What Was No 1 On The Day You Were Born?
Music4 mins ago
Should Former Police Chief David Duckenfield Be Stripped Of His Police Pension?
He won't face charges for this (as he has health issues) , but he should be stripped of his police pension at the very least.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Buenchico, I read a lot of your answers on this site, and you come over as an articulate and intelligent person.
On this occasion though, you do yourself a grave injustice with your comments.
People don't get over bereavement, they come to terms with it, and now the truth is out, perhaps the families of the victims can start to come to terms the their grief.
On this occasion though, you do yourself a grave injustice with your comments.
People don't get over bereavement, they come to terms with it, and now the truth is out, perhaps the families of the victims can start to come to terms the their grief.
Buenchino - firstly you would be extremely unpopular in my neck of the woods with your opinions.
I feel that it is too little too late. The apology is a quarter of a century late and to blame "shock" for his lies is ridiculous. Shock is understandable at the time, a cover up that has lasted this long is not.
Perhaps this one mistake should not define him, hopefully the rest of his career was blemish free and if so, he can keep his pension as far as I am concerned. The families who's loved ones were crushed to death need the truth so they can move on. This is another small victory for them
I feel that it is too little too late. The apology is a quarter of a century late and to blame "shock" for his lies is ridiculous. Shock is understandable at the time, a cover up that has lasted this long is not.
Perhaps this one mistake should not define him, hopefully the rest of his career was blemish free and if so, he can keep his pension as far as I am concerned. The families who's loved ones were crushed to death need the truth so they can move on. This is another small victory for them
I wasn't making excuses for him Ummmm. Just putting forward a possible reason that might make him feel as he does.
Here's two characteristics from a list of Autistic characteristics which could be attributed to Chris.
Makes honest, but inappropriate observations.
Seems unable to understand another’s feelings.
I shan't comment any further re Chris as we are in News and off topic.
Here's two characteristics from a list of Autistic characteristics which could be attributed to Chris.
Makes honest, but inappropriate observations.
Seems unable to understand another’s feelings.
I shan't comment any further re Chris as we are in News and off topic.
//Should Former Police Chief David Duckenfield Be Stripped Of His Police Pension?//
Yes.... I worked for a Nationalised Organisation and Pensions were lost, if it was proved that you were guilty of a Criminal offence. However, in this instance there has Not been any Court Case to establish that the now Mr. Duckenfield has committed a Criminal Offence, although I think he has.
Furthermore, I am now guilty of Digression....I am of the opinion that Buenchico (Chris) is innocent of any infringement of AB Rules..... Pity he posted in this thread in the manner which he has, because, normally, his comments on all matters are very much to the point and worthwhile observing.
Hans.
Yes.... I worked for a Nationalised Organisation and Pensions were lost, if it was proved that you were guilty of a Criminal offence. However, in this instance there has Not been any Court Case to establish that the now Mr. Duckenfield has committed a Criminal Offence, although I think he has.
Furthermore, I am now guilty of Digression....I am of the opinion that Buenchico (Chris) is innocent of any infringement of AB Rules..... Pity he posted in this thread in the manner which he has, because, normally, his comments on all matters are very much to the point and worthwhile observing.
Hans.
Sorry, I did miss your question, Mikey. Been cleaning the windows.
Yes I suppose he could be charged. Evidence given at inquests is "sworn" (i.e. given under oath). The Perjury Act states that providing false evidence whilst under oath only becomes a crime if the evidence could have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings. So Mr Duckenfield's false evidence at the inquests would have to have resulted in a different verdict being given by the Coroner than if he had told the truth.
Having said that, even if he was convicted of perjury, I am not convinced that it would pass the test that the Home Secretary would have to undertake to establish if his actions led to a “serious loss of confidence in the public service". And even further than that I am not at all convinced, as I said earlier, that such an additional penalty would be deemed lawful when imposed by the Home Secretary who is clearly “not a properly convened tribunal”. I don't know if the legitimacy of the measures have been tested in court.
Interesting stuff for m’Learned Friends to get their teeth into should they feel the need to earn a bit of extra pocket money.
Yes I suppose he could be charged. Evidence given at inquests is "sworn" (i.e. given under oath). The Perjury Act states that providing false evidence whilst under oath only becomes a crime if the evidence could have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings. So Mr Duckenfield's false evidence at the inquests would have to have resulted in a different verdict being given by the Coroner than if he had told the truth.
Having said that, even if he was convicted of perjury, I am not convinced that it would pass the test that the Home Secretary would have to undertake to establish if his actions led to a “serious loss of confidence in the public service". And even further than that I am not at all convinced, as I said earlier, that such an additional penalty would be deemed lawful when imposed by the Home Secretary who is clearly “not a properly convened tribunal”. I don't know if the legitimacy of the measures have been tested in court.
Interesting stuff for m’Learned Friends to get their teeth into should they feel the need to earn a bit of extra pocket money.
Thanks NJ....I still a little uncertain of the legal position here though.
What is the point of holding an Inquest, with evidence given under oath, if that evidence is later seem to be false, but we do nothing ?
I may have got this wrong, but I thought that the struggle to get new Inquests into the Hillsborough disaster, was undertaken because the original Inquest was obviously so lacking in credibility.
This second Inquest is being enacted under much greater scrutiny than the first, and at much great length and detail. Yesterday wasn't the first day over the last few months when a shocking revelation was made in Court, although in the importance being given to Duckenfields confession, it certainly ranks as the most shocking. It seems to me that to allow Duckenfield to get off without some castigation rather defeats the purpose of running the Inquest again.
I am a firm believer that justice doesn't just need to be done....., it needs to be seen to be done.
What is the point of holding an Inquest, with evidence given under oath, if that evidence is later seem to be false, but we do nothing ?
I may have got this wrong, but I thought that the struggle to get new Inquests into the Hillsborough disaster, was undertaken because the original Inquest was obviously so lacking in credibility.
This second Inquest is being enacted under much greater scrutiny than the first, and at much great length and detail. Yesterday wasn't the first day over the last few months when a shocking revelation was made in Court, although in the importance being given to Duckenfields confession, it certainly ranks as the most shocking. It seems to me that to allow Duckenfield to get off without some castigation rather defeats the purpose of running the Inquest again.
I am a firm believer that justice doesn't just need to be done....., it needs to be seen to be done.
Yes of course everyone wants to see justice done, Mikey. But the Perjury Act is quite clear: the false testimony must make a material difference to the outcome of the proceedings. For example, it would not be perjury for a witness to lie about his age under oath unless his age was material to the case and affected the verdict being delivered.
So it is with Mr Duckenfield. Before any thought of action against him can be taken it will have to be demonstrated that his false evidence led to the earlier verdict of accidental death when another verdict may have been delivered had he told the truth. If this inquest returns the same verdict I cannot see any way that a charge of perjury will succeed. Most importantly, he is not on trial at this hearing.
I think undue emphasis is being given to the possible prosecution of Mr Duckenfield. I note that you believe if he escapes castigation then the purpose of the latest inquest will be lost. That is not so. The inquest is concerned with identifying the cause of the deaths. As far as his part in the tragedy goes, his decisions on the day are really the only matters that should be scrutinised. His subsequent false testimony, whilst undoubtedly adding to the suffering of the victims’ families, played no part in those deaths. More than that, his decision(s) will have to be found to be either negligent or malicious, not simply wrong.
I have followed the other thread (where you urged me to wake up!!) with interest but have nothing extra to contribute. The matters being debated there (i.e. the cause of the deaths) are the very ones being heard by the inquest. I have always held some belief that the late ticketless fans must take some responsibility for the tragedy, but precisely how much will be up to the jury to decide. What I will say is that whist Mr Duckenfield may have been inept, that is a long step from saying his decision was the cause of the tragedy.
So it is with Mr Duckenfield. Before any thought of action against him can be taken it will have to be demonstrated that his false evidence led to the earlier verdict of accidental death when another verdict may have been delivered had he told the truth. If this inquest returns the same verdict I cannot see any way that a charge of perjury will succeed. Most importantly, he is not on trial at this hearing.
I think undue emphasis is being given to the possible prosecution of Mr Duckenfield. I note that you believe if he escapes castigation then the purpose of the latest inquest will be lost. That is not so. The inquest is concerned with identifying the cause of the deaths. As far as his part in the tragedy goes, his decisions on the day are really the only matters that should be scrutinised. His subsequent false testimony, whilst undoubtedly adding to the suffering of the victims’ families, played no part in those deaths. More than that, his decision(s) will have to be found to be either negligent or malicious, not simply wrong.
I have followed the other thread (where you urged me to wake up!!) with interest but have nothing extra to contribute. The matters being debated there (i.e. the cause of the deaths) are the very ones being heard by the inquest. I have always held some belief that the late ticketless fans must take some responsibility for the tragedy, but precisely how much will be up to the jury to decide. What I will say is that whist Mr Duckenfield may have been inept, that is a long step from saying his decision was the cause of the tragedy.
of the professions that lost their pensions on being convicted
New Judge forgot - judges ! They lost their pensions ( great big fat ones ) if they were convicted of offences didht they ?
and there is an evidential rule that the complained of act must be independently witnessed. Mr D yesterday admitted he had told the president of the PFA the crowd has broken thro the gates....
New Judge forgot - judges ! They lost their pensions ( great big fat ones ) if they were convicted of offences didht they ?
and there is an evidential rule that the complained of act must be independently witnessed. Mr D yesterday admitted he had told the president of the PFA the crowd has broken thro the gates....
It has been established that Mr Duckenfield lied some 26years ago. Consequently, irrespective of what is being said by our honourable AB member, New Judge, there does appear to be sufficient evidence for action to be taken against whomsoever was the person who gave the order for the gates to be opened.....Perhaps, Mr Duckenfied was acting under instructions from above his rank and was protecting higher authority within his Police Department. It's surprising what ensues if you have a Mobile Phone in operation and in contact with others in one's organisation.
Hans.
Hans.
Many years ago when I first started work – a number of employees at the company were prosecuted for theft (of precious metals) from the company.
One individual in particular was jailed, and being near retirement age – the company forfeit his pension. I remember the other employees saying that the union fought this decision on his behalf, but without success.
One individual in particular was jailed, and being near retirement age – the company forfeit his pension. I remember the other employees saying that the union fought this decision on his behalf, but without success.
Nobody seems to have made a connection between this one (big, important, consequence-laden) lie and the fact that this man could literally have made a career of lying. Every case he was ever involved in should be re-examined because he could have contributed to the ruin of many lives beyond those lost at Hillsborough.
Thanks New Judge. Your second post was most informative and contained the legal details that was I looking for.
I am most certainly not blaming Duckenfield for the entirety of guilt in this sad affair. I feel that many factors contributed to the disaster. But if he and other Officers colluded to mislead the original Inquests, than I am confident that some kind of censure will be forthcoming. Nothing else will be acceptable I fear.
The families of the victims in this affair, and many of them were children, have waited an awful long time to see justice. From what I have seen of the proceedings of these new Inquests, the wheels of British Justice would appear to grinding very fine, even if it has taken so long to get here, so very slowly.
By the way....have a snoozette after lunch if you so wish....I do so frequently.
I believe that are now called "power naps " !
I am most certainly not blaming Duckenfield for the entirety of guilt in this sad affair. I feel that many factors contributed to the disaster. But if he and other Officers colluded to mislead the original Inquests, than I am confident that some kind of censure will be forthcoming. Nothing else will be acceptable I fear.
The families of the victims in this affair, and many of them were children, have waited an awful long time to see justice. From what I have seen of the proceedings of these new Inquests, the wheels of British Justice would appear to grinding very fine, even if it has taken so long to get here, so very slowly.
By the way....have a snoozette after lunch if you so wish....I do so frequently.
I believe that are now called "power naps " !
@barney15c
--He won't face charges for this (as he has health issues) , but he should be stripped of his police pension at the very least. --
No. I believe that forfeiture rules were formulated with offences like treason in mind, once the death penalty for that had been withdrawn (possibly beforehand, too!?) The deterrence factor was that the traitor's wife and dependent children would lose the pension payouts otherwise accrued to them. If a person isn't loyal to their country - even on pain of death - at least loyalty to their family might keep them in check.
The people who draw up pension scheme rules could out of a smidgin of self-interest, be expected to be resistant to revised forfeiture conditions in which workplace mistakes could jeopardise the financial future of themselves and their dependents.
Such conditions would eventually impact recruitment. Public Service pensions only became good in the first place in an effort to fill the kind of grindingly repetitive and effortful work (in the pre-computer era) which nobody wanted to do.
No charges due to health reasons sounds awfully convenient to me. Even with the truth 'out' and a verbal apology made, it still doesn't seem like justice for the victims to me, either.
Since 26 years have elapsed, I'm curious whether they will apply 30 year rule or if it is now 40 because high ranking people live so much longer, these days.
--He won't face charges for this (as he has health issues) , but he should be stripped of his police pension at the very least. --
No. I believe that forfeiture rules were formulated with offences like treason in mind, once the death penalty for that had been withdrawn (possibly beforehand, too!?) The deterrence factor was that the traitor's wife and dependent children would lose the pension payouts otherwise accrued to them. If a person isn't loyal to their country - even on pain of death - at least loyalty to their family might keep them in check.
The people who draw up pension scheme rules could out of a smidgin of self-interest, be expected to be resistant to revised forfeiture conditions in which workplace mistakes could jeopardise the financial future of themselves and their dependents.
Such conditions would eventually impact recruitment. Public Service pensions only became good in the first place in an effort to fill the kind of grindingly repetitive and effortful work (in the pre-computer era) which nobody wanted to do.
No charges due to health reasons sounds awfully convenient to me. Even with the truth 'out' and a verbal apology made, it still doesn't seem like justice for the victims to me, either.
Since 26 years have elapsed, I'm curious whether they will apply 30 year rule or if it is now 40 because high ranking people live so much longer, these days.
Latest Posts
Samsung 21 Plus. Camera Failed
Technology7 mins ago
Mnop Quiz Remus Horse Sanctuary
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Spectator N0 2654 By La Jerezana
Crosswords11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
So The President & Foreign Minister...
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.