Hillsborough document release

[mikem8634]

How about the widows and orphans of the 39 people killed at Heysel?

 

It is a shame you feel the need to conflate two separate issues. The history relating to Heysel is well documented and unrelated to the events at Hillsborough. That you focus on compensation says more about your attitude than it does the families of the 96 who have campaigned with dignity to expose something rotten at the core of the establishment. How often have they mentioned compensation? How often have they mentioned justice?

[frededwards]

It is a shame you feel the need to conflate two separate issues. The history relating to Heysel is well documented and unrelated to the events at Hillsborough. That you focus on compensation says more about your attitude than it does the families of the 96 who have campaigned with dignity to expose something rotten at the core of the establishment. How often have they mentioned compensation? How often have they mentioned justice?

 

 

They may be your opinions, they certainly aren't mine.

 

The behaviour of the police incorrect, and their subsequent dishonesty reprehensible, but their initial over reaction was provoked by the behaviour of some fans and the fans pre-existing reputation. This has succesfully been air-brushed out of history by said families.

 

No-one in authority will ever dare to disagree with them now, it would be political and/or professional suicide. The report was fudged, as the verdict of the new inquests will also be. Any forthcoming compensation claims will be generous and largely uncontested.

[mikem8634]

They may be your opinions, they certainly aren't mine.

 

The behaviour of the police incorrect, and their subsequent dishonesty reprehensible, but their initial over reaction was provoked by the behaviour of some fans and the fans pre-existing reputation. This has succesfully been air-brushed out of history by said families.

 

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that the police were provoked by the behaviour of some fans and that it was a factor in the events that caused the tragedy?

 

The report deals comprehensively with the fact that police prejudice due to pre-existing reputation was a major factor in the poor policing of the day.

 

Do you have any evidence of the families air brushing anything from history?

 

No-one in authority will ever dare to disagree with them now, it would be political and/or professional suicide. The report was fudged, as the verdict of the new inquests will also be. Any forthcoming compensation claims will be generous and largely uncontested.

 

Have you read the report? Do you have any evidence that it was fudged? You seem to agree with its findings regarding policing errors and the subsequent cover up. Why are those parts correct and others not?

 

Do you have any evidence that the new inquests will be fudged?

 

Where do you stand on the inadequacies of the old inquests?

 

The original documents are all available here http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/browse/

I am sure you can use them to substantiate your case unless, of course, it has no basis in fact.

[Mr Bloom]

Any forthcoming compensation claims will be generous and largely uncontested.

 

Not unlike Bettison's early retirement package, or that of hundreds of others who were entrusted with crowd safety on the day.

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 16:29 ----------

 

They may be your opinions, they certainly aren't mine.

 

 

Anyone who says the families have behaved in a less than dignified manner throughout all this national disgraceful scandal, which undermines every aspect of our legal, political, press, and police systems is severely deluded and therefore anyone with any sense can deduce that their posts cannot be taken seriously, so don't sweat it Mike.

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 16:34 ----------

 

Do you consider the use of the name 'Nazi's' appropriate for the police service in this context? Do they really compare to the Racists, Mass murderers, war criminals who waged aggressive war across the world?

 

A knighthood for Deborah Martin? Lord Justice Stuart Smith in his Scrutiny Report following his investigation and review of the disaster in 1998 had this to say:

 

I did not find Miss Martin a reliable witness. Her statement about events at

Hillsborough, where she was on duty as a Special Constable, was seriously at

variance with the account of everybody else who was there. She remains

plainly - and understandably - deeply upset by the disaster, and her memories

of the day and of subsequent events relating to it are vague and confused. I

think that she gave her account of Kevin Williams sitting up in her arms and

saying ’Mom’ in good faith. But it cannot be relied upon. It contradicts Mr

Bruder’s evidence and is also contrary to the pathological findings.

 

 

Isn't that why she was bullied in to changing her statement? Because of your bold?

 

I think you're clutching at straws here.

 

Cases in recent years have also taught us to be very wary indeed of 'pathological findings', or should I say, 'who "finds" the findings'.

[mikem8634]

Cheers Mr. B.

[pottedplant]

They may be your opinions, they certainly aren't mine.

 

The behaviour of the police incorrect, and their subsequent dishonesty reprehensible, but their initial over reaction was provoked by the behaviour of some fans and the fans pre-existing reputation. This has succesfully been air-brushed out of history by said families.

 

No-one in authority will ever dare to disagree with them now, it would be political and/or professional suicide. The report was fudged, as the verdict of the new inquests will also be. Any forthcoming compensation claims will be generous and largely uncontested.

 

I suspect that much of what you say here is a quite widely held view.......and one that no matter how many reports or investigations / inquiries there are some individuals will never be swayed from.

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 19:33 ----------

 

It is a shame you feel the need to conflate two separate issues. The history relating to Heysel is well documented and unrelated to the events at Hillsborough. That you focus on compensation says more about your attitude than it does the families of the 96 who have campaigned with dignity to expose something rotten at the core of the establishment. How often have they mentioned compensation? How often have they mentioned justice?

 

I still struggle with that the justice is that the families are after - they have had the truth and they have had apologies. Is it only criminal cases they now want to have?

[mikem8634]

I suspect that much of what you say here is a quite widely held view.......and one that no matter how many reports or investigations / inquiries there are some individuals will never be swayed from.

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 19:33 ----------

 

 

I still struggle with that the justice is that the families are after - they have had the truth and they have had apologies. Is it only criminal cases they now want to have?

 

It is probably very sadly true that some minds are not open. I hope not many.

 

At the moment the families want a fresh inquest. After that? What they want will be up to them. I would imagine they want those responsible for the crimes and other injustices they have had perpetrated against them to be held accountable. Pretty much what most of us would want. How many of us would accept the truth and an apology alone if a crime was committed against us? Especially one that resulted in the death of a loved one? Is accountability an unreasonable expectation?

 

You can find out more here http://hfsg.co.uk/

[Bosch]

Isn't that why she was bullied in to changing her statement? Because of your bold?

 

I think you're clutching at straws here.

 

Cases in recent years have also taught us to be very wary indeed of 'pathological findings', or should I say, 'who "finds" the findings'.

 

Bullied into changing her statement? She gave 3 statements in total. Lord Justice Stuart Smith’s doubts about her reliability relate to her first statement from 1989. Interestingly she gave a third statement in the presence of the Hillsborough Families solicitor in 1995 reiterating that her first statement was accurate! The allegation of bullying related to her second statement in 1990.

At the match she was working at the Spion kop end (the opposite to where the tragedy occurred). Her evidence includes matters which no one amongst the 54,000 fans or 1,000 police officers saw!

Only she reports:

Lots of trouble with drunken Forest fans, mounted police being forced against a wall, a ground invasion by lots of Forest fans, through a large blue gate near to the gymnasium at the Kop end. This invasion is so strong that she is lifted off her feet up and carried into the ground in the surge. The gates are locked with her in the ground!

‘Miss Martin is the only witness who speaks of a crowd of disorderly Nottingham Forest fans surging through a blue gate at the Penistone Road end’ - Justice Stuart Smith

Then she manages to force her way back out of the Kop and to go around the ground to the Leppings Lane end where the same thing is happening but on a larger scale. She is able to make her way in through those gates and to get onto the pitch.

Stuart Smith actually interviewed her in person as part of scrutiny (in the company of Phil Scraton). ‘She told me in her interview that she had felt Kevin Williams’ pulse and felt a faint one. I can find no trace of her ever having said that before’. He concluded - In my judgement Debra Martin cannot be regarded as a reliable witness.

 

Clutching at straws? Who finds the findings? Quite true - The latest 'findings' are the interpretation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

[mikem8634]

 

Bullied into changing her statement? She gave 3 statements in total. Lord Justice Stuart Smith’s doubts about her reliability relate to her first statement from 1989. Interestingly she gave a third statement in the presence of the Hillsborough Families solicitor in 1995 reiterating that her first statement was accurate! The allegation of bullying related to her second statement in 1990.

At the match she was working at the Spion kop end (the opposite to where the tragedy occurred). Her evidence includes matters which no one amongst the 54,000 fans or 1,000 police officers saw!

Only she reports:

Lots of trouble with drunken Forest fans, mounted police being forced against a wall, a ground invasion by lots of Forest fans, through a large blue gate near to the gymnasium at the Kop end. This invasion is so strong that she is lifted off her feet up and carried into the ground in the surge. The gates are locked with her in the ground!

‘Miss Martin is the only witness who speaks of a crowd of disorderly Nottingham Forest fans surging through a blue gate at the Penistone Road end’ - Justice Stuart Smith

Then she manages to force her way back out of the Kop and to go around the ground to the Leppings Lane end where the same thing is happening but on a larger scale. She is able to make her way in through those gates and to get onto the pitch.

Stuart Smith actually interviewed her in person as part of scrutiny (in the company of Phil Scraton). ‘She told me in her interview that she had felt Kevin Williams’ pulse and felt a faint one. I can find no trace of her ever having said that before’. He concluded - In my judgement Debra Martin cannot be regarded as a reliable witness.

 

Clutching at straws? Who finds the findings? Quite true - The latest 'findings' are the interpretation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

 

I imagine/hope that the new inquest will scrutinise Ms Martin's evidence and establish its veracity in the context of all the other evidence that surrounds it. We'll see.

[Hemibr]

Do you consider the use of the name 'Nazi's' appropriate for the police service in this context? Do they really compare to the Racists, Mass murderers, war criminals who waged aggressive war across the world?

 

A knighthood for Deborah Martin? Lord Justice Stuart Smith in his Scrutiny Report following his investigation and review of the disaster in 1998 had this to say:

 

I did not find Miss Martin a reliable witness. Her statement about events at

Hillsborough, where she was on duty as a Special Constable, was seriously at

variance with the account of everybody else who was there. She remains

plainly - and understandably - deeply upset by the disaster, and her memories

of the day and of subsequent events relating to it are vague and confused. I

think that she gave her account of Kevin Williams sitting up in her arms and

saying ’Mom’ in good faith. But it cannot be relied upon. It contradicts Mr

Bruder’s evidence and is also contrary to the pathological findings.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2012 at 23:30 ----------

 

From previous posts -

 

He was an honest PC just trying to do his job.......

 

It was on Wednesday 12 September of this year that The Independent revealed on its front page the neat crossings and the diagonal line struck through his statement, part of a systematic doctoring of statements which the Hillsborough Independent Panel revealed in its entirety, the following day. The truth McLoughlin had told, the criticisms he had made, had been edited out of history.

 

His statement is available on the HIP site - SYP000074180001

 

This ex officer has been very vocal and visible in the media following the HIP report. The lengthy article in the Independent mentions his involvement on the day and makes reference to his actions inside the ground near the pens. The link takes you to his statement actually signed by him and a version with amendments. In the interest of balance there are some points of interest. All his evidence about the difficulties in other parts of the ground is exclusively based on listening to garbled messages on a colleagues radio. His statement is annotated - 'South Stand car park not involved in disaster events'. In no way wishing to decry his involvement it seems that he did not enter the ground at any stage of events except for briefing and debriefing!

 

In reference to police conduct in the miners strike i think Nazis was a very good comparison, what word would you use because it bore no resemblence to policeing as i believe it to be.

 

I dont think your quotes in reference to Debora Martin to be worthy of a response beyond the word vindicated as i believe her testimony will be by the new inquest ............... what does that make the judge referencing her as unreliable ?