Caporegime
You reckon that a Judge ruled that two police officers and a solicitor have no case to answer in order to prevent victims' families having any basis for a claim then
No but thats why they need to find someone to blame,
You reckon that a Judge ruled that two police officers and a solicitor have no case to answer in order to prevent victims' families having any basis for a claim then
Because with blame comes a claim.
Reminds me of that old rhyme about the battle of Bosworth field: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.
Seems a pretty fair analysis.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”
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.
By "Liverpool" you mean who. . . The 96 victims will NEVER get justice until Liverpool admits and accepts it's role in the disaster.
andMr 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)
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/)
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.
By "Liverpool" you mean who
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
snip
For you to harp on about how they only want compensation is a disgraceful thing to say.
Completely agree. The Mods must condemn.
Opinion differs to mine! Condemn! Shame, shame, shame!
It’s not just a different opinion. It is a terrible, hurtful, stupid m and factually wrong opinion.
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.
He’s entitled to his opinion, he’s not entitled to give it and not be criticised when it’s wrong.
You didn't criticise. You demanded mods take action. That's not criticism, that's censorship.
Did I say for the mods to censor? No.
Stop being so dramatic.