Talk:Death of Leah Betts/Archive 1

Role of ecstasy in her death

First off, I would like to remind people that this should be a discussion on the accuracy and sourcing of information on the page; not a debater forum or a general discussion forum about what people subjectively feel is morally right or wrong, in bad taste or not, concerning the case itself. It's not an appropriate place to state your opinion, as if it were fact, that she died because her parents didn't let her drink, however pertinent the point may be that she was eighteen and drinking would have been legal.

Secondly, regarding the role ecstasy played in her death: it DID play a role. Her death would not have happened without it. I will explain.

Advice concerning water consumption: normally seven litres of water downed in one to three hours would cause either electrolyte depletion and cardiac arrest, or water toxicity through organ cell lysis. However, in a high energy, high temperature environment such as a rave like the one Leah had for her birthday, and where the drug was making her heart and metabolism work FAR faster than normal, a person MUST drink a LOT more water than usual to keep their temperature down in the safe range, and that is without ecstasy both increasing energy and body temperature past normal levels. They also lose more water through breath and sweat than normal because of increased metabolism and body temperature. If they don't drink water they could die from heatstroke. So actually she drank an appropriate volume for her situation.

Normally, drinking so much water without being really hot would also have washed out all her electrolytes through her kidneys, thereby stopping her heart, but since the ecstasy was preventing her kidneys from releasing water, that isn't what happened.

Now, excess water can also kill by causing cell lysis through uncontrolled osmosis. But in Leah's case, the water in her body all went to her brain, which meant the rest of her body really WAS severely dehydrated, hence in part her insatiable thirst. If she hadn't drunk so much water her heart, already working overtime because of the ecstasy, could have worked itself to death trying to pump thickened blood - which is how normal death by dehydration happens.

Rubbish

"the water in her body all went to her brain" The brain is not some kind of sponge, if there was enough water in her blood stream to make her brain swell then she was not dehydrated, in fact it was the opposite. She died of hyponatremia, so there was too much water in her system as a whole not just in her brain......

What I am saying is that ecstasy created a situation in her body where, to avoid death from dehydration and/or heat stroke, she HAD to drink a lot more water than usual...yet it also made it impossible for the water to do its proper job within her body without killing her from cerebral odema. Therefore, the combined effects of ecstasy checkmated her into what would have been a deadly situation whether she had drunk so much water or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.253.133 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitear

Thats not even her, thats Rachel Whitear, a heroin addict that died of a heroin overdose, Leah Betts' parents put that picture up to show people the dangers of drugs. I dont see how that affects ecstacy users but that again is not her.

You're mistaken. It can't possibly be Rachel Whitear, because she died 5 years later. See this BBC page. Or see this rather graphic picture of Rachel. She clearly never even made it to hospital. Evercat 21:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is the BBC's page on Leah Betts, showing the same photo we do: [1]. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disgraceful

How dare you question the photographs in the articles... you show little or no respect for the families of both girls who suffered terrible deaths. fair enough both cases could have been avoided, but it is one of those sad things in life that has to happen i guess. without such cases, awareness would not be out there... thanks to the parent/s of both girls there may be only one person alive today that may have gone down the same path as both Leah and Rachel... RIP girls xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.219.2 (talk • contribs)

I cannot get over the utter dis respect of some people..! Katherine 24286 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip. Evercat 23:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So right, this article only goes to show the absolute rubbish publicised by the UK government. It clearly proves everything they said was used as a complete scare-tactic. Failed miserably. djm101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.173.6.76 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture featured of Leah Betts was used on the posters "sorted", I remember them like it was yesterday. Leah Betts died because her parents did not allow her to have alcohol at her 18th birthday party. The tablet she took was very strong indeed, the 'apples' (with the apple mac logo on them) were already well known top quality MDMA. Her parents were plainly idiots, for restricting her from having a good time on the day she came of age. They are completely to blame for what happened. But like all people who know in their heart of hearts they made a mistake, they did their best to blame anyone but themselves. They deny the truth (i.e. water killed her), and create a myth to avoid the finger of blame. Prohibition and poor education killed Leah Betts, and it will go on killing people until prohibition ends. Peta-x 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you remember it wrong. The photograph of Betts used on the "sorted" posters was a "regular" photograph of her. Unfortunately, the myth that it was the hospital bed picture - which was widely used in the media at the time - is now so entrenched that many people are convinced that they actually saw it on the poster. Second-hand repetition is now so widespread that even the BBC and ecstasy.org manage to get it wrong.[2] [3] This isn't helped by the fact that there are virtually no images of the real poster on the web, although you can see one example here. If further corroboration is needed, this contemporary article refers to her "smiling face" on the posters. Nick Cooper 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you nick I stand corrected on the sorted poster, however in South East London there was with out question a 48 sheet poster of her as seen... perhaps it was advertising a news paper rather than part of the campaign in question. Peta-x 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people seem to be missing the point here, that is what the photograph is here for, the father took it to warn people about what could happen to them.

Bad taste?

I would argue that it is in far worse taste to parade around images of your dead daughter in order to support the spread of misinformation through media outlets, 'educational' pamphlets, books, etc. Both the Betts and Wood families were extremely vocal about how their precious, absolutely innocent little children were horribly murdered by taking a tablet (or, in the case of Woods, half a tablet) of E. Naturally, this flies in the face of the facts - which are that both girls died after consuming a rediculous amount of water in a short span of time.

It is a logical absurdity that relatively harmless compounds like MDMA are constantly under the gun, the only reason being that bereaved parents demand SOMETHING to blame on the death of their pure-hearted little angels. I take exception to the fact that these families lie through their teeth and fuel an already obscene situation simply to avoid swallowing the truth: their daughters were neither totally innocent little snowflakes of wonderfulness, nor were they particularly bright. Leah Betts consumed almost 2 GALLONS of water in 90 MINUTES. What the HELL was going through her MIND at the time?

No sane person would drink that much. She wasn't "sane" - her brain was messed up by the drug. What you are saying is that a person that crashes a car and kills people after heavy drinking is equal to the a sober person doing it. In this case, the inability to drive a car is similar to the inability to tell that you don't need to keep drinking water. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Had they not taken the drug, they would not have consumed a toxic amount of water. It is not unreasonable to blame ecstacy for the deaths. To use the alcohol example, "If he hadn't been drunk he never would have fell into the river." Or you could go as far as mental illness, "If she hadn't been schizophrenic, she never would have killed that person." Cause and effect are relative here. Celardore^Talk 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No scientific study has concluded that E effects one's ability to deduce the logic of an activity. MDMA does not somehow magically reduce one's sanity, intelligence or state of mental health. If that's your argument, the burden of proof is on you.

The connection of E to Betts death is extraordinarily loose. Her body would've began giving her signs that she was consuming too much water (vomiting, extremely frequent trips to the bathroom, increased perspiration, etc). It's closer to blame the advice she was given to keep herself well-hydrated on her death.

Ecstasy blatantly effects your ability to think, and that is simply what happened here. Cause - effect. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't:

'However an official inquest determined that her death was not directly due to ecstasy consumption, but rather the large quantity of water she had consumed, apparently in observation of an advisory warning commonly given to ravers to drink water to avoid dehydration.' (Emphasis mine)

She was given information regarding a single one of the risks involved in taking E (potential dehydration, largely a risk only if you're engaged in rigorous physical activity - dancing at a rave, for example - while on the drug), took it to be one of the only risks involved, and pursued it to a rediculous extreme. To use an analogy, this is like me becoming thirsty and deciding that I want to walk to the store to purchase an orange pop to quench my thirst. Following a sound advisory, I watch-out for cars on my way there - but since said advisory told me to watch ONLY for cars, I don't bother looking-out for trucks, bus's, etc., and I get struck and killed by traffic on my way home. Is it the pop or my thirst's fault (they were, afterall, the collective cause for me taking the risk of going outside)? Or is it my own fault, for failing to recognize that cars were not the only thing that could run me over?

Yes, Ecstasy does alter your perception of the world. It does NOT render you stupid. I would speculate that if Betts had gone to a rave and taken no E, but followed the same advisory, she would still have died of water intoxication (as well, I would also speculate that if she had taken E and not seen the advisory, she'd be alive and well). Again, a lack of intelligence, I think, is our culprit - blaming the substance just allows grieving parties something to loathe and, well, blame.

Addendum: Yes, I realize I sound awfully callous and empty here; this is not my intent. I do appreciate that a human being has died in a quite terrible way, and that's not something I'd wish upon my worst enemies.

On that same token, however, I find it as amusing as I do infuriating that the grieving Betts family would then take it upon themselves to flagrantly wave around photographs of their daughter on her death bed and spew complete fabrications about the cause of her death (blaming, in their own words, 'Just one ecstasy tablet' as the DIRECT CAUSE, completely leaving-out any mention of water intoxication) just because they needed to focus of their hate and anger onto SOMETHING. I've also never had any respect for individuals who lead a charge and shout, 'Stop enjoying your life and taking RISKS! Or YOU could be NEXT!'

You seem to be under the impression that the 'talk' pages are forums to discuss the issue in the article. The talk pages are to discuss changes to the article's content. You make good points but this isnt the venue to do it. Might I suggest you park your soapbox elsewhere 172.203.205.243 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little troubled by the tone of the article, and I think these comments go some way to explaining the problems. The article essentially reads as an attempt by the writers to debunk whatever assertions were made by the media concerning Leah Betts's death, rather than as an encyclopaedic article reporting those assertions and the rebuttals that followed. Most importantly, the article is over-eager to deny that any of the anti-ecstasy discourse after Betts's death (from the government as well as from her parents) was in good faith. This wasn't some wicked conspiracy to deny you your high; it expressed an admittedly slightly hysterical but genuine moment of social anxiety. To read this article, use of ecstasy and/or other illegal drugs is without risks. Certainly, Leah Betts was ill-chosen as an cautionary tale; that doesn't mean caution isn't required. Ajcounter 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that this is nopt the page in which to document all the facets of MDMA. What makes Betts case significant is not that she died after taking a tablet of MDMA, but how the media, her parents, and others reported and "used" her death, and continue to do so, more than a decade later. Fundamental to this issue is not only was virtually everything that was widely reported about her death at the time was wrong and subsequently (in some areas, very quickly) exposed to be wrong, but that the media continues to repeat those same falsehoods to this day, knowing them to be untrue. As such, the only way that the subject can and should be approached is truthfully, i.e by decumenting what was said, by whom, and why it was false.Nick Cooper 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've removed (for a second time now) the entire second paragraph, which cites as its only source a pro-ecstasy web site ([4]). This content may all be accurate, but it needs a better source, as that site appears to fail WP:RS#Self-published_sources. Also, I've removed the second part of this sentence: The media onslaught after her death focused heavily on the putative fact that it was the first time she had taken the drug; this was what shocked the British public most. as there is no source to back up the claim about what shocked the public. Again, all content can be restored if adequately sourced. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a major improvement, and I'm not going to take any of the new content out, but we should be wary of a POV issue here, as the sources used for the remade article seem to be books on the history of ecstasy/rave culture that take a POV in favor of ecstasy's use or legalization. I won't {{pov}} tag it, but I hope that over time we can get some more neutral sources here. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Collins's book is fairly neutral and is concerned with the all aspects of the rave scene, not just ecstasy, but either way it has to be appreciated that these aspects of the case have (inevitably) not been taken up by the mainstream media. This is particularly true of the poster campaign, although who was responsible for it was well documented by The Independent at the time [5], just without highlighting the alleged conflict of interest. Nick Cooper 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

with respect it is a POV (as you put it) that ecstasy should be illegal... what is a neutral source exactly, strikes me that a neutral source for you is just one that you agree with, surely the most reliable research is done in the field, not from the front parlor of some semi in Essex, as the Betts Family discovered Peta-x 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section should be a summary of the article (not an introduction as such) so the actual cause of death is essential to include in it. Tyrenius 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SIADH

I'm sure the inquest revealed SIADH played a part in the death. Not sure where I heard it, but I remember a quote from the coronor (I think) which was along the lines of "she could have taken the ecstasy alone and probably survived. She could have drank the water alone and survived. It was a combination of the two". --Darksun 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote was here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4440438.stm --Darksun 11:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Billboard campaign

Was the hospital bed photo not used? I've tried googling 'Leah Betts campaign' with no luck. I remember seeing one on a billboard right by my house in Scotland in the mid-nineties. —maxrspct ping me 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No. See my comment above, which includes a link to a photo of one of the billboards. Nick Cooper 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure both images were not used on the billboards? I ask this because of that BBC article you say is based second-hand info/misinformation. —maxrspct ping me 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary or near-contemporary accounts describe her "smiling face" on the poster, as was also used on the counter "Distorted" one. The picture of her in hospital was released to the press by her family and widely seen, and I think this is a simple case of people conflating the two memories, or they are remembering a different poster. More significantly, nobody has been able to come up with a photo of a version of the "Sorted" poster with the hospital picture, although in one sense it's surprising that photos of even the real one are so thin on the ground. Nick Cooper 08:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The "coma" picture Sorted billboard poster definitely appeared in places in Birmingham - along prominent main roads etc - categoric. In fact it is the "smiling" poster cited here which I don't recall being used in that city. I will try to provide proof though it was some time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Posters Dispute : more evidence that there was more than one version

Here is some of the evidence I promised re the posters dispute - it says 1500 of them (the ones with the hospital pic not the smiling pic) were displayed in the week of her funeral (so therefore the dates of that can easily be ascertained at least) but it doesn't name the cities.

The article does however name the 3 advertising companies involved, so they should be able to confirm or deny;

"This poster campaign was unusual because it had been constructed by three advertising companies. Media buyers, Booth Lockett and Makin; advertising agency, Knight Leech and Delaney and youth marketing consultants, FFI."

(So perhaps the 3 companies produced 3 different posters? One possible explanation for the dispute)

The big billboard I remember had the hospital coma pic and then text which was something like - Sorted : just one ecstasy tablet killed Leah Betts - or something like that anyway.

More of the article - https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/59313-recreational-drug-wars-alcohol-versus-ecstasy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Police response

In the Police Response section it's stated that "... the only people convicted were three of her friends ... Two of them received cautions, while a third received a conditional discharge." However, can a formal caution be considered a conviction? A caution only requires consent by the accused, but I would have thought that a "conviction" would require a court case with a guilty verdict. Is there anyone who knows more about this kind of thing that could give some input? - Dolph 17:13, 3rd March 2008 (UTC)

A caution is not a conviction, but it is an admission of guilt by the accused. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I'm just asking. --Jammoe (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hers was one of the first - and arguably remains the most well-known - deaths linked to Ecstasy in the UK. Even now, more than twelve years on, her name will invariably be invoked in media coverage of anything to do with the drug. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. Betts is the only "E"-related death I could recall by name except one other and that is only because it was in my own home town. In addition, her parents (particularly her dad, a former police officer) began a long public campaign to warn of the dangers of ecstasy which kept Leah Betts's name high profile. Grievous Angel (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Major distortion of facts by father, stepmother and media

I've added a much needed section about Betts' background. The lie that was pushed so hard was that Betts was a very happy girl from an idyllic, solid, loving, traditional family background, brought up by her both parents together, never wanting for anything. The lie that her life was perfect, and would have remained so - if not for her having once taken one tablet which ruined everything. The media and her father and stepmother told loads of lies along with deliberately omitting relevant facts. The father's wife is not Betts' mother. Betts' parents hated each other and split up. She was raised by mother until, when Betts was 14, she found the mother dead on the floor in their house. She then moved to her father and his wife's house. There was blanket media coverage of the Leah Betts case in the mid-90s; the only way I know the truth is because I saw a TV documentary which gave some relevant details about Betts' life. On the same programme, the father expressed his hatred for the mother, who had died over three years earlier. He said how he hated that, since Leah died, the mother had her with her again, whilst he does not. It seems he resents that his daughter 'is now sitting on a cloud with her mother', rather than with the fact that his daughter died. Anyone in Leah Betts' situation would not be too happy, and it is no surprise that a person with such a life would want to take recreational drugs as an escape from the hatred, loss and misfortune she suffered. If anyone can expand the new section, please do so. Before I added it, this article backed the "happy background, happy family, happy life, happy girl" propaganda that was pushed by the media. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sorted" poster false memories

