[Closed] Hillsborough - Unlawful Killing.

Beer based obvious troll is obvious

You're messed up... you're happy to imply I'm being distasteful, then you sink to new lows~ I hope you're proud of yourself.

Anyone would think everyone was scared to talk about the influence of the masons or something...

Why would that be?

Do you have any idea how much it weakens your argument to end a post, not with a statement of fact, but with a leading question?

So the police lied, how did they get away with it?

Pondo, my bad, though you're being a bit of a douche in your own right, that was directed at DD.

I don't really expect anyone to give any shits about Freemasons, because for some reason, they're not in the news much...

If you can show any Masonic influence in this instance, beyond one of the many hundreds of witnesses mentioning a rumour he heard, be my guest.

Back atcha: If you can prove that Freemasons had no role in this Establishment Conspiracy which has taken 30 years to begin to unravel, be my guest...

Well I'll be... nice to know this avenue of inquiry is being investigated further:
[url= http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/26/hillsborough-tragedy-did-the-freemasons-influence-the-police-5842965/ ]
Hillsborough tragedy: Did the Freemasons influence the Police?[/url]

An investigation has been launched into whether the secretive Freemasons held too much sway over police decisions at the time of the Hillsborough disaster.

The victims of the disaster were unlawfully killed, an inquest jury concluded.

The fresh inquests into the disaster heard Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield had been a Freemason since 1975. He was made a ‘worshipful master’ – head of his local lodge – in 1990, one year after the 1989 tragedy.

He was also promoted within South Yorkshire Police in the weeks before the disaster, but he told the inquest he did not know if his membership of the Freemasons had influenced this.

‘I would hope not,’ he said.

Jurors heard Duckenfield’s predecessor Brian Mole, who is now dead, was also a member of the same masonic lodge.

Families of the 96 Liverpool fans who died in the Hillsborough disaster declared that justice had finally been done as an inquest jury ruled the victims had been unlawfully killed in a tragedy caused by police blunders.

Lawyers acting for the families said the conclusions, at the end of the longest jury case in British legal history, had completely vindicated their tireless 27-year battle for the truth.

Now the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) is looking into concerns from the victims’ families about police officers being members of the so-called ‘secret society’.

No doubt DD will be ecstatic...

Easy peasey - of the many hundred witnesses interviewed, the only suggestion of Masonic influence came from an unsubstantiated rumour of one, who himself described the suggestion as "scuttlebutt". For the third time, if you can show any Masonic influence in this instance, beyond one of the many hundreds of witnesses mentioning a rumour he heard, be my guest.

You should probably just google 'Hillsborough Freemasons', as it's an ongoing inquiry... there's even mention of an organised police 'black propaganda unit'

Well I'll be... nice to know this avenue of inquiry is being investigated further

"However coroner Sir John Goldring warned the jury that there was ‘not a shred of evidence’ that this meeting actually took place, or that those named were all Freemasons."

You should probably just google 'Hillsborough Freemasons', as it's an ongoing inquiry

Wonder if Sir John Goldring is a Freemason? 😉

Wonder if Sir John Goldring is a Freemason?

Quashing of rumours eh...

Are you a travelling man?

Not really. Again, if you can show any Masonic influence in this instance, beyond one of the many hundreds of witnesses mentioning a rumour he heard, be my guest.

I'll wait for the inquiry to take it's course, thankfully, it seems they're taking it seriously...
[url= http://www.****/news/article-3559607/Police-face-questions-influence-Freemasons-emerged-match-commander-boss-members.html ]
Police face questions over the influence of the Freemasons after it emerged match commander and his boss were both members [/url]

South Yorkshire Police today face questions over whether powerful 'secret society' the Freemasons held sway over the force at the time of Hillsborough.

Families of victims say that officers who were Masons were promoted into powerful positions despite being ill-equipped, including match commander David Duckenfield.

Duckenfield told the fresh inquests he had been a Freemason since 1975 and became head of his local lodge - a worshipful master - the year after the 1989 disaster.

The match commander, 46 in 1989, was handed control of F Division, which included policing games at Hillsborough, just three weeks before the tragedy.

He was forced to admit at the inquests that he had no experience of policing football, did not know Hillsborough and 'wasn't the best man for the job'.

At the time there was fury among colleagues who believed it was his freemasons membership that was behind his promotion.

Well, it's taken a few asks but I'll take that as a no, then. Like I said, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, you're not going to change your mind.

there is a quantum leap in responsibility between today's verdict that police errors were causal factors in the disaster eg opening the gate

All fair points Crankboy, except the opening of the gates bit. The Police admitted they'd opened the gate the evening of the day of the tradgedy. Taylor's report included it.

Taylor must also have been well aware of the significance and unusual nature of police notes on plain paper. I'd be amazed if that wasn't commented on in the Taylor report, can someone confirm?

Actually the first police lie was that the fans forced the gate started by the man who ordered them opened himself , but that was not the point of my comment . You repeatedly ask what cover up the Taylor report found the police lost control of the fans? Well the simple truth is the police did not lose control of a wild mob of hooligans drunk and regardless of their actions who like lemmings rushed to crush each other . The police failed to follow plans they had in place to manage crowd movement they made decisions without thought or preparation that channelled an ordinary crowd into a fatal squeeze they failed to act to prevent that crush becoming worse , they elected to hold back the emergency services when they were needed and failed to recognise the magnitude of the event and treat it accordingly . Not a loss of control but a monumental cock up of criminal ineptitude , which as we know they then conspired to conceal .

Predictably? the Sun and The Times are the only papers to have no mention whatsoever of Hillsborough in contrast to it being the Headline on all the others

@Outofbreath, You keep banging on about the Taylor report as if this was the last word on the matter and nothing else had happened between that report and yesterday's vindication of the victims and families.

The police may have admitted that they opened the gates on the evening of the day of the tragedy, but I'm sure they only did this because they had no choice as this had already got out - Duknifield had contacted Graham Taylor before the ambulances arrived, and told him that the cause was 'drunken fans breaking the gate down'.The senior police officers first instinct was to cover there arse before dealing with what was in front of them.

Having admitted that they opened the gates, the police then sought to completely dismiss this as the major cause of the disaster by systematically blaming the fans at every opportunity in an orchestrated series of smears and lies which led to the accidental death verdict at the original inquest which has been what the families have been fighting for a quarter of a century. Dukinfield at least seems to finally have admitted he was completely out of his depth and acknowledged that in his actions he bears a large responsibility for what happened, but there were some officers at the inquest who stood resolutely to the story that the fans were to blame which has been shown to be a complete falsehood.

jhj comes onto a thread and suddenly I lose interest in it.

Pretty much every time.

Not the points being made, but the mass cut and paste, the 'not making a comment and then letting it lie' and the implications there's secret knowledge that only jhj is privy too and that the rest of us sheeple will never be enlightened enough to discover.

I remember my mum phoning the hospitals and offering counselling to those who wanted / needed it immediately after the event (she was a GP and trained psychotherapist) and they were very rude to her basically telling her to keep out of it.

Seemed odd at the time but is clear now they didn't want anyone talking sympathetically to the fans who were there and perhaps taking an interest in what they said .

We had just come back from the weekly food shop and turned the TV on and saw it unfolding live. I will admit as a naive 13 yo my first this were it was another Heysel but it quickly (at least locally) became clear it was not.

I remember debating the disaster in the days that followed as part of an English lesson and the decision by the police to open the gate was the central theme to that debate so it was a known fact locally.

As was the fact that the police had in general made an almighty cock up.

How the facts got changed as the disaster was reported nationally is now much clearer.

The local Sheffield paper (The Star) carried images that haunt me to this day. The most poignant of which to me was a completely bent and mangled crush barrier. I had seen those a year or so before when going to a match and the thought that people had been pushed into it with such force as to bend it like that was terrifying.

If you look at the Taylor Repots terms of reference you will see that it was focused on events not causes of deaths with a view to recommendations for future planning and ground design Not an inquest to establish cause of death nor a trial to establish responsibilities.

@Outofbreath, You keep banging on about the Taylor report as if this was the last word on the matter

AFAIK until this week it was.

that was not the point of my comment . You repeatedly ask what cover up

You said this inquest revealed the truth behind the gate opening when, in fact, the truth about that was known on the day and covered by the last inquiry. You may not think it's important to your point (in which case why mention it?) but I think it's useful to correct it. It's a common misconception and quite a serious one.

I know that we have serving police officers who will be reading this thread and the news with both horror and a sense of personal injustice and vicarious shame I want to be clear that when I bang on about police and the police I specifically mean the South Yorkshire police and the forces that worked with/independently investigated them in the 80s and 90s not the forces of today . still many issues today as with any organisation containing humans but the police are very different now .

