Wednesday 8 October 2014


You've been reported to the police, you know.
Makes you a criminal, that; probly go to jail.

Yeah, mad old bitch killed herself because she was a nutter and a troll.

The eggshell skull rule (or thin skull rule or you take your victim as you find him rule of the common law) is a well established legal doctrine used in some tort law systems,[1] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. It increases the liability of a person who may commit a tort against another, from results arising out of those tortious acts.


The law

This rule holds one liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the defendant or accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.



Bungalow Bill said...

Thank goodness that you have stood apart from those ungrateful people who do not recognise Brunt's journalistic courage Mr I. Now, more than ever, we need those who trade in (and in some cases profit from) toxic rumour, insinuation and barefaced falsehood to be rooted out and shamed. Especially those who like this woman operate at the highest level and are seriously influential. Bravo, Martin, bravo.

Bungalow Bill said...

Blaue/ thin skull is apt if they knew she was vulnerable but what else, in any event, did these arseholes seek but to expose this woman to public shame and intolerable pressure, foreseeably sufficient to cause her to collapse mentally. It was a calculated act of violence as surely as if they had physically assaulted her.

Mike said...

Is anyone thaking this issue up in the UK, or was the woman not photogenic enough? A complaint to the PCC should be the very least.

call me ishmael said...

That's exactly what it was. There have been a number of complaints to Ofcom, mr bungalow bill, another would do no harm, although, awkwardly, they need to be kept to 1500 characters, the more easily to be dismissed, I suspect.

No, the thin skull precedent is the opposite, it doesn't matter whether they knew in advance or not that she was vulnerable, that is the point, you cannot presume your victim to be anything other than he or she is. And as you say, what other result could they have had in mind, they have no statutory investigative or prosecutorial powers, all they were doing was attacking a defenceless person on national television, presumably for sport. Man's a cunt.

call me ishmael said...

Just tried the PCC, mr mike, it is now defunct and its successor, IPSO, cannot be reached.

Anonymous said...

I think Brunt is a distraction. I wouldn't be surprised if she died from "assisted suicide".

She just wasn't aware of who was assisting her.


mongoose said...

There is, isn't there, the squalid feature of picking on the odd-looking, the weird, or the the nutter? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that cruelty TV has just spread but now to the 6 O'Clock News and they were just 'aving a larf.

But it is easy to squish the weak one and still send the message, as others here have pointed out, to shut the fuck up and lay off the McCanns.

Bungalow Bill said...

Sorry, I got confused in my last one thanks for the clarification. It's the targeting of these usually sad people that is so loathsome, that and the piety and fake emotion of the news machines which go with it. You see it so often, the aggression which lies just beneath the sentimentality; I suppose that's the recipe for tabloid journalism and skycrap though it has now become a part of our general standard response to human tragedies - the script must always have villains to be hunted down and punished.

Mike said...

I normally avoid conspiracy nutters, but here I go.....

For reasons yet to be determined the McCanns are chosen ones. Their protectors want to put a marker down on their behalf against the blogorati who won't shut the fuck up, the cheeky bastards.

This vulnerable woman was identified - this is a sophisticated act, not something Sky would do off its own bat; how was she identified, profiled and chosen? - and she was then fed like red meat to the pack of hounds. At the least it would generate a feeding frenzy to deter others; but, it actually worked out better than planned.

I'm convinced in my mind this was an orchestrated attack by the state.

By the look of her, the McCann bint is now feeling the pressure.

Mark said...

A kid I knew was sent down for murder on these grounds aged 16 - he and his pals used to go and wind up an old guy who ran a petrol station and one day they went too far and he had a heart attack even though they did no more than be cheeky towards him.
As he was the oldest he was held responsible.
He was a halfwitted little scroat in all honesty and was a much better person from having spent a few years at her majesty's pleasure.
Brunt on the other hand is an adult and knew perfectly well what effect his bullying was having - but he will get a free pass as his victim has been established as a troll and, as people like Stella Creasy tell us, is therefore beneath contempt.

call me ishmael said...

Conspiracy theorist, mr mike, is just another name for troll; welcome to the bright underworld.

I don't believe any of it; I don't believe JFK; I don't believe Diana; I don't believe nine-eleven and I certainly don't believe this shit.

Yes, she does look as rough as a bear's arse, Cilla, being shackled to him in ordinary circumstances would be bad enough, joined together in holy deadlock - but this, this endless grimy sideshow of hysteria, I'd rather go blind.

call me ishmael said...

I guess that 4,000 tweets of 140 characters might amount to as many words as, what, a few of these commentaries, here.

I have never seen Twitter but on the broadsheets' comment boards, generally in a conversation of insult, the same posters trade abuse scores of times in a single thread. I backtracked a tribesman in the referendum and in one month he had posted 1,500 time, just on the Guardian; I don't know, therefore, if the late Mrs Leyland's behaviour was abnormal, for Twitter, and it is deeply depressing that so many, as ignorant as I, conspire in their own delusion, the one that says See, toldya, they can dish it out but they can't take it.....

Mike said...

It'll be a simple bit of software - I dare say I could do it myself in half a day - which monitors twitter, blogs etc for certain types - you know what I mean.

Doug Shoulders said...

I’m a sceptic. Calling someone a Conspiracy theorist (Polite for nutter) is an attempt to categorise folks who are sceptical about certain subjects. A nutter is someone who sits in front of the tv and gets fed the same shite day in day out.
Ebola, ISIO or whatever the fuck they’re called, the macnanns innocence of the very least of charges and this.. The woman was represented as a troll in the modern and biblical sense. That she is now dead is even better for the nooze people. Let brunt take the flak…the rest of mediafilth are having a field day and not even a constructive critique of the events.
There is hardly a news item that doesn’t have another angle..someone making profit.
Whole industries are built and thrive on shit n’ lies…bogus theories..carbon footprint taxes, NASA technology (Don’t make me fukin’ laugh) Remember Ronnies’ Star Wars? Fuck me sideways…ray guns in space?
Sorry went off on a digressive rant there.

Alphons said...

"... to shut the fuck up and lay off...."

I have long been bewildered how one shuts up a fuck.

What is the procedure?

Anonymous said...

I agree that Mrs. Leyland was a soft target here. Turns my fucking stomach and someone should be held to account.

There are transcripts of her tweets floating around on the internet and God knows I've done no more than skim over a few; quite a few are emotional for sure, but nothing like the more vitriolic stuff out there. As others have said, her stuff has been maliciously conflated with that of the fools issuing death threats (if they acually exist).

Those who claim to have read them all, claim that in the more emotional tweets, Mrs. Leyland called for the waterboarding of Kate McCann; convinced as she was that Kate McCann knew exactly what had happened to her daughter.

Pisses you off more than anything when the McCanns claim they dont use twitter and have not read Mrs. Leylands tweets personally; so its yet another case of the 'well meaning elite' being mortally offended on behalf of someone else.

Indeed, Gerald McCann is on record (Levinson enquiry I think) as saying he hasn't got a problem with individuals expessing a personal opinion or theory (I paraphrase).

In light of which I'll say that in my opinion, the McCanns know EXACTLY what happened to their poor daughter and I hope the media machine they court turns round and bites them on the arse eventually.

You've been on top form lately Mr. Ish

Take care


Doug Shoulders said...

Eventually would be around now. But too many high profile people supported them in the early days for there to be a backlash.

Anonymous said...

@Doug Shoulders

I absolutely agree, sadly


call me ishmael said...

Not only ray-guns but that mad old crow, Nancy Reagan, is the person we must thank for by far the greatest criminal scam in the history of the world - the War on Drugs; it was all her idea, a War on something, anything, would have done the scrawny old cocksucker, gibbering in the White House Necromancy Suite with astrologers, mediums, soothsayers, shamans, grave-robbers and charlatans, but War on Drugs is what she whispered in the old man's ear and Aw Shucks, trillions and trillions of tax dollars, pounds, francs and yen, all pissed up the wall, sprawling, lawless lawnforcement agencies spawned, all of them on the take, all of them selling drugs; whole countries in South and Central America laid waste and wretched fascistic bullyboy imbeciles like Blind Boy Blunkett all but crucifying anyone who dare breathe a word of sense. And America still thinks that this pair of crazy, retarded, fucked-up, narcissistic psychobastards represent their finest hour, their exceptionalism. I had a pimple on my nose, Ronnie once grinned, so I squoze it. Made George Dubya Chimp look like a genius, did Ronnie. Hope he's hot. down there with Whisky Maggie and General Pinochet, his arse host to an eternal flame.

Doug Shoulders said...

War on anything is bullshit. Wars are begun by people with the agenda. More than likely it's buy, rent use resources that they or their masters own. The only ones who want war are the ones who will see interest on their investment..