Hillsborough document release

[Strix 11]

My point is this the dead were killed because of Liverpool fans turning up late which compounded the other poor decisions made.. And this has been totally wiped out from the report. It was fact . They were too many at that gate pushing to get in. I'm sure you've seen the

I'm not sure if you're actually reading any replies you receive, but...

 

Many fans were outside the gates over half an hour before kick off. There were problems with the turnstyles. Some were out of action altogether, and others were repeatedly jamming. This was causing a backlog of fans, and creating a gathering crowd

 

There was a body of over 400 fans who arrived at Wadsley Bridge station at 2pm, but were not released from the station until 2.30pm. It's a two minute walk to the ground from there

 

At around 2.45, it was evident that the 2000 tickets which had yet to be processed through the turnstyles would not be finished being processed until just before half time, at the current rate of admission

 

There had been a accident on the M62 causing some fans travelling by car to arrive late

 

A crush had previously occurred in exactly the same place in 1981. The fans were never blamed for that incident. Lessons were not learned. Liverpool were not playing that day

[Darth Vader 10]

Jeffrey, you're behaving rather oddly. Your posts are usually very specific and factual, and usually supported with references. Why are you, on this thread, regurgitating discredited tabloid headlines, and using the same 'smart alec' style of posting found elsewhere on the forum by inferior contributors to yourself?

 

Can you please contribute to this thread in your usual informative manner?

 

I'm glad you said that. I was thinking something similar.

[Strix 11]

Well you just try telling that to my cousin who made it over the fence in order to watch his father crushed to death in front of his own eyes. He will tell you what we all know. The people doing all the pushing were Liverpool fans. NOBODY ELSE.. That is the bottom line. What the police did or did not do does not change that fact and anyone trying to blame them or just getting a kick from mud raking needs to remember that.

If you want to know why I have such a hatred of this whole stirring up of the past - well his last attempt on his life was on the day the report was released.

There are those who want this whole sad tradgedy put to sleep, but whilst those who have no cares for the victims and their families keep stirrrind things up they can not.

Stories like yours are exactly why there is so much outrage. If this whole thing had been handled like any other disaster, and hadn't been turned into a rear-end covering exercise by just a couple of individuals, the dust would have been able to settle much quicker. The concocted news stories at the time dragged the whole thing through the media with a momentum it should never have had. Instead of the usual questions being asked, and lessons being learned, and everybody being able to move on as best they could, an orchestrated media circus was whipped up

 

I have deep sympathies with the bobbies on the ground forced to stand their ground waiting for instructions which just did not come, and later put through the guilt of watching the media circus they were coerced into playing a part in

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Still, facts are what counts- not tabloid headlines; as to that, I agree with Strix. So the unnecessary vehemence exemplified on this thread is misconceived. If there's evidence, put it forward to the Inquiry; whereas if it's just one's own obsession or preconceptions...

[mikem8634 10]

Are those in favour on Norman Bettison having his pension taken away also in favour of any criminals having their various benifits stopped if they receive any?

 

Such as? You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge; I hope that you passed it to the Inquiry.

 

Blimey, you go out for a coffee and quiet read and look what happens whilst you're away.

 

I'll attempt to deal with many of the points over the last couple of pages one by one - starting with the easiest.

 

Hots on - There is a possible precedent for Bettison's pension to be effected if he is convicted of a criminal offence.

 

A police force has instructed lawyers to try and claw back the pension of a corrupt officer jailed for helping a dangerous gangster avoid prosecution. Essex Police said they had asked legal advisers to examine whether former detective Robert Sloan's pension could be forfeited after he was sentenced to two years in prison for perverting the course of justice....Concerned Essex Police Authority members will raise the issue at a meeting tomorrow. Paul Bishop, an independent member of the authority, said yesterday: "There are forfeiture rules which could apply and I and other members will certainly be asking questions about this tomorrow."

See the link for the rest of the story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-force-tries-to-stop-corrupt-officer-getting-his-pension-1974568.html

 

The status of the pension is linked to performance in the job and effects on the institution as stated here in the Home Office circular 018/2009 entitled Forfeiture of Police Pensions -

 

2. Paragraph 4 allows a police authority to determine forfeiture where a member of a police force has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his/her service as a member of a police force which is certified by the Secretary of State either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/018-2009/

 

This is why it is entirely different to a criminal on benefits. As wrong as criminal activity undoubtedly is there is no legal link between crime and entitlement to benefits (other than for those serving custodial sentences I imagine) - please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Jeffrey Shaw - you're tone does indeed seem a bit weird in this instance. Why would you assume I have inside knowledge? Am I considering the possibility of charges unfairly? Would you care to actually answer the question as to why you focused on killing and drunk and disorderly rather than charges relating to perversion of the course of justice or criminal misconduct in a public office which seem much more appropriate when discussing Bettison?

[Strix 11]

Still, facts are what counts- not tabloid headlines; as to that, I agree with Strix. So the unnecessary vehemence exemplified on this thread is misconceived. If there's evidence, put it forward to the Inquiry; whereas if it's just one's own obsession or preconceptions...

You've just contradicted yourself... Unless you've read some pages in the middle where there's a squabble I've not seen

 

The majority of posts on this thread (certainly over the last week) have made interesting reading, if you follow the links provided of tv footage from the day and immediate weeks after, and to specific pages of the evidence to the inquiry

 

I can understand your impatience if you've been reading something I missed, but please use your usual diligence and have a look at the footage, and timeline info

[mikem8634 10]

Still, facts are what counts- not tabloid headlines; as to that, I agree with Strix. So the unnecessary vehemence exemplified on this thread is misconceived. If there's evidence, put it forward to the Inquiry; whereas if it's just one's own obsession or preconceptions...

 

Does that mean you would be willing to accept convictions against Bettison and Patnick if their guilt was established as a fact in a court of law?

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

I've not seen any evidence- only press reports and SF posts.

If there's evidence to prove anyone liable beyond reasonable doubt, whoever has the evidence can prosecute.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Does that mean you would be willing to accept convictions against Bettison and Patnick if their guilt was established as a fact in a court of law?

PLUS: surely the only way to consider anyone guilty is if a Court so holds.

In that situation, "willing to accept convictions" is wholly meaningless! Convicted = convicted.

[mikem8634 10]

I've not seen any evidence- only press reports and SF posts.

If there's evidence to prove anyone liable beyond reasonable doubt, whoever has the evidence can prosecute.

 

PLUS: surely the only way to consider anyone guilty is if a Court so holds.

In that situation, "willing to accept convictions" is wholly meaningless! Convicted = convicted.

 

Okay, I'll try again.

 

Would you care to actually answer the question as to why you focused on killing and drunk and disorderly rather than charges relating to perversion of the course of justice or criminal misconduct in a public office which seem much more appropriate when discussing Bettison?

 

If, and it's a mighty big IF, Bettison and Patnick were convicted of criminal charges would you accept it as proof of guilt? Yes/No?

[Strix 11]

PLUS: surely the only way to consider anyone guilty is if a Court so holds.

In that situation, "willing to accept convictions" is wholly meaningless! Convicted = convicted.

... until the appeal

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Would you care to actually answer the question as to why you focused on killing and drunk and disorderly rather than charges relating to perversion of the course of justice or criminal misconduct in a public office which seem much more appropriate when discussing Bettison?

Clearly, because human life at risk trumps point-scoring.

 

If, and it's a mighty big IF, Bettison and Patnick were convicted of criminal charges would you accept it as proof of guilt? Yes/No?

Conviction stands as binding proof of guilt. How much do you know about criminal law, please?