Cause of Brenda Leyland's Death Inconclusive

Joss wrote:
I would imagine so, and with the inquest coming up this month I wonder if he has lawyered up and is going by a lawyers advice?

Murdoch / Sky will have seen to that within minutes.
He will be under strict instructions, and will even now be rehearsing his answers
They do not want a Corporate Manslaughter looming over them
http://www.hse.gov.uk/corpmanslaughter/about.htm
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a landmark in law. For the first time, companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Companies and organisations that take their obligations under health and safety law seriously are not likely to be in breach of the new provisions. Nonetheless, companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed or organised by senior management.

It should be borne in mind that HSE is only one of the health and safety regulators that might produce relevant health and safety guidance. Organisations and companies can also seek guidance from any regulators in their own industry or sector.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194272/No_secrets__guidance_on_developing_and_implementing_multi-agency_policies_and_procedures_to_protect_vulnerable_adults_from_abuse.pdf

2.5 What constitutes abuse? In drawing up guidance locally, it needs to be recognised that the term ‘abuse’ can be subject to wide interpretation. The starting point for a definition is the following statement:
Abuse is a violation of an individual’s human and civil rights by any other person or persons.     Like LYING to them on prime time TV News slot about the Pollce tracking them down?

The Corporate in-house lawyer will have pre-empted all manner of questions likely to arise at the Inquest and have the answers prepared for MB to memorise and rehearse for his Stand appearance.
But, it will be interesting to see if he will be asked why he lied to her about Police investigating her and what his answer will be; or rather what answer the in-house lawyer had supplied to him for said question.

saw this on twitter,dont know if it means anything.


More

• Embed Tweet
  

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton  ·  7 hrs 7 hours ago
@56cheffy Yes Brenda's inquest. Just discovered it has been changed from final to pre-review. I find that Interesting development #mcann RIP

Just speculating here, but one of Brendas sons was either studying or practicing Law in the states. It occurs to me that if he feels Sky's conduct was responsible or some other darker reason behind her death, then it could be that he is working hard to secure justice for his mother. I don't know how these things work, but it is not unreasonable to assume that given the publicity surrounding this death following the frankly disgraceful behaviour of Martin Brunt, it won't be a rubber stamp job. The outcome of this is going to be watched carefully by thousands and Twitter and the like won't let this be quietly brushed under a carpet.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Just speculating here, but one of Brendas sons was either studying or practicing Law in the states. It occurs to me that if he feels Sky's conduct was responsible or some other darker reason behind her death, then it could be that he is working hard to secure justice for his mother. I don't know how these things work, but it is not unreasonable to assume that given the publicity surrounding this death following the frankly disgraceful behaviour of Martin Brunt, it won't be a rubber stamp job. The outcome of this is going to be watched carefully by thousands and Twitter and the like won't let this be quietly brushed under a carpet.

I hope your right,if it wasn't for brunt Brenda would still be alive,a needless death just to make the mccanns look like the victims.
R I P Brenda.

tiny wrote:saw this on twitter,dont know if it means anything.

It is correct

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/current-inquests/?entryid78=582748&char=L
" />



perhaps Brunt and Philomena are not available that day ! !
What we DO know is that HM Coroner has received a lot of information and documentation about the Dossier of death, and the involvement of several people.
We do know that she has had some "discrepancies" in evidence pointed out to her.

There is always a remote chance that she may convene a Jury !

I sincerely hope a jury will be called on this Peter. Wouldn't it be refreshing if just ONE thing relating to the Madeleine case went through and was concluded in a fair, reasonable and timely fashion. We can but hope.

Philomena?,have I missed something

Philyerboots bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms Obese Fat Ankles whose face was obscured in Martin Brunt's Sky News report, tiny.  Mr Brunt chose not extend this courtesy to Brenda Leyland and thus ensured that she could be readily identified by all and sundry.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I sincerely hope a jury will be called on this Peter. Wouldn't it be refreshing if just ONE thing relating to the Madeleine case went through and was concluded in a fair, reasonable and timely fashion. We can but hope.

I share your hopes, Sandm.  The time is long overdue for those who have shamelessly used the media for their own ends, and for those who have allowed this parlous state of affairs to come about, to account for their actions.

Fingers crossed with yours

There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

sallypelt wrote:There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

It could be that they had a private funeral, very quietly and out of the public's eye.

canada12 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

It could be that they had a private funeral, very quietly and out of the public's eye.

Canada, this may be the case. I find it hard to believe that Brenda's body hasn't been released to her family

ultimaThule wrote:Philyerboots bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms Obese Fat Ankles whose face was obscured in Martin Brunt's Sky News report, tiny.  Mr Brunt chose not extend this courtesy to Brenda Leyland and thus ensured that she could be readily identified by all and sundry.

Her 'waddle' is exactly the same.

Catherine Mason is the senior coroner for Leicester.  Let`s hope her seniority bodes well for a thorough inquest.

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/the-coroner/

PeterMac wrote:There is always a remote chance that she may convene a Jury !

Pigs might fly I suppose.

Or the delay might be timed, so that the final inquest coincides with the conclusion of Amaral's libel trial. The papers can then be filled with sensational scare stories about those "evil trolls" again - the perfect smokescreen.

"The Mirror" has been playing its part today, incidentally:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-sick-facebook-page-4787460

Just my own thoughts and opinions.

Coatbridge is part of the Greater Glasgow urban area and it appears it's taken a Scottish newspaper to get the "Coatbridge Dirtys" anonymous Facebook account pulled http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sick-facebook-page-mocking-madeleine-4786595
'
'Coatbridge Dirtys'?  Is this name intended to signify dirty tricks which are enacted in Coatbridge or thereabouts?

Under the circumstances, it's to be hoped that the Scottish police will be able to trace whoever was responsible for setting up this account and that they are able to do so before the date of the final hearing of the inquest into Mrs Leyland's premature death.

sonic72 wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Philyerboots bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms Obese Fat Ankles whose face was obscured in Martin Brunt's Sky News report, tiny.  Mr Brunt chose not extend this courtesy to Brenda Leyland and thus ensured that she could be readily identified by all and sundry.

Her 'waddle' is exactly the same.

And her 'twaddle' appears to be unchanged, sonic

canada12 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

It could be that they had a private funeral, very quietly and out of the public's eye.

Having formed the distinct impression that Brenda Leyland was the epitome of quiet dignity, I sincerely hope that this proves to be the case, canada.

PeterMac wrote:

tiny wrote:saw this on twitter,dont know if it means anything.

It is correct

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/current-inquests/?entryid78=582748&char=L
" />



perhaps Brunt and Philomena are not available that day ! !
What we DO know is that HM Coroner has received a lot of information and documentation about the Dossier of death, and the involvement of several people.
We do know that she has had some "discrepancies" in evidence pointed out to her.

There is always a remote chance that she may convene a Jury !

Cause of death "to be ascertained"

Yet Carter Ruck say suicide.

At its most extreme is the case of Brenda Leyland, the 63-year-old who, having been outed by Sky News over her malicious campaign against the parents of Madeleine McCann, took her own life. wrote:At its most extreme is the case of Brenda Leyland, the 63-year-old who, having been outed by Sky News over her malicious campaign against the parents of Madeleine McCann, took her own life.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=714

Plebgate — how new libel laws have changed the defamation landscape
Posted on November 27, 2014 by Adam Tudor
This article by Adam Tudor was first published in The Times on 27 November 2014.
Plebgate is back. Last Monday former Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell’s libel trial against The Sun began in Court 13 of the Royal Courts of Justice. What was and wasn’t said at Downing Street’s security gates on the evening of September 19, 2012, in a confrontation between Mitchell and PC Toby Rowland, will also be tested in an accompanying libel action by Rowland against Mitchell.
Already a saga with twists and turns, Plebgate now has the hallmarks of the great showpiece libel trials of yesteryear. But one thing will be missing: a jury. This is a trial by judge alone, and thanks to the Defamation Act 2013, it is likely we will never again see a trial by jury in the libel courts — a constitutional shift ending what had been a near-sacrosanct principle for more than two centuries.
So how else has the act changed to the libel landscape? The act came into force on January 1 this year. At first blush, it is a sensible nod to the plain English lobby. The old defence of “justification” became “truth” and “fair comment” morphed into “honest opinion”. Another user-friendly change is the consolidation of judge-made common law into the defence of “publication on a matter of public interest”, which replaces the Reynolds defence (named after a ground-breaking 2001 case involving Albert Reynolds, the former Irish prime minister, which The Sunday Times defended all the way to the House of Lords).
But the act is about more than merely relabelling. A key change is that now, to establish that a statement is defamatory, it is necessary for a claimant to show that a defamatory statement has caused or is likely to cause “serious harm” to their reputation. This is a real shift: previously, damage was presumed.
Every bit as significant is the impact of the act on companies. Now, regardless of how grave the allegations against them, they can only sue if they can show that the article in question has caused or is likely to cause “serious financial loss”.
The act also provides a framework to give added protection to the hosts of internet discussion boards while preserving the right of those libelled on such boards to bring a claim if the offending material is not removed. To combat the perceived danger of “libel tourism”, there are jurisdictional changes that make it harder for overseas claimants to sue unless they can show that England and Wales is the most appropriate place to do so.
What impact have the changes had at the coalface? It is still too early to form a definitive view, but there is little doubt that the new “serious harm” test and changes to the rights of companies to sue will reduce the number of defamation claims that end up at trial. Yet reputation is as important to companies and individuals as ever: witness, at the same time as the decline in full-blown libel litigation, a marked increase in clients instructing media lawyers to go into bat before a story is published or broadcast, often working with the client’s PR advisers as part of a reputation-management strategy.
And while statistics for 2013 indicated that libel claims issued at court were at an all-time low, the number of cases so far this year are reported to be nearly 25 per cent higher than in 2013. The increase is in large part down to the number of libel claims arising out of social media.
So if full-blown claims against “old” media are likely to decline, libel lawyers are not going out of business. Their attention is increasingly turning not just to defamation via social media but to a burgeoning new battleground: that of cyber-bullying and trolling.
Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites provide users with an all-too-easy forum for publishing serious libels and, worse, hate speech. The past year has highlighted the dark side of social media, with people seemingly only too willing to abuse and harass others (often anonymously or using a false name) on the assumption that they will never be brought to account. At its most extreme is the case of Brenda Leyland, the 63-year-old who, having been outed by Sky News over her malicious campaign against the parents of Madeleine McCann, took her own life.
Thankfully, the law enforcement agencies and courts are starting to treat hate campaigns more seriously. They are increasingly willing to use powers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, which make it a criminal offence to send an electronic communication (including tweets) in any form that is grossly offensive, threatening and which is intended to cause distress to the recipient. High-profile cases this year have included the jailing of a man who persistently intimidated MP Stella Creasy; so too the imprisonment of a man for 16 months for repeatedly posting racist and threatening remarks.
The changes wrought by the Defamation Act are profound and important; libel lawyers are likely to be kept busy for some time as the new regime beds in. But if trials such as Plebgate will remain the exception, there are sure to be more court cases (both criminal and civil) over cyber-bullying and trolling, a distasteful and all too often dangerous facet of modern life which, regrettably, seems here to stay

some of the info. in the above post I believe will be of great help to Rocky if and when he decides to proceed with legal action, as suggested a few months back.

plebgate wrote:some of the info. in the above post I believe will be of great help to Rocky if and when he decides to proceed with legal action, as suggested a few months back.

Indeed.  You would think that a firm of Solicitors, even crummy ones, let alone the most feared firm of Libel ones - - - would have been slightly more guarded and selective in their use of English.

But then this is the firm which provided to the High Court a young recently married woman, who, on oath, stated more than once, that Madeleine had been abducted,
and then had, after extensive and meticulous cross-examination - namely one question, -
to admit that that she had ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to present to the court of any such thing.

On this is based the McCanns' entire case.
They say so.
And that is it.


SO FAR ! ! !

From twitter.

Johanna @UnterdenTeppich
Libel lawyers for the #McCann s committing libel for their clients? Preempting a formal inquest? http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=714  #Scum

plebgate wrote:From twitter.

Johanna  @UnterdenTeppich
Libel lawyers for the #McCann s committing libel for their clients? Preempting a formal inquest? http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=714  #Scum

Presumeably, Farter Cluck will be 'presenting' reams of 'evidence' of BL's 'malicious campaign' against the McCann's at the inquest then?
Possibly even 'evidence' of the FIFTY (50) "This piece of work was sending up to 50 texts a day to the McCanns." TEXTS a day, BL was 'sending' TO the McCann's.

However, I don't think they, Farter Cluck, will be to 'keen' to provide the 'evidence' of the 'tweets' BL 'received' from THEIR fellow McCann's 'supporter' Cindy Martin!

I wonder if Farter Cluck, will be declaring, anytime soon, that their fellow McCann 'supporter' Cindy Martin's 'tweets' to BL were 'malicious' towards BL?

Indeed, definitely life 'threatening' to BL! But THAT'S ok, and presumeably, in their 'view' certainly not a 'malicious campaign' against BL, because CM 'supports' their 'clients', the McCann's!

Ok, rhetorical!

eta: Are Carter Ruck, condoning, the McCann's, who they are proud to represent, on a pro bono and 'no win, no fee' basis, ardent McCann's 'supporter' Cindy Martin's 'disgusting, vile, life threatening' tweets TO BL?

Or dosen't it 'work' like THAT within big Legal 'firms'?

Putting this here so it doesn't get lost.

Another McCann related death ?
Colin Sahlke was one of the soldiers who sent out to PdL to search. Yes, a real search. and within a short time of the incident report
20th May. Four days BEFORE The last photo was released
He was found dead a little time later, with a bit of alcohol - he was a heavy drinker and used to the amount found - AND Morphine in his system, a substance he did not use, and for which NO NEEDLE MARK could be found. They looked and could not find it.
They met the McCanns in PdL.

Chillingly the reports includes this
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id340.html

"The pair say they are trying to search in places where no one else has searched."
Too close ?

TB had to be silenced - Why ? Had he got too close with something he said
Dr Amaral had to be silenced Why ? Ditto
Colis S - searching in places they didn't want him to
Brenda L - saying things they did not want the world to hear, asking pertinent questions

Who is next ?

From ultimaThule's post

'Coatbridge Dirtys'?  Is this name intended to signify dirty tricks which are enacted in Coatbridge or thereabouts?


Possibly, but a dirty is a girl of easy virtue.

Rufus T wrote:From ultimaThule's post

'Coatbridge Dirtys'?  Is this name intended to signify dirty tricks which are enacted in Coatbridge or thereabouts?


Possibly, but a dirty is a girl of easy virtue.

Google brings up a whole range of options!

I was speaking of what the term usually means in Glasgow and the surrounding area, but of course it could have many other meanings.