I've de-tagged this, but haven't cited a specific example, although the belief that the hosital photograph was used is clearly widespread, e.g.:

[6] "In the week following Leah Betts' funeral 1,500 billboard poster sites displayed a picture of the teenager lying comatose in hospital. In large lettering next to the photo was the word 'SORTED', and in smaller lettering 'JUST ONE TABLET OF ECSTASY TOOK LEAH BETTS'."

[7] "The enduring image of Leah Betts dying in hospital was used in the infamous ‘Sorted’ anti-drug poster campaigns..."

[8] "In this context Paul Delaney's poster, showing Leah Betts in hospital next to the word 'Sorted', can be seen to be highly problematic." (requires registration, but Google returns this text)

[9] "... the largely unsuccessful 'Sorted' posters that featured photographs of Leah Betts as she was dying." (page 162)

Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article just a bit so that two sources mistakenly claiming that the hospital photo was used with the poster campaign are cited.

Also, when you submitted your last update on the page, in the comments you asked why people keep putting in requests for citation/clarification in the "Subsequent events" section, stating that the citations at the end of the paragraph are for everything in the paragraph. I'm one of the people who had asked for clarification regarding exactly who claimed the motivation of those behind the poster campaign was not altruistic. There were two main points in the section that needed references. 1: Citing who felt that the poster campaign was not altruistic. 2: Citing the source of the quote made by someone at the firm that represents Red Bull. Certainly, in some cases, these sources could have been one and the same, but that seemed unlikely because it would have required someone who was an alcohol or Red Bull rep admitting that they created the Betts' posters out of some other motive than good will. This seemed unlikely. The two sources given do apply to the section, but it was inaccurate to place them both at the end of the paragraph. A citation of Carey belongs alongside the accusation of less-than altruistic motive in creating the poster campaign, as well as at the end of the paragraph where the comments about Red Bull are made; whereas a citation of Connell belongs only by the comments questioning altruistic motive. I've made the necessary changes and we shouldn't get anymore tags asking "who" or "by whom", etc. Sometimes the best place for citations is indeed at the end of a paragraph. Sometimes the best place is smack in the middle of a sentence, and I believe this is one of those cases, and I hope my changes make the article a little more clear and accurate. Thanks. Hananekosan (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The 'deathbed' photograph on billboards / posters - a Scottish thing?

Hi Everyone! I just wanted to add my voice to the others on the talk page for this article. I distinctly remember seeing an anti-drug poster which used the so-called 'deathbed' photograph. It was displayed in my local library in Inverness, Scotland. I can't remember the caption, but I sure as heck remember the photograph.

Scotland has/had its own health education board (HEBS). The board was notorious in the 1990s for commissioning shock-tactic ad campaigns aimed at school kids. Could it be that this was a Scotland-only poster? One of the other folks who remembers the poster is Scottish. Might be something to think about. 137.222.219.34 (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a Scottish thing - I lived in the South of England at the time and it was definitely a photo of her in hospital. To this day I cannot recall ever seeing the photo of her with a 'smiling face' on a poster. I know, I know, all the people who have commented above will claim that there is no evidence and I must be making it up, but I am 100% convinced it was the hospital photo and it seems strange that the BBC article from 2007 refers to it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6567961.stm) without anyone commenting at the time saying 'oh, you've got the photo bit wrong' - after all, pedantry has existed since the internet began! This also refers to it being the picture of her in a coma - http://www.kevinbraddock.com/features07.php - and there's also another one to it being a comatose teenager in a hospital - http://ecstasy.org/info/jim.html - The Guardian review from 2008 also refers to the life support machine photo - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/16/anti-drug-adverts-campaigns - I know this comment won't change the views of some, but the people who deny the hospital photo was ever used, I think that you are making a serious mistake. I wonder if there were two campaigns at the same time or possibly you could be mistaken about it being the smiling face one on every billboard? (especially as one of the articles I have mentioned notes the billboards were uncredited). It is definitely not to do with the Health Boards in Scotland. I would like to have found the poster, but it is hard to find. Anyway, maybe all of those who remember the hospital photo (strictly speaking not 'death bed' as some of the articles listed point out) aren't making it up? :) DewiMR (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to wade in - the hospital photo was also used in the North of England. I remember it well. a_man_alone (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has tried to deny the death-bed picture was ever used on any posters, just that it emphatically was not used on the famous "Sorted" ones, no matter how many people - including BBC and Guardian writers - now mis-remember it being. The actual poster can be seen here, and clearly does not use the hospital photograph. This isn't "pedantry," it's fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair point - I remember the "Sorted" posters as well, with her smiling face - but my memory is not counted as a reliable source. While we're on, does anybody else remember the TV "But we're her fwends!" advert? a_man_alone (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Leah Drinking Approximately 7 Litres of Water

Whilst I have not researched this directly, in Paul Betts' presentations he gives around schools, he says that initially they thought Leah had drunk lots of water, and then in the inquest they found out she'd only had one small glass of cola. Her father also claims that she did dance, and was being extremely excited around her friends (to be expected) and that when her father danced with her, he felt her heart racing and she was very warm, suggesting an elevated metabolic rate which would lose her more water through sweating. Just wanted to make those points.

I'm not sure if these points are backed up by subsequent inquests, as the presentation I refer to was written nearly ten years ago now, but I thought it worth mentioning. Is it possible to add reliable references for the information that a) Leah did not dance, and b) that she drank approximately 7 litres of water? I have seen only one reference in the article that indirectly and debatably alludes to those points (the one from the person stating either the water or the ecstasy alone would probably not have killed her).

Also, is it noteworthy in here that since Paul Betts has been a public speaker, he claims to have had death threats and his house wired, and they had to move away from their old house to get away from it all? I can find reliable references for this if need be.

One last minor and inconsequential point, in the recordings of the calls made by Leah's parents to the emergency services on the night of the party, the mother says she thinks her daughter has taken some ecstasy 'with some alcohol'. This was later found not to be the case in the inquest. So either the parents did indeed allow alcohol at Leah's party, or they accepted that some would get in anyway. Catherinespark (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have found a reliable source that she drank the water. Can't find a reliable one that says she had not been dancing though. Catherinespark (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the distinction was that she hadn't been dancing continuously in a hot nightclub setting, which was where the advice to drink water applies (although obviously not 7 litres in such a short timeframe). There are numeorus sources that she did drink an excessive amount of water, so if Paul Betts was claiming afterwards that she didn't, that calls in question whatever else he might also have said. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies it, although I feel maybe it should be made clearer in the article, as it confused me at first. The other information in the article seems to be consistent with what he said, so for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt - it was almost ten years ago, so my memory could be wrong. Thanks for the explanation. Catherinespark (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that Paul Betts might be "economical" with the truth in order to get his anti-drugs point across. Paul Austin (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death incorrect on Google

When you Google 'Leah Betts cause of death' a little info box pops up and it erroneously claims that she died of a drug overdose. It looks like it gets this information from Wikipedia, I don't know where from though since this page is accurate. I know it's not really Wikipedia's remit, but this urban legend sticks in my craw. Can anyone help? Earfetish1 (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sorted" poster

In the process of re-checking the original less-than-perfect photograph of the actual poster, I found a much better version here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leah Betts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101094509/http://www.bernardomahoney.com/rrmurders/articles/rsbaw.shtml to http://www.bernardomahoney.com/rrmurders/articles/rsbaw.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Drugs

im doing work in science about drugs and its a shocking story if people are still taking drugs especially ecstacy they should think agin look what happened to leah betts they need to think if i was stupid enough to take drugs which i ensure you that i dont if i did and then heard of this story wouldnt you have stopped as whats happened to leah might happen to you so if you need help stopping you should seek help once i saw the video clip if you seen it believe me you would want to stop so next time think and say no

When you have finished your work in science (and, incidentally, one important part of science is to scrutinise and question your results, don't just accept what you're told, particularly in tabloid anti-drugs scare stories), it might be useful to also learn about punctuation. Oh, and English too.

You offically win for the longest run on sentence I've ever seen outside of James Joyce. Maeve 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just say no to cars too. It is after all insane to get in a car, people have died and faced enormous physical suffering (far worse than from any drug) from car crashes. Alcohol kills millions but like cars it is legal and makes the gov lots of money. Climbing Everest is far more dangerous than taking drugs but do the gov ban it? Not yet. Basically the laws against drugs are political, please don't add scare stories based only on your ignorance like this is a US pharmaceutical ad, SqueakBox 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What so we should all be happy the goverenmet telling what we are and aren't allowed to put into the own bodies, bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.174.79 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Year 6 science project, is it? Stupid, stupid, stupid people! I can't believe that, even today, you mention ecstasy to people and they will say, "well, look what happened to Leah Betts". LOL!!!! Ecstasy didn't kill Leah Betts, bad advice (ie, drink gallons and gallons of water) did (probably from the same stupid tabliod and 'education' sources that will still pedal the bullshit story that this poor girl died from taking ecstasy. 80.47.4.107 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost everybody thinks that, this was leah bets first expense with ecstacy.it wasn't. She was a regular weekend taker , so she knew how to deal with the effects. Yes they were stronger than normal but , even still, she would of known how to deal with it . Let's not forget , this was the 90s , they were all strong . That's why you only needed one . I took a lot in the early 2000s (not proud ,but I don't regret it either) something times we could take 5 ,6 maybe even 7 , because they were less potent . I think (and I'm not a scientist or professional, just a lorry driver) she took the pill realised it was a lot stronger than normal,and panicked (been there , its not nice) . I think a combination of the stronger ecstacy , the panic she went through and the amount of water she drank all culminated in her unfortunate and untimely demise. Rhinow1984 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifteen days or several days?

There seems to be a spirited disagreement about utilizing the word "several" instead of "15" in this article. In live page space. No discussion here on talk. I have recently added another seven-day page semi protection to prevent this recurring. I can do this all day, even eventually placing this page under infinite semi-protection or even full protection (so that only admins can edit). So I can stop it. For several days at least and then at least 15 days and so on. It will stop. However, I'd love to hear from the editors here what the proper wording should be (and why). This talk page is NOT protected, anyone may comment here if they wish. In any event, I have no desire to be a wiki-bully. This page doesn't get any better with the "did not"/"did too". What do the editors here think should be happening? BusterD (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I'd probably side with the IP edits, but not the way they're going about it. To my mind "several" is >3 and <10 - Betts' death at 15 is outside the "several" definition.

However, to me "15 days" doesn't flow very well and I can see why "several" has been used instead. I'm certainly against the also used "just two weeks and a day" which seems a bit tabloidy. I'd suggest perhaps "two weeks" as a suitable substitute but I imagine some would be up in arms over such a generalisation. If "two weeks" is deemed unacceptable, then I'd go with "15" because when you get down to it - that's the correct duration. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

She died 15 days later. Why be vague and say "several days" or some archaic Moira Rose "two weeks and a day" phrase? Fifteen days is as accurate as possible, and the IP edits are approaching WP:LAME. AldezD (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Update - I'm clueless, and didn't read the edits correctly. It's the IP editor trying to change "15" to "several" - which for reasons I still adhere to I think is wrong. So, to clarify - I think that "15" is the preferred term - because it's correct - "two weeks" is an acceptable but not preferred alternative, and "several" makes for good prose, but is wrong so shouldn't be used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many days she died following her eighteenth birthday. I'm not sure why it's mentioned there at all. It's not like reaching your eighteenth birthday somehow makes you more likely to use MDMA recreationally. AldezD (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)