OH, LOOK WHO'S MAKING THREATS TO DISRUPT A CERTAIN INQUEST

 @ Admin The 'Anonymous'/Million Masks March is basically a bunch of left-wing anarchists and activists and has nothing to do with Brenda Leyland.

Not saying that some of their concerns aren't legitimate, e.g. globalisation, world poverty etc. - but basically for many of them, it is an exciting day out, a sort of 'day at the races'.

I can't see that the memory of Brenda Leyland being marked by Cristobell brandishing a placard saying 'I'm Brenda Leyland' is going to meet with much favour from her surviving relatives.

I would have thought that a far more appropriate way of commemorating her life would be for as many people as possible to crowd quietly into the inquest court when it opens IIRC on 18 December 2014, so that we can hear more about how Martin Brunt, SKYNews, other media and certain very unpleasant individuals hounded her to death.
(****religious bigotry redacted*****)

Naturally wherever a death has occurred in particulary controversial circumstances, the public will be much more inclined to want to attend.

And in this case we have the added horror of what many people have described, and not without good reason, as an individual being 'hounded to death' by Martin Brunt, SKY News and other mainstream media.

If a large number of people, press and public are expected at an Inquest, the Coroner will make special arrangements for a large room to be booked.

For example, at the Inquest into the death of Lee Balkwell, which I attended in 2008, the Coroner hired the large Council Chamber at County Hall, Chelmsford, for the event.  

"Under the current law, people who subject their victims to (1) sexually offensive,  (2) verbally abusive or  (3) threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months".

Now, if we look at Brenda Leyland's extensive record of tweets:

were they sexually offensive? - NO

were they 'threatening'? - NO

were they 'verbally abusive'? - well, that is a very very grey area of the law.