No I said the verdict was that the police actions were causaul factors in the deaths not a loss of control. You asked what cover up ? That appears to have been answered repeatedly the police covered up that they helped cause the disaster and contended that they instead lost control. A quantum step in responsibility.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the cover up was orchestrated by Masonic influences, (it's worthy of its own thread) ,but to witter on endlessly on the subject when it's pure conjecture and rumour is disrespectful to the rest of the contributors.

You asked what cover up ? That appears to have been answered repeatedly the police covered up

I think JiveHoney was talking about an large establishment cover-up of the real causes of the disaster. Not the Police smearing fans.

But leaving aside the semantics of what definition of coverup Jivehoney was talking about, the Taylor report came to a similar conclusion to this inquest based (as far as I can see) on almost identical facts. The big issues (opening the gate, statements on plain paper) *were* considered by Taylor. (In the case of the gate-opening the Police came clean about that on the same day.)

I might be wrong. What significant facts about the cause of this disaster were revealed at this inquest that were not known by Taylor in 1990? Yes Duckenfield gave evidence this time when he didn't to Taylor, but did he say anything that wasn't already known?

Anyway.... getting back on Topic from discussion of the part played by our lizard overlords....

It was fairly predictable that the Sun, classy to the last, has no mention of one of the biggest decisions in British Legal history on its front page. I'm only surprised they didn't have a picture of Kelvin Mackenzie pissing on a Liverpool shirt, under the headline "It Was Still the Truth!"

But the Times not mentioning it all on the font page either? And still trying to maintain that its a serious newspaper? Really?

Why anyone would buy either of those comics, I have no idea.

I know you can't link to the Daily Fail from this site, but in the same way that a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, occasionally they do publish something worth reading...

http://www.****/debate/article-3560552/PETER-OBORNE-Corruption-27-years-lies-Hillsborough-destroyed-faith-police.html

JHJ. I'd actually started to tolerate (even warm to) your crusading.

However, it's back to form, you have to drag everything back to a self gratifying angle of attack. Yes, disgraceful, immoral and illegal things were done by people, some of them masons. Does this mean that the masonic lodge in Liverpool, Sheffield or anywhere else is an evil scourge on society? No it doesn't, stop making causal leaps that aren't there.

Those men would have had the conversations they had in pubs, clubs or offices, powerful people seeking to hide truth and maintain privacy have no issue finding places and ways to do this. To postulate that they would form a public organisation to do this doesn't really make sense, why not just meet in car park? The fact is, bad people, did bad things, it's the motive not the means that is at fault. Surely on this forum the cyclist vs driver debate is analogous enough?

All my blood family are scousers and I spent a lot of my childhood living there, I moved there for 5 years in the late 90s, the harm and stigma this event caused was and is palpable. My uncle, like many people is in the lodge in Liverpool, every year they raise tens of thousands for charities including supporting the families of those who died in Hillsborough.

Why can you not accept, evil and wrongdoing is perpetuated by people, not mysterious secret clubs? All through time and across the globe this has and is happening, the only thing these people have in common? They're all humans. By seeking to divert attention away from individuals toward some giant conspiracy you risk exonerating them.

I know you can't link to the Daily Fail from this site, but in the same way that a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, occasionally they do publish something worth reading...

http://www.****/debate/article-3560552/PETER-OBORNE-Corruption-27-years-lies-Hillsborough-destroyed-faith-police.html

It is a good piece, and you wonder if a different government would make the lasting legacy of Hillsborough an effort to change the relationship between the police service and the population, which has been steadily worn away over the past few decades. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling far less respect for the police generally where I once would have instinctively trusted, believed and respected them. As a teenager I too believed the lies of the SYP officers who smeared the dead and the living to save their own skins, which is why I would like to see senior South Yorkshire and West Midlands officers in the dock.

This is not a criticism of all police officers, most of whom are acting in good faith, and I recognise that the erosion of respect for the police has made their day-to-day jobs much more difficult.

Perhaps these sort of cultural and societal changes are irreversible. Perhaps the police service always periodically abused the trust and respect of the wider population, and we should not expect any different now or in future.

I might be wrong.

The Taylor report didn't say too much about the failings of the ambulance & other emergency services.

Of course, you do remember there were [b][i]two[/i][/b] reports don't you? I'm sure you do and that you'll confirm to us that you do. It's a widely (and validly IMO) held opinion that the interim report appeared to be giving the bereaved families what they wanted, but that the final report moved away from that.

It also didn't take any evidence "on oath". Officers from the, ahem, West Midlands Constabulary took thousands of pieces of evidence and took it upon themselves to grade them, and then used this grading to decide who to call to give evidence.

Of course, added to all this was the memos between Hurd and Maggie where she decided that no matter how much the police were at fault, the government should not (to paraphrase) "welcome the broad thrust of the report" but should commend Taylor on his diligence and thoroughness (or other such weasel words to avoid criticising the police).

Fast forward to 2012, Cameron made a public apology in the House of Commons after the report from the Hillsborough [b][i]Independent[/i][/b] Panel which oversaw the release of thousands of documents relating to the disaster. (It's worth noting that Miliband also apologised at the time for Labour governments taking too long to get to the real truth - wouldn't want to get too party political on this.) It was during the investigations of this panel that it was discovered that police had run the names of victims through the criminal database and carried out post-mortem blood alcohol checks. Hmmm...I wonder why they'd do that. It would never be part of a cover-up would it? There's plenty more...

So, yeah, I think you might be wrong if you thought the [i][b]final[/b][/i] Taylor Report was the last word until yesterday.

As a scouser and Liverpool supporter who lives in Liverpool I am naturally extremely happy for the families who have finally got the closure after all these years, hopefully with justice to follow.

Although I will confess to having a little Hillsborough fatigue. It's naturally (and rightly so) been extensively covered and campaigned for by the local press for the last 27 years. It'll be nice that it can finally be put to bed.

Why can you not accept, evil and wrongdoing is perpetuated by people, not mysterious secret clubs? All through time and across the globe this has and is happening, the only thing these people have in common? They're all humans. By seeking to divert attention away from individuals toward some giant conspiracy you risk exonerating them.

That's an interesting perspective and you have a reasonable point, in that humans all too often commit evil and deception, especially when it comes to covering their own backsides, however, the networks created and maintained by secret societies aid such tangled webs of deception.

It's interesting how it is such an emotive subject, as so many people go on the attack as soon as it's mentioned, rather than discussing it further.

I would like to see senior South Yorkshire and West Midlands officers in the dock.

But, even now the inquest has gone with unlawful killing, which policemen do you prosecute and what for?

The people at the top for Corporate manslaughter? They're all dead. Marshall for manslaughter for asking for the gate to be opened to save lives outside? Duckenfield for manslaughter for opening the gates in response to Marshall's information? I really can't see who you prosecute for the deaths.

Maybe people will be satisfied with perjury convictions if anyone lied under oath to Taylor. But we know Duckenfield didn't lie under oath because he didn't give evidence.

Although I will confess to having a little Hillsborough fatigue. It's naturally (and rightly so) been extensively covered and campaigned for by the local press for the last 27 years. It'll be nice that it can finally be put to bed.

Y'know, I can understand this feeling. Hillsborough has been a dark cloud over Liverpool for 27 years.

I can only commend the indefatigability of the families, many of whom have lost more members in the intervening years - Anne Williams in particular - for tirelessly seeking justice and the truth - which finally got the real kickstart it needed that day Andy Burnham addressed the crowd at the memorial service at Anfield. There must have been multiple times that individuals involved felt like giving up in the face of the establishment they were seeking to expose.

Maybe people will be satisfied with perjury convictions if anyone lied under oath to Taylor.

At the risk of repeating myself, Taylor didn't take evidence "under oath". At least read a summary of the findings and how they were reached before banging on about it being the "final word until yesterday."

The Taylor report didn't say too much about the failings of the ambulance & other emergency services.

Fair enough, so the cover up was that the ambulance and emergency services were more to blame than Taylor said.

Anything else?

I didn't know the evidence to Taylor wasn't under oath, so thanks for clearing that up.

Taylor didn't take evidence "under oath".

So the most obvious route to getting some kind of prosecution can't happen.

I am not so confident that the police culture has changed so much since the "bad old days" as some seem to be. We keep getting examples that show it isn't, but rather than them being seen as lessons to be learnt, they are dismissed as one off's.

Even "gate" gate showed just how easily and confident officers were in slipping into fabricating evidence against and smearing a senior politician. Then you have Charles de Menezes, Ian Thomlinson even Mark Duggan was ridiculously and apparently unesaserally smeared to such an extent that many are now doubtful about the so called truth of the case.

There must have been multiple times that individuals involved felt like giving up in the face of the establishment they were seeking to expose.

I know of a case (patient killed by locum doctor from Germany who could barely speak English and prescribed the wrong amount of drugs). It was the father of a friend who was killed, and it was only because my friend has lived in Germany for many years and the other son was a GP, that they were able to pursue the truth. Even then they were baulked at every stage by the authorities, even taking to recording the visits by the police who screwed up the investigation and then constantly tried to persuade them to give up. When the media did taking a fleeting interest it was as an anti EU case (which was bullshit) rather than then incompetence of all the authorities involved.

Society needs these people to stand up and fight or it will never change for the better, but when I look at my friend and the impact the fight has had on his life, I wish he had just accepted the lie and moved on.

And he never did get justice.

Duckenfield for manslaughter for opening the gates in response to Marshall's information? I really can't see who you prosecute for the deaths.

He's already been tried for manslaughter and the jury couldn't reach a verdict. So there is another obstacle there aside from the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than civil standard.

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/trial.shtm

I am not so confident that the police culture has changed so much since the "bad old days" as some seem to be. We keep getting examples that show it isn't, but rather than them being seen as lessons to be learnt, they are dismissed as one off's.

Even "gate" gate showed just how easily and confident officers were in slipping into fabricating evidence against and smearing a senior politician. Then you have Charles de Menezes, Ian Thomlinson even Mark Duggan was ridiculously and apparently unesaserally smeared to such an extent that many are now doubtful about the so called truth of the case.

I fear this is broadly true. But is it a Police problem, or a human nature problem. If I'd been involved in Charles de Menezes I'd be too horrified to admit my mistakes to myself let alone anyone else.

He's already been tried for manslaughter and the jury couldn't reach a verdict. So there is another obstacle there aside from the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than civil standard.

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/trial.shtm

Thanks, I didn't know that. (and I'm clearly not the only one.)

The Counts against Duckenfield and Murray

Counts one and two - Manslaughter for failure to prevent the crush after the gates were opened by failing to prevent access to and divert fans from the tunnel leading to the already full pens 3 and 4.
Count three - Misconduct in Public Office
Count four - Perverting the Course of Justice. Only laid against Duckenfield and dropped after intervention by the Attorney General.
Count five - Misconduct, again only Duckenfield. Arising out of his lie that gate C had been forced open by Liverpool fans when in fact it was he that ordered it open.

That looks pretty comprehensive to me.

Given that, exactly what prosecution are people looking for?

Anything else?

Read a summary of the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel - the one after which Cameron made the public apology in 2012. When you've done that, you can confirm whether you feel the final Taylor report was the last word until yesterday. (I did post that earlier.)

MSP; I think we can also look to the case of the Stephen Lawrence family, who suffered terrible injustice due to police incompetence, corruption and institutional racism, which undoubtedly contributed to the breakdown of their family, as well as the unnecessary suffering of many others close to Stephen. That only two of the men who murdered him are in jail, is a failing of justice that will forever be a dark stain on this country's history.

There's also the issue of undercover police agents being used to infiltrate political groups by having sexual relationships with women, as seen in a massive recent case, and also the Stephen Lawrence justice campaign. And God knows what else. It seems all the planets of cases of police corruption are aligning, and it's evident that it's not just one or two isolated cases, it's endemic within the whole system. I dread to think what other skeletons are lurking in closets.

It's interesting how it is such an emotive subject, as so many people go on the attack as soon as it's mentioned, rather than discussing it further.

Took less than 8 hours to now start looking for a criminal in all of this.

I have never understood why the Police are organised and managed regionally. Its not hard to imagine the regional bias between Yorkshire police and Liverpool fans and then an @rse covering excersize all within a regional force

philxx1975 - Member

Took [s]less than 8 hours[/s] [b]27 years[/b] to now start looking for a criminal in all of this.

But, even now the inquest has gone with unlawful killing, which policemen do you prosecute and what for?
The people at the top for Corporate manslaughter? They're all dead. Marshall for manslaughter for asking for the gate to be opened to save lives outside? Duckenfield for manslaughter for opening the gates in response to Marshall's information? I really can't see who you prosecute for the deaths.

Gross negligence manslaughter for Marshall and Duckenfield, for example. Let's see what, if anything, the CPS says.

philxx1975 - Member

Took less than 8 hours to now start looking for a criminal in all of this.

And where on earth would you find one of those in this parade of innocents?

Peter Hitchens wrote: [i]'I believed the police when they said that the fans were drunk. I believed the police when they said the fans had broken through the exit gate. When they said it was all the fault of the Liverpool fans, I instinctively accepted the police version of events. But I had been brought up to support the police. I was taught they were the cornerstone of society. I could see they often did an heroic job.'[/i]

And they nearly got away with it, they persuaded Government Ministers, National Newspaper Editors and 99.9% of the British public....because like Hitchens, we were brought up to believe our Police Force. I know people like Mackenzie and Ingham will never be forgiven, but you can see how it occurred and I'm sure they dearly regret the stance they took now.

And they nearly got away with it, they persuaded Government Ministers, National Newspaper Editors and 99.9% of the British public.

They may have convinced 99.9% of Mail readers. I'd say that In a working class population, in post-industrial areas, who actually attended football matches, and had seen the reality of the way the police had carried on through the miners strike (like a government backed paramilitary militia), you could easily half that.

Ingham never apologised for what he said

Its one of those one could look at the actual pictures and the reports and it was blindingly obvious that their narrative was a complete pile of horse shit

Given their occupations and "expertise" its inconceivable that they were so easily duped. It was wilful, IMHO, from both of them

The thing here is no one set out to kill a few hundred fans.

It was an accident of incompetence.

The problem then lies with the need for a coverup because of the retribution that will follow.

Perhaps if incidents like this should be treated like aviation mistakes where the primary focus is an investigation to ensure it never happens again. If the participants feel the need for a coverup, then the true reasons will never emerge and no benefit will come out of the investigation.

It's a choice between revenge or protecting future people.

They may have convinced 99.9% of Mail readers. I'd say that In a working class population, in post-industrial areas, who actually attended football matches, and had seen the reality of the way the police had carried on through the miners strike (like a government backed paramilitary militia), you could easily half that.

POSTED 8 MIN

This, total vicious circle, treat people like the enemy, they will react in kind. Don't be surprised if this behaviour escalates somewhat, not everyone is happy to be beaten, suppressed and smeared and to pay for the privilege.

The problem then lies with the need for a coverup because of the retribution that will follow.

That is complete and utter bullshit. And at the core of it is the same old cap doffing to authority that has allowed this travesty to continue for so long.

Epicyclo but despite the cover up, most of the causes were noted quite early and that's why we now have modern, all seater stadium, with better crowd management, and better behaviour by all football fans. Euro 96 took place in England less than 10 years after Hillsborough, with no major trouble or issues.

That only two of the men who murdered him are in jail, is a failing of justice that will forever be a dark stain on this country's history.

The opposite I think. To get those two convicted required a change in the centuries old double jeopardy law. The fact the establishment/parliament/country was prepared to change an 800 year old law so that at least some of the Lawrence killers could be jailed shows that past mistakes can be recognised and dealt with. As for only two being convicted - killers go free every month at court. It's the price we pay for a high standard of proof that means few innocent people are convicted. Every killer convicted along with many innocent or some killers escape justice - take your pick.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8982608/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-change-in-double-jeopardy-law-allowed-Gary-Dobson-prosecution.html

MSP you've misunderstood Epicyclo's post, in fact he is saying the complete opposite of what you think he is.

Euro 96 took place in England less than 10 years after Hillsborough, with no major trouble or issues.

To be fair, that was more to do with a flood of industrial strength MDMA onto the terraces over the preceding decade, replacing the previous gallons of beer, and the massive cultural change that produced. It was luck more than judgement. It was certainly little to do with change within the police. Though they were never shy of taking the credit

A lot of it was luck more than judgement.

Moving to all seater stadium wasn't luck.

binners - Member

"And they nearly got away with it, they persuaded Government Ministers, National Newspaper Editors and 99.9% of the British public."

They may have convinced 99.9% of Mail readers. I'd say that In a working class population, in post-industrial areas, who actually attended football matches, and had seen the reality of the way the police had carried on through the miners strike (like a government backed paramilitary militia), you could easily half that.

It's not about Mail readers.

It's people that have continued to buy and read the Sun that have supported the lies peddled that day and the liars involved.

I'd say its both loum.

