Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News1 min ago
Hilsborough: What Do We Expect?
http://
http://
Today, over 23 years after the worst sporting related disaster in British history, an 18 month report on all collated paperwork etc will be released to the families of deceased and the public.
Will it finally bring closure - or not? Obviously the dead can't be brought back, but does anyone believe that the full facts will be laid bare?
***N.B.*** NO FLIPPANT REPLIES, PLEASE ***
http://
Today, over 23 years after the worst sporting related disaster in British history, an 18 month report on all collated paperwork etc will be released to the families of deceased and the public.
Will it finally bring closure - or not? Obviously the dead can't be brought back, but does anyone believe that the full facts will be laid bare?
***N.B.*** NO FLIPPANT REPLIES, PLEASE ***
Answers
The truth would be nice and an acceptance from all sides that fault will most probably lie across the board as is the case in most accidents.
Seeking to blame one groups be it the Police or the fans is clearly wrong. Policing and some of the reasons for 'fans' being there were very different then.
Seeking to blame one groups be it the Police or the fans is clearly wrong. Policing and some of the reasons for 'fans' being there were very different then.
08:19 Wed 12th Sep 2012
I've just heard the current Chief Constable of S Yorks stating that the altered statements by Officers were done so on 'independent legal advice'. That suggests to me that the Police were obviously being very careful as to what they said, and that the Officers concerned most certainly did not collude in any way.
I still stand by what I've already said, i.e. until we get some specifics, then everything is guesswork about what was allegedly altered, by whom, for what reason/purpose - innocently or otherwise? There are far too many people rushing to judgement after an independent inquiry has released their findings in general terms.
Don't forget, we're speaking about the aftermath of this tragedy, the investigation into what actually happened and why?
Andy Burnham MP, another one mired in the expenses scandal, has just commented re Hillsborough: "All of us politicians must ask ourselves why Parliament didn't do a better job and we must ask ourselves the same"
I don't think I'd take any lectures from 'Honourable Members' on this subject.
The acid test will come when we see how many criminal convictions come out of this. IF any Police Officer was criminally culpable - prosecute them! As long as the evidence is there to support the allegations, otherwise it would degenerate into nothing more than a witch hunt for scapegoats.
So far, all we've had are sweeping generalisations without any facts. So let's all revisit this if and when the full facts have been revealed. And if they show Police Officers 'banged to rights', then let them be put on trial. We don't have kangaroo courts in this country, or trial by media - or do we?
I still stand by what I've already said, i.e. until we get some specifics, then everything is guesswork about what was allegedly altered, by whom, for what reason/purpose - innocently or otherwise? There are far too many people rushing to judgement after an independent inquiry has released their findings in general terms.
Don't forget, we're speaking about the aftermath of this tragedy, the investigation into what actually happened and why?
Andy Burnham MP, another one mired in the expenses scandal, has just commented re Hillsborough: "All of us politicians must ask ourselves why Parliament didn't do a better job and we must ask ourselves the same"
I don't think I'd take any lectures from 'Honourable Members' on this subject.
The acid test will come when we see how many criminal convictions come out of this. IF any Police Officer was criminally culpable - prosecute them! As long as the evidence is there to support the allegations, otherwise it would degenerate into nothing more than a witch hunt for scapegoats.
So far, all we've had are sweeping generalisations without any facts. So let's all revisit this if and when the full facts have been revealed. And if they show Police Officers 'banged to rights', then let them be put on trial. We don't have kangaroo courts in this country, or trial by media - or do we?
I've just heard the current Chief Constable of S Yorks stating that the altered statements by Officers were done so on 'independent legal advice'. That suggests to me that the Police were obviously being very careful as to what they said, and that the Officers concerned most certainly did not collude in any way.
So what you believe to be the truth is 'most certainly' the truth?
You are doing exactly what you accuse the people of Liverpool of doing.
I thought when I read your OP you were going to show no bias....how wrong I was.
So what you believe to be the truth is 'most certainly' the truth?
You are doing exactly what you accuse the people of Liverpool of doing.
I thought when I read your OP you were going to show no bias....how wrong I was.
<<That suggests to me that the Police were obviously being very careful as to what they said>>
Isn't the whole point that police officers' notes are supposed to be accurate and truthful and suitable for presentation in court as evidence.
Your 'very careful' admission has just damned the lot of them as anything but.
Thank you for confirming our suspicions.
Isn't the whole point that police officers' notes are supposed to be accurate and truthful and suitable for presentation in court as evidence.
Your 'very careful' admission has just damned the lot of them as anything but.
Thank you for confirming our suspicions.
Can I help it if someone does not recognise fairness when they see it? I can't be held responsible for the CC of S Yorks saying that Officers altered statements on 'independent legal advice' - not my words - his.
Also, when people pick and choose a piece of a post and ignore important bits like "..if they show Police Officers 'banged to rights', then let them be put on trial", it suggests to me that they are indeed displaying 'bias' instead of me. How more impartial can I be?
I don't stick up for the Police, but I do believe in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Anyone remember Chris Jefferies OR Barrie George OR Colin Stagg for example? I rest my case.
Also, when people pick and choose a piece of a post and ignore important bits like "..if they show Police Officers 'banged to rights', then let them be put on trial", it suggests to me that they are indeed displaying 'bias' instead of me. How more impartial can I be?
I don't stick up for the Police, but I do believe in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Anyone remember Chris Jefferies OR Barrie George OR Colin Stagg for example? I rest my case.
Zeuhl,
'suspicions' - glad you used that word because that's all anything amounts to just now - nothing more, nothing less, until and IF evidence emerges sufficient enough to prefer criminal charges against anyone: Police, Ambulance, Coroner, Stewards, Fans, Programme Sellers, Hot Dog Sellers etc etc.
The Police have no right to be treated differently to anyone else - IF evidence is brought to bear which suggests criminal culpability by them. Otherwise, they're no more guilty - or innocent - than anyone else.
A gentleman involved with the families group - Trevor Hicks? - said that today was the truth and tomorrow justice begins. That's fair enough, I look forward to the revelations he obviously must feel they have?
'suspicions' - glad you used that word because that's all anything amounts to just now - nothing more, nothing less, until and IF evidence emerges sufficient enough to prefer criminal charges against anyone: Police, Ambulance, Coroner, Stewards, Fans, Programme Sellers, Hot Dog Sellers etc etc.
The Police have no right to be treated differently to anyone else - IF evidence is brought to bear which suggests criminal culpability by them. Otherwise, they're no more guilty - or innocent - than anyone else.
A gentleman involved with the families group - Trevor Hicks? - said that today was the truth and tomorrow justice begins. That's fair enough, I look forward to the revelations he obviously must feel they have?
On April 26, 1989 senior South Yorkshire Police (SYP) representatives met with the force's solicitors, Hammond Suddards, to discuss the disaster. Both parties agreed that the police could be served with writs for their role at Hillsborough. They decided it would be necessary for lawyers to study the statements made by police officers attending the match and advise the SYP on what should be left in or removed.
"I've just heard the current Chief Constable of S Yorks stating that the altered statements by Officers were done so on 'independent legal advice'. That suggests to me that the Police were obviously being very careful as to what they said, and that the Officers concerned most certainly did not collude in any way. "
And the police have most certainly been scrupulously honest, selfless, accurate and transparent in this affair so far.
And the police have most certainly been scrupulously honest, selfless, accurate and transparent in this affair so far.
"The Police have no right to be treated differently to anyone else".
Like it or not they are, as am I, doctors, lawyers and other jobs that are classified as "identifiable occupations". It is because we are supposed to aspire to a higher standard.
Personally I disagree with it as I believe ALL should be treated equally, but I just have to get on with it. If I do wrong I expect to be held responsible.
Like it or not they are, as am I, doctors, lawyers and other jobs that are classified as "identifiable occupations". It is because we are supposed to aspire to a higher standard.
Personally I disagree with it as I believe ALL should be treated equally, but I just have to get on with it. If I do wrong I expect to be held responsible.
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.