Hillsborough: "Key Findings"

[Kerosene]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-merseyside-19577033

So there we have it, the exhaustive 18 month study of over 400,000 documents has basically damned the Police and almost no one else. Their 'key findings' more or less lay the blame fairly and squarely at the door of the South Yorkshire Police.
Having been able to carry out their investigations many years after the tragedy, in the relative calm, they have concluded that the Police were not only palpablyculpable on the day, but then conspired afterwards to deliberately deflect blame onto the Liverpool fans.

I still cannot help but surmise that this report is and has been weighed against the Police from day one. I say that because until yesterday I was unaware that those compiling it had apparently been in the company of the families of those who died throughout their study period?

Would it not have been fair to all concerned had they either have taken an equal amount of time to consult with all involved parties instead of the one pressure group? Had they done so, could their deliberations have led to a different conclusion?
Were the Police and the other agencies disadvantaged as a result?

[Kerosene]

Trigger,

What people seem to be totally overlooking is that this report was not the result of any investigation in the true sense of the word, simply because it relied almost exclusively on documentation and nothing else - there was no, as in a trial, interrogation or cross examination of witnesses, no mitigation able to be put forward by the 'accused', no opportunity for anyone to be defended, no judge to guide and advise a jury, so how can this investigation be seen as fair and above board?

Also, Mr Trevor Hicks, who sadly lost two daughters that day, declared yesterday afternoon that all they ever wanted was an apology. Today he's calling for prosecutions. There is an awful long way to go, according to the laws of the land, before anything like that happens.

[Kerosene]

trigger,

Put it this way, here's a purely hypothetical situation: The Police come to your house and arrest you on suspicion of forgery? You're then taken down the Nick, and you're presented with documents which allegedly bear your signature. The document, a will, purports to show you the sole beneficiary which means you'll be left a million pounds.

Crucially, you are denied a Police interview, you are then charged with the offence, kept in custody until your court appearance. Throughout this time you are also denied any form of representation, i.e. solicitor.

The day comes when you are taken by the Police to Crown Court, made to stand in the dock, forbidden to speak, and are found guilty and sentenced to five years.

Would that be fair?

[Kerosene]

trigger,

Re Mr Hicks, his apology demand came yesterday afternoon AFTER he had seen the documents. Therefore, are you telling me that he hasn't considered, over the intervening 23 years, what he'd like done in the event of yesterday's findings? I mean, it was always a possibility that this might be the outcome, but his opinion seems to have simply changed overnight?

So why does it seem to be such a surprise to you? Had he stuck to his guns with his 'apology' demand only, then I'd say that the memory of his daughters would have been far better served than to suddenly change from one of 'apology' to 'revenge'?

[Kerosene]

trigger,

No, this is exactly what happened here, my example may be hypothetical but it reflects exactly what has happened during this 'investigation'. That is undeniable, for if not, it was a paper exercise, and pieces of paper cannot answer questions, nor can they either concur or deny - can they?

It's just like statistics - they can be used to one's advantage - but they can't answer back.

[Kerosene]

I was expecting the old "justice" word to be used sooner or later. Fair enough, but when someone suddenly changes horses mid stream, what other conclusion would a reasonable person reach?

Like I said, Mr Hicks's wish was merely an 'apology' - presumably his wish since 1989 and his own words on telly yesterday afternoon - but this suddenly changes to 'prosecution' by this morning?

I know what I call that - and it ain't 'justice'.

[Kerosene]

See you, trigger, I have as well. There's a couple of mutts staring at me for their next walk.

Thanks for your contributions - we'll have to agree to disagree?

[jake-the-peg]

Regardless of what the police could and could not have done - they have admitted to a conspiracy to cover up their actions.

That is not in dispute by anyone

And it is simply unforgivable

This is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and is a very serious offence as the Police themselves often remind us.

Getting distracted by who did what and when misses this the most important point - they lied to cover their skins and we can't let that slide

[jno]

he couldn't call for a prosecution until today because there wasn't enough evidence to base one on. Now there is.

"When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" (Keynes)

[ichkeria]

The original poster seems to be suggesting that rather than conduct an exhaustive reading of hundreds of thousands of documents, a group of football fans should instead have got together and interviewed survivors of the Ibrox disaster. Or is that an unfair caricature of his position?

[Sipowicz]

Careful ichkeria, you're lining yourself up for some childish and personal insults. (It's like being savaged by a dead sheep, apologies to Denis Healey!)

[Le Chat]

Until the full report came out, Mr Hicks was probably unaware of the full scale of the events and subsequent cover up.

In light of this, his world, which was smashed in two at the time, has probably smashed somewhat more in the last few days.

Perhaps the knowledge that his 2 children could have still been alive and that lies were put in place to hide this fact was an 'apology only required' deal breaer for him.

It would be for me.

[jomifl]

My understanding of what happened at Hillsborough is that the tragedy resulted from a set of circumstances that could have been foreseeable if anyone had bothered to try. Given that the design of the turnstiles and their approaches was flawed, the crush barriers inadequate with no provision for relief of crushes then it was inevitable. If the police were culpable then more so was the football club for it's inadequate safety measures. But we can't say that as it is not PC.

[Le Chat]

Completelty agree with you Jomfil. My husband tells me it was 'normal' to suffer a crushing at matches and was not entirely surprised when it happened...just surprised it wasn't sooner.

[jno]

If the police were culpable then more so was the football club for it's inadequate safety measures. But we can't say that as it is not PC.

One reason for not saying so might be that a lengthy inquiry has just failed to demonstrate that it's true. There was criticism of the state of the grounds, but the findings were clear enough: bad policing was the main problem but was instantly covered up.