mikem8634 10 #1045 Posted October 25, 2012 IPCC statement following resignation of Sir Norman Bettison 24 October 2012 We note the announcement about Sir Norman Bettison. He is the subject of two IPCC investigations: the investigation into the Hillsborough aftermath, which is looking at potential criminal offences and misconduct matters, and the referral received on 10 October. This referral was in relation to an allegation that he attempted to influence the decision-making process of West Yorkshire Police Authority in connection with complaints they had received about his role in the Hillsborough aftermath / his recent statements to the press. This second investigation is looking at misconduct matters but at this stage, we do not consider that there is any indication of criminal offences. The IPCC wrote to the Police Authority on 23 October with our provisional view about whether the allegations which are the subject of the second investigation would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct (i.e. whether they would justify dismissal). We were aware that the Police Authority were meeting at lunchtime today to discuss this. In accordance with the legislation, we had advised the Police Authority that suspension was a matter for them, but we should be consulted. We were not informed of Sir Norman's resignation in advance of the stories appearing in the press and the decision came as a surprise to us. We are seeking clarification from West Yorkshire Police Authority. We note Sir Norman's public statement that he intends to co-operate with our investigations. It should be noted we can and, in this case, will investigate both criminal offences and misconduct matters after an officer has retired or resigned as it is in the public interest to do so. Retirement or resignation precludes any internal misconduct sanction as once an individual leaves the police service there is no opportunity to take disciplinary action. Retirement or resignation does not prevent criminal prosecution should the investigation identify criminal offences, including misconduct in a public office. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_241012_hillsboroughbettison.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Strix 11 #1046 Posted October 25, 2012 IPCC statement following resignation of Sir Norman Bettison 24 October 2012 We note the announcement about Sir Norman Bettison. He is the subject of two IPCC investigations: the investigation into the Hillsborough aftermath, which is looking at potential criminal offences and misconduct matters, and the referral received on 10 October. This referral was in relation to an allegation that he attempted to influence the decision-making process of West Yorkshire Police Authority in connection with complaints they had received about his role in the Hillsborough aftermath / his recent statements to the press. This second investigation is looking at misconduct matters but at this stage, we do not consider that there is any indication of criminal offences. The IPCC wrote to the Police Authority on 23 October with our provisional view about whether the allegations which are the subject of the second investigation would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct (i.e. whether they would justify dismissal). We were aware that the Police Authority were meeting at lunchtime today to discuss this. In accordance with the legislation, we had advised the Police Authority that suspension was a matter for them, but we should be consulted. We were not informed of Sir Norman's resignation in advance of the stories appearing in the press and the decision came as a surprise to us. We are seeking clarification from West Yorkshire Police Authority. We note Sir Norman's public statement that he intends to co-operate with our investigations. It should be noted we can and, in this case, will investigate both criminal offences and misconduct matters after an officer has retired or resigned as it is in the public interest to do so. Retirement or resignation precludes any internal misconduct sanction as once an individual leaves the police service there is no opportunity to take disciplinary action. Retirement or resignation does not prevent criminal prosecution should the investigation identify criminal offences, including misconduct in a public office. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_241012_hillsboroughbettison.aspx If the bit I've purpled is true... *speechless*. He allegedly tried to influence a current investigation/review into his recent conduct? Now why would he think that he'd get away with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1047 Posted October 25, 2012 Having read some of the stuff about Hillsborough tragedy since the report came out I feel really angry and I make my points below. 1, The police should have policed the fans better that is fair enough they got it wrong badly wrong but.... 2, The drunken liverpool fans turning up later should have been offically recognised as a contributary factor to the tragedy. 3, The real cover up is to ignore what those drunken liverpool fans did. Did they kill their own ? One of the reasons why they were so few officers at the leppings lane gate was that the police had arrested so many liverpool fans at that location that they had left there posts to take them to custody. 4,The taylor report and recent subsequent report ignored the fact that alcohol played a part. 5, It was and still is .. as I understand from an ex SYP Officer normal police practise to check out people who have died on the police national computer... nothing new there. 6, Its now totally taboo to criticise any part of the liverpool fans played n the tragedy liverpool fans caused the Heysel tragedy anf this seems to have been erased from history Hillsborough is now totally political and clear as to everyone in the media as they dare not ever call or criticise those fans... they want blood,from anyone associated with SYP... 7,The so called 'outrage' over altering statements was known from day one of the Taylor report... im led to understand that officers should only put matter of evidence in statements ... the fact that they were urinated upon seems not to have been a factor... I FIND THIS ODD TO SAY THE LEAST. We as members of the public expect the very best from our police ... when they fall short they should be brought to task... but to exonerate the state of the drunken ticketless fans pushing against that gate is as disgusting the whole sorry episode... You may not agree with me but I think Bettison was right to say what he said.. rant over.. clarksonesq Very well said. About time someone without an agenda contributed to this thread. The bias on this thread is disgraceful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
anywebsite 10 #1048 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) busdriver1, it's not bias, it's confirmed facts. The story about drunken fans being to blame & the cover-up of what really happened, for 23 years was a disgraceful slur on the victims by our police force. That's why the PM apologised for it. Read the report. Have some respect for the 96 people that went to watch a football match in Sheffield & got crushed to death. Edited October 25, 2012 by anywebsite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1049 Posted October 25, 2012 Thankfully points of view like yours are now disappearing rapidly and soon it will just be you and Kelvin Mackenzie in a room together enjoying some recreational hatred. Here we go again. I won't ask you if you've read either the Taylor Report or the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report because I imagine you might have been too busy reading The Sun instead. Have you read any other part of this thread? Try post 1006 for a start, after all it was 2 pages ago and I understand navigating that far back may be too much to expect in your case. Any of the links? Any of the evidence? Do you have any evidence to back up this vile nonsense? “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens attacking the poster is very poor form and contributes nothing apart from suspicion that he might be getting close to the truth. Thats the REAL truth, not the one you may choose. If you can not accept a differing view from yours then you really should not be posting on a forum as they are a place for debate. Debate for your information involves people of differing views discussing by force of argument. Once insults are used - the argument has been lost. The nature of your insulting reply makes me immediately distrust anything you may wish to post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1050 Posted October 25, 2012 busdriver1, it's not bias, it's confirmed facts. The story about drunken fans being to blame & the cover-up of what really happened, for 23 years was a disgraceful slur on the victims by our police force. That's why the PM apologised for it. Read the report. Read it and it is very good at telling part of the story. There were drunk fans there, there were no police pushing people towards a fence, there were fans without tickets. Lets have some balance. I do not claim the police are blameless. but if the above FACTS had not been involved there would have been no tradgedy. That is a fact. What happened after is a very different matter and one I do not claim to have knowledge of, but the root cause was NOT the police. If football fans (of any description or loyalty) could behave like normal people the police would not even have been needed at the match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
anywebsite 10 #1051 Posted October 25, 2012 attacking the poster is very poor form and contributes nothing apart from suspicion that he might be getting close to the truth. Thats the REAL truth, not the one you may choose. If you can not accept a differing view from yours then you really should not be posting on a forum as they are a place for debate. Debate for your information involves people of differing views discussing by force of argument. Once insults are used - the argument has been lost. The nature of your insulting reply makes me immediately distrust anything you may wish to post. If it's the truth & not just a vile slur on the victims by our local police which has been spread for 23 years, why is there no real evidence to back it up? Why does this independent report say the opposite? Why would police officers need to change their statements? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1052 Posted October 25, 2012 Have some respect for the 96 people that went to watch a football match in Sheffield & got crushed to death. Including a member of my family.................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1053 Posted October 25, 2012 If it's the truth & not just a vile slur on the victims by our local police which has been spread for 23 years, why is there no real evidence to back it up? Why does this independent report say the opposite? Why would police officers need to change their statements? Independant reports can be as biased as a copper covering his tracks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
anywebsite 10 #1054 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Independant reports can be as biased as a copper covering his tracks. Just read it & stop continuing spouting this vile nonsense. You only need to read a few pages to see how wrong you are. http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf You can read all the documents they used to compile their report as well & see how biased it is. It's all out in the open now, the old lies have to die. If you're going to say it's biased then you should back it up with some facts, they're all out there now. Edited October 25, 2012 by anywebsite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 #1055 Posted October 25, 2012 Just read it & stop continuing spouting this vile nonsense. You only need to read a few pages to see how wrong you are. http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf You can read all the documents they used to compile their report as well & see how biased it is. It's all out in the open now, the old lies have to die. you just keep on with your ageda then, I will try and get some closure without it being constantly dragged up by the do gooder brigade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
anywebsite 10 #1056 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) you just keep on with your ageda then, I will try and get some closure without it being constantly dragged up by the do gooder brigade. Just read pages 24- 26 if you can't be bothered to read it all. Why do you think I have an agenda? What is that agenda? You should at least read the report before you consider it biased. Back it up with examples of bias based on all the documents that are available if you like. You know, like they did. Continuing to repeat the lies without even reading the report is disgusting. Edited October 25, 2012 by anywebsite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
