𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗣 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗘𝗥

For nearly two years, the family of William “Bill” Trotter have followed the routes the public are told to follow.

They have used complaints.

They have used Subject Access Requests.

They have used Freedom of Information requests.

They have contacted elected representatives.

They have approached public bodies.

They have raised concerns with oversight organisations.

They have pursued the Attorney General route.

They have gone to the Ombudsman.

They have asked for the records.

They have asked who holds responsibility.

They have asked why no inquest was opened.

And every route appears to lead back into the same closed loop.

A leaked Cumberland Council email now obtained by jbnews adds another serious piece to that picture.

The email, sent by Clare Liddle, Cumberland Council’s Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer, advised councillors not to engage directly with Mike Trotter, the son of the late Bill Trotter.

The email states:

“Please do not respond to him yourself.”

It continues:

“I would advise that you do not engage with Mr Trotter and, if you are contacted directly by him, please let me know. I will report emails to the police.”

Councillors were also told:

“If you are approached in person, or if you feel at all threatened, you should report this to the police directly using 999.”

jbnews has redacted only a police contact extension number from the image being published.

This is not speculation.

This is the wording of the leaked document.

𝗔 𝗙𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗬 𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗦

The Trotter family have been persistent.

They have been direct.

They have challenged public bodies.

But they have done so through official channels.

The family are not accused in this report of any criminal offence. jbnews has seen nothing that justifies portraying a bereaved son seeking answers as a threat simply because he continued asking questions.

That is why this email matters.

Because while the family were using the system, the system appears to have been managing them behind closed doors.

Councillors were advised not to engage.

Police reporting routes were referenced.

A named police contact was included.

And yet councillors who had direct contact with Mike Trotter have publicly stated they did not feel threatened or harassed by him.

That contradiction is now central.

If councillors did not feel threatened, why was contact being escalated in this way?

If the family were using lawful routes, why were elected representatives being told not to engage?

And if there was a legitimate threshold for police involvement, where is the record showing how that threshold was reached?

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗜 𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗣

Following the wider jbnews investigation, a targeted Freedom of Information request was submitted to Cumberland Council.

That request asks for records relating to:

• Monitoring Officer involvement in the William Trotter case

• guidance, instructions or advice issued to elected members

• internal communications about how councillors should respond to contact about the case

• records showing whether police escalation was considered or discussed

• details of external legal advice, including the date, purpose and cost

• policies or thresholds used to decide whether contact from the public should be treated as harassment or referred to police

• confirmation of whether any complaints, incident reports or internal assessments were recorded about public contact linked to the William Trotter case

This FOI request goes directly to the machinery behind the leaked email.

It asks who decided this.

It asks what records exist.

It asks what legal advice was taken.

It asks what police escalation discussions happened.

It asks what policy was relied upon.

It asks what threshold was applied.

And now Cumberland Council has extended the FOI deadline while considering whether to withhold information under Section 36 and Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 36 relates to prejudice to the conduct of public affairs.

Section 42 relates to Legal Professional Privilege.

That means the council is now considering whether to withhold internal records about a public interest accountability matter on grounds including public affairs prejudice and legal privilege.

That is extraordinary.

Because this case is already about public interest.

It is about the death of a man in hospital.

It is about the decision not to open an inquest.

It is about the Medical Examiner route.

It is about what was escalated.

It is about what the coroner was told.

It is about what records exist.

It is about public money.

It is about elected representatives being told not to engage with a grieving family.

And now, when asked for the records behind that, the council says it needs more time to consider exemptions.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗜𝗥𝗖𝗟𝗘

This is the pattern that now sits at the heart of the Trotter case.

The family ask for answers.

One body points to another.

The Medical Examiner route is raised.

The coroner route is raised.

The council provides administrative support to the coronial system.

The Trust says its review found no failings contributing to death.

Other agencies say they have looked at aspects of the case.

Records are requested.

Some records appear.

Other records are delayed, withheld, difficult to locate, or pushed into exemption arguments.

Public money is spent on external legal advice.

Councillors are contacted.

Councillors are told not to engage.

Police reporting routes are referenced.

The council is asked to explain.

The council says the matter is sensitive and complex and offers no comment.

That is the closed loop.

Not one organisation clearly takes ownership of the full picture.

Not one route has yet produced the complete decision making trail.

Not one public body has yet publicly explained, in full, how Medical Examiner concerns, incident reporting, family concerns, review activity, coronial decision making and council handling all connect.

That is why jbnews is continuing this investigation.

𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗢𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗗 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗞?

The leaked email now exists in the public interest.

The FOI request now asks for the records behind it.

The council now has until 25 June 2026 to provide its substantive response.

So the question is simple.

Will Cumberland Council’s official disclosure match the leaked email already obtained by jbnews?

Will the records show why councillors were advised not to engage?

Will the records show why police reporting routes were referenced?

Will the records show what legal advice was taken?

Will the records show what threshold was used?

Will the records show whether this was proportionate?

Or will the public once again be told that the records cannot be fully released because the council must protect public affairs, legal privilege, or internal decision making?

That is the next test.

𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗟𝗬

Cumberland Council has previously been approached for comment on the leaked email.

The council described the matter as “sensitive” and “complex” and said it was not able to offer any comment at that time.

jbnews has offered right of reply and will publish any further response from Cumberland Council if received.

𝗝𝗕𝗡𝗘𝗪𝗦 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

In my opinion, this leaked email is not an isolated issue.

It is another document in a much wider pattern.

The Trotter family have spent nearly two years trying to get answers through the proper channels, yet the trail continues to move in circles.

The public are entitled to ask why a bereaved family had to fight this hard.

They are entitled to ask why public money has been spent on legal handling connected to this case.

They are entitled to ask why councillors were advised not to engage.

They are entitled to ask why police routes were referenced when councillors themselves say they did not feel threatened.

They are entitled to ask why records linked to this matter are now being considered through FOI exemptions.

And they are entitled to ask why, after all of this, there is still no full public explanation of the decision making pathway following Bill Trotter’s death.

Public bodies often say they support transparency.

This case is now testing that claim in real time.

Because transparency is not a slogan.

Transparency is releasing the records.

Transparency is explaining decisions.

Transparency is showing who knew what, when they knew it, what they did with it, and why.

Until that happens, the closed loop remains.

jbnews will continue following the evidence.

Not rumours.

Not gossip.

Evidence.

Documents.

Right of reply.

Public interest.

𝗝𝗕𝗡𝗘𝗪𝗦 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗘

jbnews publishes in the public interest and relies on documentary evidence, correspondence, witness accounts, official responses and right of reply processes.

All accounts are reported with care, consent and confidentiality where appropriate.

Where allegations, concerns or opinions are reported, they are clearly presented as such.

Identifying details are not published without consent unless there is a clear public interest in naming an individual acting in an official public capacity.

jbnews follows UK media law principles, including accuracy, fairness, public interest reporting, privacy protection and the right of reply.

Under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the journalism exemption under UK GDPR, jbnews processes and publishes information for journalistic purposes where publication is reasonably believed to be in the public interest.

This report concerns the conduct of public officials, the expenditure of public resources, the handling of information rights, and the treatment of a family seeking accountability following a death.