The point I'm making is that there were large sections of society at the time - not the ones writing newspaper articles - who were immediately sceptical of the official line. And that scepticism was derived from real-world experience, where the police were most definitely not trusted, by default. Far from it. And with some very very good reasons.

Some of us had had the somewhat naive, dated idea of the police as some type of benign protector of us all removed quite forcefully through the 80's. They were generally hated, and if not hated, then certainly distrusted, by pretty much everyone where I grew up, and viewed as a state milita, and a law unto themselves

The politicisation during the miners strike
The corruption of the Birmingham 6 and Guilford four trials
High profile units closing due to corruption

Steven Lawrence

It did not take the mind of Sherlock to see they were, again, lying to cover their own arses,

[i]They may have convinced 99.9% of Mail readers. I'd say that In a working class population, in post-industrial areas, who actually attended football matches, and had seen the reality of the way the police had carried on through the miners strike (like a government backed paramilitary militia), you could easily half that.[/i]

I once went to watch an Arsenal v Coventry City match by myself circa 1977 aged around 15. There was no trouble, the crowd were happy cos we were winning and the Old Bill piled in and grabbed a guy behind me and pushed him down the terraces, just as I turned round and he accidently head butted me in the face. Jeez it hurt and I was still holding my face when another one grabbed me, twisted my arm behind my back and forced me out of the stand, and into a small room, where they kicked shit out of me for 'kicking a copper in the back'.....and then threw me in a cage until the end of the game when they let myself and the others in the cage go home.

Ive never been so scared in my life....but I learned then what they were about. Hated them ever since!

They were generally hated, and if not hated, then certainly distrusted, by pretty much everyone where I grew up, and viewed as a state milita, and a law unto themselves

Can't quite say I hate them, but I still wouldn't trust them as far as I could thrown them. Bizzies be bizzyin'.

The thing here is no one set out to kill a few hundred fans.

It was an accident of incompetence.

Describing it as incompetence makes it sound like a sin just of omission. I don't think that's the case: for example, using a stadium with no safety certificate and ignoring the crush in the previous year are sins of commission.

I've just read the David Conn article in full. I would recommend that anyone does.

Best wishes to the families and friends of the victims. They didn't ask to be in this position any more than their loved ones asked to be crushed to death simply by going to watch a football match.

They have fought against intransigence, dishonesty and prejudice for 27 years - they are not 'professional' campaigners or people looking to make a point just for the thrill of it. Given the choice they would much rather just have their loved ones alive than achieve a 'victory' at an inquest 27 years on - this is the point - they never had a choice in all this.

They can take some solace from the fact that football matches are now infinitely safer in this country and nothing on this scale has happened since - I hope that brings some comfort at least.

If one more dim bulb shows up and says "ooh, there shouldn't be a criminal prosecution when no-one meant to kill people, I'm going to staple the Wikipedia entry for "manslaughter" onto their forehead

Theresa May has just delivered a very powerful statement in the HoC, Burnham responding now.

Yeah but if no one meant to kill anyone so how can it be murder? 😈

re Ch Supt David Duckenfield and the he has been tried for manslaughter point. The jury did not reach a verdict the matter was left to lie on the file so it is simply an application to reopen the proceedings not a bar to prosecution , He has not been acquitted as no verdict was ever reached . In any event autras fois aquit / double jeopardy is not a conclusive bar to proceedings in manslaughter cases.

I've just read the David Conn article in full. I would recommend that anyone does.

I just have. Sobering doesn't even come close to describing it.

re Ch Supt David Duckenfield and the he has been tried for manslaughter point. The jury did not reach a verdict the matter was left to lie on the file so it is simply an application to reopen the proceedings not a bar to prosecution , He has not been acquitted as no verdict was ever reached . In any event autras fois aquit / double jeopardy is not a conclusive bar to proceedings in manslaughter cases.

Thanks, didn't appreciate that.

Respect to him for giving evidence. I assumed he'd done so because the failed prosecution protected him from prosecution after providing evidence against himself IYSWIM. Obviously not.

Respect to him for giving evidence.

Yeh, top lad, pat on the back David, tough life on that final salary pension.

🙄

give it a rest mate.

Well, if you prefer me to put a negative spin on it it's a crazy error of judgement which further proves what a **** he is.

I dont understand why so many people with and without tickets were still trying to get in after the game had started. That is the critical event that triggered the tragic events that followed.