Hillsborough police chief David Duckenfield cleared of manslaughter

The Running Man said:
Because with blame comes a claim.
Click to expand...

No, it's more a question of having someone to point at and say: it was their fault. In the Real World, disasters like this a consequence of a whole series of actions, by many different people, none of which are important in themselves, but only as part of a long chain. But people don't want to hear that. They want a sacrifice. They want simple, not reality.
 
Meridian said:
No, it's more a question of having someone to point at and say: it was their fault. In the Real World, disasters like this a consequence of a whole series of actions, by many different people, none of which are important in themselves, but only as part of a long chain. But people don't want to hear that. They want a sacrifice. They want simple, not reality.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of that old rhyme about the battle of Bosworth field:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe the horse was lost;
For want of a horse the battle was lost;
For the failure of battle the kingdom was lost—
All for the want of a horse-shoe nail.
 
The CPS made an unusually forthright statement in response to Davis’s ruling, saying many people would find it “surprising”. Sue Hemming, the CPS legal director, suggested the effect of Davis’ ruling was that “a publicly funded authority” – the South Yorkshire police – “can lawfully withhold information from a public inquiry, without sanction of any sort”
Click to expand...
Seems a pretty fair analysis.
 
Meridian said:
No, it's more a question of having someone to point at and say: it was their fault. In the Real World, disasters like this a consequence of a whole series of actions, by many different people, none of which are important in themselves, but only as part of a long chain. But people don't want to hear that. They want a sacrifice. They want simple, not reality.
Click to expand...

In a way yes. But in this case they want someone to blame who isn't a Liverpool fan or connected to Liverpool in anyway.

The case is simple. Blame lies on all sides. The groundstaff, police and the hundreds of fans that turned up. People wouldh have you believe that it's all South Yorkshire's fault but look at it logically and it couldn't be.

Take away all those drunk fans that surged into the grounds and you have no crush, you have 96 people still alive (or at least not dying at the ground)

Did SYP make a grave error in opening the gates, undoubtably, not arguing that case but look to what caused them to open the gates, look to who rushed into the grounds. It wasn't SYP was it?

Liverpool and it's fans don't want to shoulder ANY part in the blame because it ends any chance of what they REALLY want, compensation.

The 96 victims will NEVER get justice until Liverpool admits and accepts it's role in the disaster.
 
Resident said:
. . . The 96 victims will NEVER get justice until Liverpool admits and accepts it's role in the disaster.
Click to expand...
By "Liverpool" you mean who :confused:

Are you talking about the City, the Football Club or the Fans who according to the Sun had inexplicably and entirely unpredictably got paralytic before the game and who had for the first time in the history of the game attempted to get in to watch a match without a ticket?


However, none of these questions address the current question as to why Police officers and a a former solicitor for the SYP are permitted to lie through their teeth just because they are giving evidence at something that "is not a statutory public inquiry" in order to mask the manifest failings of the SYP :rolleyes:
 
In the Press Statement (https://www.lincolnhousechambers.co...ike-Rainford-JMW-Solicitors-Press-Release.pdf), it is argued that the Police Officers and their Solicitor "did no more than their sworn duty, to uphold the law and assist the Taylor Inquiry, to the best of their abilities".

It is my understanding that the Judge ruled that the law of the land does not require those who are charged with enforcing the law to give accurate, factual information to a mere statutory public inquiry? If that is indeed true, I find it hard to reconcile it with the suggestion that the two Police Officers and their Solicitor did much to "assist the Taylor Inquiry, to the best of their abilities".
Mr Justice William Davis, sitting in a Nightingale court in Manchester, ruled that the Taylor Inquiry was not a statutory public inquiry so did not represent a “course of public justice” that could be perverted. (https://www.scottishlegal.com/artic...-aftermath-of-hillsborough-disaster-collapses)
Click to expand...
and
In a ruling handed down at the Nightingale court at the Lowry theatre in Salford on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice William Davis said the amended statements were intended for a public inquiry into safety at sports grounds led by Lord Justice Taylor, but that was not a course of public justice. (https://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk...apses-as-judge-rules-no-case-to-answer-21643/)
Click to expand...


The press statement concludes with thanks to Mr Justice Davis for "doing his duty, in accordance with the law of the land". It seems to me that this would tend entirely to validate the actions of "twelve good men (and women) and true" who recently chose to ignore a Judge's instruction.

The law is an ass, fathered by the Establishment.
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
It is my understanding that the Judge ruled that the law of the land does not require those who are charged with enforcing the law to give accurate, factual information to a mere statutory public inquiry? If that is indeed true, I find it hard to reconcile it with the suggestion that the two Police Officers and their Solicitor did much to "assist the Taylor Inquiry, to the best of their abilities".
Click to expand...

Mr Justice William Davis, sitting in a Nightingale court in Manchester, ruled that the Taylor Inquiry was not a statutory public inquiry so did not represent a “course of public justice” that could be perverted.
Click to expand...

You're quoting the judge and saying the opposite.

And yes, the judge is saying that the charge brought by the CPS of perverting the course of justice can't stick because that inquiry had no legal power in the first place. So giving bad information would be regular lying not criminal and since it's not criminal the case is sunk.

The press statement from the legal team congratulating themselves, their client and the judge who gave a favourable judgement, is a bit whatever, they've won so of course they get a free chance to say their clients did nuffin wrong and the judge was excellent.
 
stockhausen said:
By "Liverpool" you mean who :confused:

Are you talking about the City, the Football Club or the Fans who according to the Sun had inexplicably and entirely unpredictably got paralytic before the game and who had for the first time in the history of the game attempted to get in to watch a match without a ticket?


However, none of these questions address the current question as to why Police officers and a a former solicitor for the SYP are permitted to lie through their teeth just because they are giving evidence at something that "is not a statutory public inquiry" in order to mask the manifest failings of the SYP :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The 'Liverpool' pushing for all of the blame to be laid upon SYP, Hillsborough and anyone else they can think of that's not them.

I might have only be 8 years old at the time, but I remember.

As for 'entirely unpredictably drunk'. Did you ever go to a match in the 80s?

I'm not saying that SYP etc don't shoulder some of the blame, clearly they do but engage your brain and think logically. No fans forcing their way in means no overcrowding ending with no crushed fans and 96 deaths.

Those on the 'Liverpool side' of this would have you believe they were all at home when it all went off and it was SYP pushing the victims into the fence.

One thing on their mind, COMPENSATION. The second they admit a part then that goes down the swany.
 
Resident said:
snip
Click to expand...


Have you actually looked into this? Have you read the Taylor report for eg? the independent report published in 2012?

Hillsborough verdict finds Liverpool fans unlawfully killed, fans blameless and shocking police failures - Liverpool Echo

Here's a summarised version for you.

Some key points :

They found:

• Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed;

• Fans were in no way to blame;

• There were “major omissions” in police planning and preparation for the semi-final;

• Police response to the increasing crowds at Leppings Lane was “slow and uncoordinated”;

• Errors by commanding officers contributed to the crush on the terrace;

• Commanding officers failed to recognise pens were at capacity;

• Design and layout of the crush barriers in pen three and four were not fully compliant with safety regulations;

• Ambulance officers at the scene failed to ascertain the scale of the problem and the failure to call a major incident led to delays in responses to the emergency;

• A lack of communication, coordination and command and control by police.


For you to harp on about how they only want compensation is a disgraceful thing to say.
 
hurfdurf said:
It’s not just a different opinion. It is a terrible, hurtful, stupid m and factually wrong opinion.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that it's not because these people want compensation? Whether you agree with his opinion or not he is still entitled to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom