compiled by complete strangers and that dossier being handed to Sky News and the police without the people who the dossier was protecting not knowing what the contents were.  For all the McCanns knew it could put them in a very comprising position regarding legalities etc.  Having said that I wonder if a lawyer was also consulted before the dossier was released to Sky and the police and who would that lawyer be?  Hmmm, now let me think.

[Guest]

I do find it hard to believe that Brenda who seemed to be such a strong woman would feel the need to kill herself. The best option would have been to brave it out and explain why she did tweet and why she felt the McCann's were guilty, that would have been a move forward . Are we likely to know the full story and what was really said to her by Brunt? What really pushed her ? Stinks imo

[Guest]

She could have gone to stay with friends many, many miles away from her own home whilst the whole thing blew over, it does seem strange to me that she ended up in a near-by hotel, as if she was enticed there for some reason, and died there.  Hopefully the friend who was in the car with her when Brunt accosted her within a few feet of her own doorstep will be able to tell the coroner what happened up until those last hours of Brenda's life.

I know it's been mentioned before either by myself or other people but I hope that the coroner looks into who booked the hotel room and who paid for it.

[costello]

Not to mention how much she loved her dogs. None of it adds up to me.

[Guest]

Not to mention how much she loved her dogs. None of it adds up to me.

Not to forget her son/s also.  I said son/s as I belive she was estranged from one of them.  

But as you say, none of it adds up.

[Guest]

Medical Cause of Death
To be ascertained
Circumstances
Found deceased in a hotel
Inquest Status
Open and adjourned
Date Inquest Open08/10/2014
Hearing Date20/03/2015
Hearing Time
10.00
So they could not find the cause first off, how many coroners decision do we think are sometimes a set up.Wonder if she had a stroke/heart because of the stress.Make it bad for Brunt if that was the case and that wont come out, if so.

[Freedom]

I don't think an inquest would be held for someone who died of a heart attack or a stroke?

[Guest]

http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-1-3-what-is-an-inquest
Why must an inquest be held? This can be summed up as follows:

   • where there is reasonable suspicion that someone has died a violent or unnatural death;
   • where someone has died a sudden death and the cause is unknown;
   • where someone has died in prison or in any place or circumstance where there is a legal requirement to hold an inquest because of an Act of Parliament.

No known cause of death. Would that apply.?

[Sponsored content]