Soldato
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?