Demitri_C Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 i agree with ian completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 A call for justice is great, but justice on what and what are the expectations, deliverable s here? If a family member of yours died, and the circumstances behind that death were covered up and lied about, what would you consider to be justice? I would say police deliberately altering evidence is an extremely serious offence at the very least, and should be pursued vigorously to the fullest extent possible. I also think the suggestion that this might be about money for the victims is extremely distasteful. It was more of a rhetorical question Mart. I never said this was about money so please don't make it out that I did. I merely pointed out that on the various media outlets already we have seen the numerous lawyers etc talking about compensation. There is a real danger here that once any sort of guilt - and what guilt has still to be determined - will in turn then set off a whole load of claims from people claiming to have been affected, which seems to be pretty much a norm these days. The thing about Police changing evidence there have been interviews with a few people today mostly of people now outside the force. As you can imagine Look North and Radio Sheffield have been covering this a lot, and one woman interviewed talked about being convinced to change her evidence by her boss. The question I was talking about was who would be the one that would be charged and if they are no longer in the police or dead even (it was a long time back) how would that work and again what are people expecting as "justice" if someone was found guilty. Personally I still think that just concentrating on the police for the after the tragedy events is wrong and there are a lot of others who should also face the music in some way. Even in the years that followed, people like Boris (that loveable oaf who is actually a crass pseudo racist with little respect for the truth so it seems) for example could have cases to answer. Is that a slander thing that he printed? I am all for justice, absolutely 110%, the justice though has to be clearly defined in terms of what the charges are and what the expectations are if and when some are found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 A call for justice is great, but justice on what and what are the expectations, deliverable s here? A criminal investigation should occur and, where offences are identified and the CPS tests are satisfied, charges and prosecutions should follow. [mischief] Perhaps some imaginitive use of joint enterprise ought to be considered?[/mischief] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBear Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hillsborough didnt even have a valid safety certificate. The FA never issued one yet they chose that particular ground as the venue for an FA Cup semi-final. 41 people died inside when the 42 ambulances outside could have saved their lives if they were let in. The more I read about this the more disturbing it becomes. A police force and government that's meant to protect you, that you're meant to put all your trust in, goes and does this. How many other things have they covered up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 A call for justice is great, but justice on what and what are the expectations, deliverable s here? If a family member of yours died, and the circumstances behind that death were covered up and lied about, what would you consider to be justice? I would say police deliberately altering evidence is an extremely serious offence at the very least, and should be pursued vigorously to the fullest extent possible. I also think the suggestion that this might be about money for the victims is extremely distasteful. It was more of a rhetorical question Mart. I never said this was about money so please don't make it out that I did. I merely pointed out that on the various media outlets already we have seen the numerous lawyers etc talking about compensation. There is a real danger here that once any sort of guilt - and what guilt has still to be determined - will in turn then set off a whole load of claims from people claiming to have been affected, which seems to be pretty much a norm these days. The thing about Police changing evidence there have been interviews with a few people today mostly of people now outside the force. As you can imagine Look North and Radio Sheffield have been covering this a lot, and one woman interviewed talked about being convinced to change her evidence by her boss. The question I was talking about was who would be the one that would be charged and if they are no longer in the police or dead even (it was a long time back) how would that work and again what are people expecting as "justice" if someone was found guilty. Personally I still think that just concentrating on the police for the after the tragedy events is wrong and there are a lot of others who should also face the music in some way. Even in the years that followed, people like Boris (that loveable oaf who is actually a crass pseudo racist with little respect for the truth so it seems) for example could have cases to answer. Is that a slander thing that he printed? I am all for justice, absolutely 110%, the justice though has to be clearly defined in terms of what the charges are and what the expectations are if and when some are found guilty. Apologies if I misinterpreted your post mate. I do think though, that the police who altered their notes etc and lied in other ways need pursuing with the utmost vigour. Whether that's the officers on the ground or their superiors, or both. One of the reasons that they release things like this after many years, and also have things like the 30 year rule for other official restricted documents is that they hope the passage of time will take the edge of people's anger and the facts will be seen as historical curiosities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hillsborough didnt even have a valid safety certificate. The FA never issued one yet they chose that particular ground as the venue for an FA Cup semi-final. 41 people died inside when the 42 ambulances outside could have saved their lives if they were let in. The more I read about this the more disturbing it becomes. A police force and government that's meant to protect you, that you're meant to put all your trust in, goes and does this. How many other things have they covered up? And that is where you need to be careful. From what I have seen (and I haven't read the report) there was no evidence that the Government encouraged the Police to cover up what had happened. Had that been the finding, I'm pretty sure THAT would have been the big headline of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 This morning I have heard some sill statements regarding people being drunk for instance. It's a lie, (not of the magnitude that some have made I wonder when Boris will apologize?) to say that NO Liverpool fans were drunk that day and I would bet that a lot were. BUT as said I would have expected that many Forest fans were also, and likewise Norwich and Everton fans at their semi final. The point is that football matches and especially big ones creates an atmosphere where a lot of booze is drunk. The sad reality of that and where we were with fan behavior at that time, is that things dont get done in an orderly fashion, people would not step back and say I will wait a few mins for things to clear. I'm not sure I understand your position here. Boris Johnson had said in 2004 that the fans were drunk and that contributed to the accident. You seem to be saying he needs to apologise for that (whish he has now done in light of this report) but then go on to make a similar point saying drunk fans at football games lead to accidents because things are not 'done in an orderly fashion'. It seems like you are tying yourself in a knot trying to condemn you mate Boris but still leaving the door open to secretly agree with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hillsborough didnt even have a valid safety certificate. The FA never issued one yet they chose that particular ground as the venue for an FA Cup semi-final. 41 people died inside when the 42 ambulances outside could have saved their lives if they were let in. The more I read about this the more disturbing it becomes. A police force and government that's meant to protect you, that you're meant to put all your trust in, goes and does this. How many other things have they covered up? And that is where you need to be careful. From what I have seen (and I haven't read the report) there was no evidence that the Government encouraged the Police to cover up what had happened. Had that been the finding, I'm pretty sure THAT would have been the big headline of the day. That's my understanding, that the Government were lied to by the Police force but then I imagion they were all too willing to take that ball and run with it. The newspapers were also fed the bullshit but whilst the mirror check into it and found they couldn't find any evidence for the police story The Sun just went ahead and ran it with glee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBear Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 That's my understanding, that the Government were lied to by the Police force but then I imagion they were all too willing to take that ball and run with it. Exactly what i mean. Hooligans, football, drink. Ah yeah, file your reports lads and we'll move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 That's my understanding, that the Government were lied to by the Police force but then I imagion they were all too willing to take that ball and run with it. Exactly what i mean. Hooligans, football, drink. Ah yeah, file your reports lads and we'll move on. But again, that implies Thatcher knew about it and didn't either a) expose the cover up or was complicit in it. If she and the Government were lied to there isn't much they can do about that. I know Thatcher is a popular figure of hate (reference T-Shirts at TUC conference) but please stick to demonising her for stuff we know she ACTUALLY did. Knicking milk and upsetting Commies for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hillsborough didnt even have a valid safety certificate. The FA never issued one yet they chose that particular ground as the venue for an FA Cup semi-final. 41 people died inside when the 42 ambulances outside could have saved their lives if they were let in. The more I read about this the more disturbing it becomes. A police force and government that's meant to protect you, that you're meant to put all your trust in, goes and does this. How many other things have they covered up? Lets not forget if only the fans with tickets had turned up - it wouldn't have happened. Granted there were errors on the day - but now it seems that were are getting close to blaming the police for the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 But again, that implies Thatcher knew about it and didn't either a) expose the cover up or was complicit in it. If she and the Government were lied to there isn't much they can do about that. I know Thatcher is a popular figure of hate (reference T-Shirts at TUC conference) but please stick to demonising her for stuff we know she ACTUALLY did. Knicking milk and upsetting Commies for example. Here is what Thatcher wrote after hearing the findings of the original Taylor Report blaming the police: The prime minister, now Baroness Thatcher, had already been warned that the interim report was "very damning" of police but attached "little or no blame" to Liverpool fans. The interim report found that the chief superintendent in charge at Hillsborough had "behaved in an indecisive fashion" and senior officers infuriated the judge by seeking to "duck all responsibility when giving evidence" to his inquiry, she was told in a memo from a senior civil servant. The memo made clear that Mr Hurd thought South Yorkshire Chief Constable Peter Wright would have to resign, adding: "The enormity of the disaster, and the extent to which the inquiry blames the police, demand this." And it added: "The defensive, and at times close to deceitful, behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. "Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation." The interim report would "sap confidence in the police force" and could encourage aggressive behaviour by fans towards officers, said the memo, adding that: "Liverpool fans - who have caused trouble in the past - will feel vindicated." But Mrs Thatcher made clear in her handwritten note that she did not want to give the Government's full backing to Lord Taylor's criticisms, only to the way in which he had conducted his inquiry and made recommendations for action. She wrote: "What do we mean by 'welcoming the broad thrust of the report'? The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations - M.T." here It seems she was pretty keen to protect the police and leave the hooligan story out there even when she found out they were to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hillsborough didnt even have a valid safety certificate. The FA never issued one yet they chose that particular ground as the venue for an FA Cup semi-final. 41 people died inside when the 42 ambulances outside could have saved their lives if they were let in. The more I read about this the more disturbing it becomes. A police force and government that's meant to protect you, that you're meant to put all your trust in, goes and does this. How many other things have they covered up? Lets not forget if only the fans with tickets had turned up - it wouldn't have happened. Granted there were errors on the day - but now it seems that were are getting close to blaming the police for the whole thing. They were to blame for the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 This morning I have heard some sill statements regarding people being drunk for instance. It's a lie, (not of the magnitude that some have made I wonder when Boris will apologize?) to say that NO Liverpool fans were drunk that day and I would bet that a lot were. BUT as said I would have expected that many Forest fans were also, and likewise Norwich and Everton fans at their semi final. The point is that football matches and especially big ones creates an atmosphere where a lot of booze is drunk. The sad reality of that and where we were with fan behavior at that time, is that things dont get done in an orderly fashion, people would not step back and say I will wait a few mins for things to clear. I'm not sure I understand your position here. Boris Johnson had said in 2004 that the fans were drunk and that contributed to the accident. You seem to be saying he needs to apologise for that (whish he has now done in light of this report) but then go on to make a similar point saying drunk fans at football games lead to accidents because things are not 'done in an orderly fashion'. It seems like you are tying yourself in a knot trying to condemn you mate Boris but still leaving the door open to secretly agree with him? No the Boris thing is just an example. There has been a shouting out from everyone under the sun for this person to apologize, for that person / body to be prosecuted, but the reality is that there are so many things to consider then things have to be done and clear indications of what the expectations are and also what people will see as a closure point. Many are now talking (rightly IMO) about organizations like the FA, the GVmt of the time rather that just the Police as possible causes. But then that is being mixed up with various other things post the tragedy where so it seems criminal acts were undertaken and supported over a period of years by a series of slanderous statements either intentional, opportunist or ignorantly. Boris's crass (but typical of the man) statement was all over the press yesterday and helped keep that idea of cause being the fans etc and suggesting that because they were from Liverpool etc etc. Should acts like that now be forgotten because of a subsequent "Hmmm I'm sorry". The FA have issued an apology, but they have had info on record that has been known about for ages and never said anything, should they be up in front of some court. Boris was an example because of his well reported awful remarks. But it's easy to then wonder how far and to what level you go in terms of trying to sort out this "justice" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 From what I have seen (and I haven't read the report) there was no evidence that the Government encouraged the Police to cover up what had happened. Had that been the finding, I'm pretty sure THAT would have been the big headline of the day. Do you think that the comments being reported as coming from Tory MP and member of the Gvmt irvine patnick somehow at least let the matter be investigated further now? The Gvmt of that time did have an agenda that they followed with South Yorkshire Police as was seen in various events at the time, not least the miners strike. Also you then look at the whole rules and laws that the Gvmt imposed regarding football fans at the time. the problem seems to be that people are trying to fit in the modern society and apply that to something a fair time back that had many different rules then. I suspect that there will be loads more ooooz out now, the flood gates have opened so it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 ........ Apologies if I misinterpreted your post mate. I do think though, that the police who altered their notes etc and lied in other ways need pursuing with the utmost vigour. Whether that's the officers on the ground or their superiors, or both. One of the reasons that they release things like this after many years, and also have things like the 30 year rule for other official restricted documents is that they hope the passage of time will take the edge of people's anger and the facts will be seen as historical curiosities.No probs Mart, I probably didn't explain (as usual) clearly. The other issue now is there are so many people demanding this and demanding that and expecting answers in the next day or so. They have to be very careful now especially if legal actions are to follow that correct procedures are followed that do no prejudice things. As someone said earlier this is nowhere near over and will carry on for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 From what I have seen (and I haven't read the report) there was no evidence that the Government encouraged the Police to cover up what had happened. Had that been the finding, I'm pretty sure THAT would have been the big headline of the day. Do you think that the comments being reported as coming from Tory MP and member of the Gvmt irvine patnick somehow at least let the matter be investigated further now? The Gvmt of that time did have an agenda that they followed with South Yorkshire Police as was seen in various events at the time, not least the miners strike. Also you then look at the whole rules and laws that the Gvmt imposed regarding football fans at the time. the problem seems to be that people are trying to fit in the modern society and apply that to something a fair time back that had many different rules then. I suspect that there will be loads more ooooz out now, the flood gates have opened so it seems Yes, yes and yes. We must stop this agreeing lark now. Its starting to bug me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 As someone said earlier this is nowhere near over and will carry on for years Agree, this in a way is just the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Lets not forget if only the fans with tickets had turned up - it wouldn't have happened. Granted there were errors on the day - but now it seems that were are getting close to blaming the police for the whole thing. Sigh The [Taylor] report also highlights that there were only 7 turnstiles made available to admit 10,100 Liverpool fans to the terraces. At the normal rate of 750 people per turnstile per hour, it would have taken two hours to admit all these fans into the stadium. It was inevitable that there would have been a crush outside of the ground with this lack of foresight. Contrast this to the other end where 60 turnstiles were made available to admit 29000 fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Boris are you on a commission for every time you use his name ? your blind hatred of him will get you free membership of left foot forward but Boris really isn't the issue here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts