A man's body was found in a disused sports pavilion in Leyton in the early hours of Saturday morning

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: The burnt-out sports pavilion. The burnt-out sports pavilion.

Police say they are treating the discovery of a man’s body after a fire in a disused Leyton building as non-suspicious.

A police spokeswoman said today that the neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.

The man has not yet been identified, the spokeswoman added.

Investigations to identify the body are ongoing.

The body was found after a fire in a derelict sports pavilion near Villiers Close in Leyton at around 2am on Saturday morning.

The man was confirmed dead at the scene.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense. Villagecranberry

1:19pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious.

But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense.[/p][/quote]Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious. But then many quite simple things make no sense to you.. Alan_1976

1:29pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious.

But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..
What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me.

If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious?

He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense.[/p][/quote]Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious. But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..[/p][/quote]What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me. If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious? He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual. Villagecranberry

2:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious.

But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..
What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me.

If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious?

He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.
You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state.

If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating".

Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense.[/p][/quote]Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious. But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..[/p][/quote]What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me. If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious? He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state. If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating". Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms. Alan_1976

2:17pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious.

But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..
What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me.

If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious?

He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.
You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state.

If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating".

Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms.
Bore of the decade as usual, bet you have a vast void around you down the pub 'boring Al just come in, scarper!'.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense.[/p][/quote]Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious. But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..[/p][/quote]What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me. If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious? He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state. If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating". Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms.[/p][/quote]Bore of the decade as usual, bet you have a vast void around you down the pub 'boring Al just come in, scarper!'. Villagecranberry

2:31pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious?

Makes no sense.
Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious.

But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..
What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me.

If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious?

He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.
You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state.

If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating".

Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms.
Bore of the decade as usual, bet you have a vast void around you down the pub 'boring Al just come in, scarper!'.
Oh dear looks like I hit a nerve there...
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: If investigations continue how can they conclude non-suspicious? Makes no sense.[/p][/quote]Given that they haven't identified the man one can quite easily see why investigations would still continue and still have the death as non-suspicious. But then many quite simple things make no sense to you..[/p][/quote]What also doesn't make sense is your overwhelming obsession with me. If the man has not been identified how can they conclude that nothing is suspicious? He may have been the victim of threats in the past or may have been involved in matters that could have resulted in his death and to announce there is nothing suspicious is premature in my opinion. The again, as you are the wise man of Walthamstow, no doubt you will enlighten us all further as usual.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused. You ask a question and I provided an answer for you. You seem very paranoid about a normal social interaction. Perhaps best to not ask questions in a public forum if you are in a "delicate" mental state. If a person is found to have died of natural causes from the available evidence then the sane option would be treat the death as non-suspicious. That's what they are doing. "treating" the death as non-suspicious. Not concluding. "treating". Only a paranoid delusional would choose to come to a different conclusion which would seem to be the case here given your visible symptoms.[/p][/quote]Bore of the decade as usual, bet you have a vast void around you down the pub 'boring Al just come in, scarper!'.[/p][/quote]Oh dear looks like I hit a nerve there... Alan_1976

5:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Thunderbird4 says...

Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death?
Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death? Thunderbird4

7:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

Thunderbird4 wrote:
Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death?
Only by 'Al 76' by telepathy as he knows it all of course.
[quote][p][bold]Thunderbird4[/bold] wrote: Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death?[/p][/quote]Only by 'Al 76' by telepathy as he knows it all of course. Villagecranberry

8:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Thunderbird4 wrote:
Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death?
Only by 'Al 76' by telepathy as he knows it all of course.
Yes I used telepathy, the art of communication through means other than senses, to read a dead persons mind. It was much like yours. Vacant.

If you'd read the previous article as opposed to obsessively counting Helens comments you would note they were waiting on a post mortem to reveal cause of death. They are now saying it is non-suspicious. One can therefore infer that sufficient investigation has happened to allow them to make that pronouncement.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thunderbird4[/bold] wrote: Has there been a postmortem to discover cause of death?[/p][/quote]Only by 'Al 76' by telepathy as he knows it all of course.[/p][/quote]Yes I used telepathy, the art of communication through means other than senses, to read a dead persons mind. It was much like yours. Vacant. If you'd read the previous article as opposed to obsessively counting Helens comments you would note they were waiting on a post mortem to reveal cause of death. They are now saying it is non-suspicious. One can therefore infer that sufficient investigation has happened to allow them to make that pronouncement. Alan_1976

12:33pm Thu 30 Jan 14

mdj says...

' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.'

Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect.
Nothing suspicious: situation normal.
' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.' Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect. Nothing suspicious: situation normal. mdj

4:58pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

mdj wrote:
' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.'

Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect.
Nothing suspicious: situation normal.
Agree.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.' Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect. Nothing suspicious: situation normal.[/p][/quote]Agree. Villagecranberry

7:33pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.'

Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect.
Nothing suspicious: situation normal.
With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely.

We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.' Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect. Nothing suspicious: situation normal.[/p][/quote]With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely. We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society Alan_1976

10:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.'

Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect.
Nothing suspicious: situation normal.
With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely.

We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society
Shameful that this relatively new building was left derelict for so long under a Labour Council when at the same time they endorse homeless to be housed in shipping containers at the YMCA whilst prosecuting people providing accommodation in beds in sheds.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.' Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect. Nothing suspicious: situation normal.[/p][/quote]With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely. We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society[/p][/quote]Shameful that this relatively new building was left derelict for so long under a Labour Council when at the same time they endorse homeless to be housed in shipping containers at the YMCA whilst prosecuting people providing accommodation in beds in sheds. Villagecranberry

7:10am Fri 31 Jan 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.'

Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect.
Nothing suspicious: situation normal.
With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely.

We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society
Shameful that this relatively new building was left derelict for so long under a Labour Council when at the same time they endorse homeless to be housed in shipping containers at the YMCA whilst prosecuting people providing accommodation in beds in sheds.
Ah yes. Perfect sense there. One thing that will definitely prevent deaths is to encourage the housing of people in overcrowded unsafe beds in sheds which have not passed basic safety checks. Far worse to have safe accommodation built and supplied that meets with safety standards.

How truly shameful to try and provide adequate safe accommodation.

Good to see that you are on the side of the slum landlords. Are you perhaps one of our local Labour councillors?
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' neither the man’s death nor the fire are considered suspicious.' Someone dies, lonely, homeless, unnamed, in a public building left derelict by years of neglect. Nothing suspicious: situation normal.[/p][/quote]With the present government's attitude to the needy in society this isn't surprising. Suspicious? No. Shameful? Absolutely. We're all in it together. Welcome to the big society[/p][/quote]Shameful that this relatively new building was left derelict for so long under a Labour Council when at the same time they endorse homeless to be housed in shipping containers at the YMCA whilst prosecuting people providing accommodation in beds in sheds.[/p][/quote]Ah yes. Perfect sense there. One thing that will definitely prevent deaths is to encourage the housing of people in overcrowded unsafe beds in sheds which have not passed basic safety checks. Far worse to have safe accommodation built and supplied that meets with safety standards. How truly shameful to try and provide adequate safe accommodation. Good to see that you are on the side of the slum landlords. Are you perhaps one of our local Labour councillors? Alan_1976

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree