Hillsborough inquest verdict.

[The_Abyss]

If you're stating that we shouldn't be having any trials as they cannot be fair then it's clear that those responsible cannot be held accountable. The two go hand in hand - no trial = those responsible can't be held to account. I asked placeholder the question to clarify if that is what he meant. The fact that you can't understand that is quite telling. You see what I did there? Anyway, if it wasn't already clear to you it should be now so lets not just keep going around in circles.

Once again you twist your words to change your original intention, and offer additional explanation to make it 'clearer' after the event. And then tell me it is clearer.

You also conflated two issues. It was stated that it would be challenging if not impossible to hold a fair trial. You then suggested that view was akin to not wanting to hold the accused to account, even if you did ask it i the form of a question.

And yes on track. This thread is for discussing what went on at Hillsborough and the subsequent inquests and criminal trials as I have been doing quite reasonably with placeholder. Despite disagreeing with the majority of what he's said I have far more respect for him than some others that have post in this thread who are either unable or unwilling to even attempt to back up their posts or worse, resort to lying when they've been caught out.

You didn't address the question. You keep going on about moderating this thread so as to not prejudice future hearings. I asked if that moderation was consistent in other threads as well, where there's often rampant speculation and non-acceptance of facts and evidence. Is this a new forum policy being introduced, or just a special one for this thread where somebody saying "I think" followed by something you disagree with is not acceptable on the grounds of prejudice?

 

[dl8860]

I've only had a brief scan through some of the Piper Alpha information, but one glaring discrepancy I saw was in the amounts paid out to the families. £600k was paid out to most of the families of the Piper Alpha disaster, as Occidental were quickly found to be negligent and culpable, while the minimum statutory £3.5k was paid to some of the Hillsborough families.

It is just factually a very different kettle of fish to have this sort of disaster in the workplace compared to a sports ground. Compared to Hillsborough, the failings of those in decision making positions on the Piper Alpha platform and nearby platforms were very easy to identify and assign culpability.

The Cullen Report, which details the findings of the inquiry into the disaster is known as an exemplary document, and has doubtless saved countless further incidents and losses of life.

As many in the thread have said, thankfully we have seen huge advances in stadium and crown management since Hillsborough.

 

[placeholder]

It is just factually a very different kettle of fish to have this sort of disaster in the workplace compared to a sports ground. Compared to Hillsborough, the failings of those in decision making positions on the Piper Alpha platform and nearby platforms were very easy to identify and assign culpability.

The Cullen Report, which details the findings of the inquiry into the disaster is known as an exemplary document, and has doubtless saved countless further incidents and losses of life.

As many in the thread have said, thankfully we have seen huge advances in stadium and crown management since Hillsborough.

There has also been significant advances in crowd behaviour too. Its no longer acceptable to simply pee in the back pocket of the guy standing in front of you, football attendance is now far more family orientated and given ticket prices probably more middle class than it was back in the 80s.

 

[Mr Blonde]

It is just factually a very different kettle of fish to have this sort of disaster in the workplace compared to a sports ground. Compared to Hillsborough, the failings of those in decision making positions on the Piper Alpha platform and nearby platforms were very easy to identify and assign culpability.

The Cullen Report, which details the findings of the inquiry into the disaster is known as an exemplary document, and has doubtless saved countless further incidents and losses of life.

As many in the thread have said, thankfully we have seen huge advances in stadium and crown management since Hillsborough.

Oh I agree that it was the mark for how these sorts of things should be carried out. The main reasons for it only taking two years however were that key employees of Occidental or the Department of Energy didn't try to cover their behinds from the off, alter witness and employee statements, hid crucial video recordings, didn't constantly blame the workers, allowed rescue services on the scene, didn't lie at the inquests, to the the media and to everyone that would listen and for it all to be taken as the truth for years on end. You could then slot in things such as the original inquest verdict of 'accidental death' being recorded on everyone that died at Hillsborough, the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision that there was no evidence to prosecute any organization, corporate body or person(s) at all, and the coroner saying that there was no helping anyone after 3:15pm at all as they were all brain dead by then.

Yup, things certainly can go a lot more smoothly if a company or organization just sticks up their hands from the outset and says we messed up and we accept we're at fault, that's for sure.

 

[dl8860]

Oh I agree that it was the mark for how these sorts of things should be carried out. The main reasons for it only taking two years however were that key employees of Occidental or the Department of Energy didn't try to cover their behinds from the off, alter witness and employee statements, hid crucial video recordings, didn't constantly blame the workers, allowed rescue services on the scene, didn't lie at the inquests, to the the media and to everyone that would listen and for it all to be taken as the truth for years on end. You could then slot in things such as the original inquest verdict of 'accidental death' being recorded on everyone that died at Hillsborough, the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision that there was no evidence to prosecute any organization, corporate body or person(s) at all, and the coroner saying that there was no helping anyone after 3:15pm at all as they were all brain dead by then.

Yup, things certainly can go a lot more smoothly if a company or organization just sticks up their hands from the outset and says we messed up and we accept we're at fault, that's for sure.

Yeah totally agree on that. The fact that there were plenty of other parties involved made the process easier. Much easier to cover tracks when it's simply Police vs. supporters. But that isn't the only reason why it was simpler. It's a lot easier to say this valve failed due to that decision and therefore there was an explosion, than the situation with Hillsborough.

 

[BaZ87]

Once again you twist your words to change your original intention, and offer additional explanation to make it 'clearer' after the event. And then tell me it is clearer.

You also conflated two issues. It was stated that it would be challenging if not impossible to hold a fair trial. You then suggested that view was akin to not wanting to hold the accused to account, even if you did ask it i the form of a question.

Sorry you couldn't understand what I meant. It was not stated that it would be challenging, it was stated that he didn't believe it was possible. Therefore if it's not possible to hold a fair trial then we cannot have a trial and therefore nobody can be held accountable. As I've said multiple times now, I asked the question that if you don't believe that a trial can be held then are you saying that those responsible should be let off. Again, we're just going around in circles now.

You didn't address the question. You keep going on about moderating this thread so as to not prejudice future hearings. I asked if that moderation was consistent in other threads as well, where there's often rampant speculation and non-acceptance of facts and evidence. Is this a new forum policy being introduced, or just a special one for this thread where somebody saying "I think" followed by something you disagree with is not acceptable on the grounds of prejudice?

Sorry I'm very busy this weekend so I just skimmed over your post. We'll always try to make sure that no posts on the forum prejudice criminal hearings, we cannot and won't spot everything though. If you see any offending posts you can of course report them so they're brought to our attention.

 

[The_Abyss]

Sorry you couldn't understand what I meant. It was not stated that it would be challenging, it was stated that he didn't believe it was possible. Therefore if it's not possible to hold a fair trial then we cannot have a trial and therefore nobody can be held accountable. As I've said multiple times now, I asked the question that if you don't believe that a trial can be held then are you saying that those responsible should be let off. Again, we're just going around in circles now.

I understood perfectly what you meant, and continuing to claim otherwise is quite insulting. We're not going around in circles. Not believing a fair trial could be held is not the same as believing that those responsible should be let off. The former would not allow a trial to safely proceed, whereas the other is a decision made irrespective of whether a trial could proceed safely or not.

In my view, this thread is a perfect example of why a jury could not deliver a safe verdict. In the face of overwhelming evidence some still question the record of events and analysis of professionals. It would be a lottery of jurors. The question then turns to how else could individuals be held accountable? A trial without jury perhaps? Change the law (I think) to allow the police force to discipline retired officers and revoke their pensions?

Sorry I'm very busy this weekend so I just skimmed over your post. We'll always try to make sure that no posts on the forum prejudice criminal hearings, we cannot and won't spot everything though. If you see any offending posts you can of course report them so they're brought to our attention.

There are daily threads in GD full of speculation on a news report of some kind or another, from murders to Russian spy poisonings to personal relationship meltdowns and court action. None of those appear to be moderated in the interests of a fair hearing at some point in the future. But your position that they are consistently moderated is reassuring.

 

[Yadda]

This isn't going anywhere, how about a truce?

The trial isn't that far away, let's wait and see what comes of it.

 

[BaZ87]

I understood perfectly what you meant, and continuing to claim otherwise is quite insulting...

Almost as insulting as telling me what I said and meant. If you want to discuss it further then raise a thread in the forum content discussion.

 

[The_Abyss]

This isn't going anywhere, how about a truce?

The trial isn't that far away, let's wait and see what comes of it.

Yep - agreed. I don't hold strong views on either side, but trying to discuss with either side just shows how entrenched the views really are.

It is interesting to see how many people accepted the new inquest findings and found that they had to change their original opinion - many have done so successfully. I wonder if it would have been possible the other way around - if the police were initially held to blame and then a subsequent inquest was conducted after pressure from police families, and that found that a load of drunken fans were responsible. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[BaZ87]

Yep - agreed. I don't hold strong views on either side, but trying to discuss with either side just shows how entrenched the views really are.

It is interesting to see how many people accepted the new inquest findings and found that they had to change their original opinion - many have done so successfully. I wonder if it would have been possible the other way around - if the police were initially held to blame and then a subsequent inquest was conducted after pressure from police families, and that found that a load of drunken fans were responsible. Somehow I doubt it.

How would that be the other way around? The initial report into Hillsborough did blame the police and the single biggest reasoning for the original inquest verdict (accidental death) was the 3.15pm cut off time - the coroner (for some unknown reason) claimed that those that died were either dead or beyond saving by this point so all evidence after this time wasn't considered. It's not that big a leap to accept the findings of the most recent report and subsequent inquests when the original report told us mostly the same things. Certainly not as big a leap as the complete u-turn in your hypothetical example.

 

[Yadda]

Yep - agreed. I don't hold strong views on either side, but trying to discuss with either side just shows how entrenched the views really are.

It is interesting to see how many people accepted the new inquest findings and found that they had to change their original opinion - many have done so successfully. I wonder if it would have been possible the other way around - if the police were initially held to blame and then a subsequent inquest was conducted after pressure from police families, and that found that a load of drunken fans were responsible. Somehow I doubt it.

Your second para takes a huge dump on the first one.

 

[The_Abyss]

Your second para takes a huge dump on the first one.

Devil's advocate

 

[The_Abyss]

How would that be the other way around? The initial report into Hillsborough did blame the police and the single biggest reasoning for the original inquest verdict (accidental death) was the 3.15pm cut off time - the coroner (for some unknown reason) claimed that those that died were either dead or beyond saving by this point so all evidence after this time wasn't considered. It's not that big a leap to accept the findings of the most recent report and subsequent inquests when the original report told us mostly the same things. Certainly not as big a leap as the complete u-turn in your hypothetical example.

I'm not discussing it further with you at your own request.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm not discussing it further with you at your own request.

Nice cop out As you're well aware I was referring to that single point that we were going around in circles with.

Your hypothetical reverse scenario is massively flawed because you lack a basic understanding of the original report and inquests. You're not alone, there's many others that were brainwashed by the police's smear campaign and incorrectly believe that supporters were originally found responsible. For clarity, they weren't and never have been.

 

[Freakbro]

All charges against Bettison dropped

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45258766

A former chief inspector accused of trying to blame Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has had all charges against him dropped.

Sir Norman Bettison, then of South Yorkshire Police, had faced four counts of misconduct in a public office.

He was accused of telling lies about the "culpability of fans" and his role in the wake of the tragedy.

Prosecutors said insufficient evidence meant there was no real prospect of securing a conviction.

The Crown Prosecution Service said because of changes in the evidence of two witnesses, and the death of a third, it would discontinue the case.

 

[glenimp617]

^ Did anyone expect anything different?

 

[Dis86]

Interesting reading the statement about contradictions in witness evidence. Almost like people were making things up!

 

[rubberduck]

Really feel bad for Duckenfield... hope the poor chap can put this behind him soon.