Home & Garden2 mins ago
Hillsborough Disaster: Fans Unlawfully Killed
http://
At last...the truth is out.
Some important points from the above :::
Police failures led to the deaths in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the turnstiles.
At last...the truth is out.
Some important points from the above :::
Police failures led to the deaths in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the turnstiles.
Answers
Retrocop - in reference to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire's suspension - //Why has this man got to be the scapegoat and fall on his sword.// It is nothing to do with being a 'scapegoat' - it is to do with being head of an organisation which is revealed to have wilfully obstructed the inquest in its investigatio
09:28 Thu 28th Apr 2016
"Nobody has mentioned the falsified accounts from several serving police officers - is this not something to be concerned about ?
FBG40 " - I said that in my post above, that the police covered it up, that's not the point. The primary cause of this is not allowed to be discussed. The Idea of this inquest, unlike the preceding ones is to deliver a witch that can be hunted, hence my initial post on this.
FBG40 " - I said that in my post above, that the police covered it up, that's not the point. The primary cause of this is not allowed to be discussed. The Idea of this inquest, unlike the preceding ones is to deliver a witch that can be hunted, hence my initial post on this.
There are an additional 2 inquiries taking place at the moment; when they deliver, the CPS will have a look and see who, if anyone, ought to be prosecuted over the failings already identified.
I'm surprised you didn't already know that.....knowing all the facts by some process of osmosis as you seem to....
I'm surprised you didn't already know that.....knowing all the facts by some process of osmosis as you seem to....
I hope none of the families that lost people at Hillsborough are reading this thread.
To all those of you that are pouring scorn on these verdicts I say this.
Your comments are offensive to the memories of those 96.
This second Inquest was only necessary because Police Officers lied in their statements during the course of the first Inquest, thus preventing the real truth to become known. But now, after 2 years of hearing evidence, the Jury have come to these conclusions, and still there are some that won't believe the truth when it is laid out before them.
And TTT...the point of an Inquest to get to the truth, and if the Police lied, than that should be of concern to us all.
Here is a detailed lost of the questions that the Jury were asked to consider
http://
Its a damning list of Police incompetence.
This is a key part of the above BBC link ::
6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
Jury's answer: Yes
To paraphrase what chrissa has already said .... "The victim's families deserved to know the truth "
To all those of you that are pouring scorn on these verdicts I say this.
Your comments are offensive to the memories of those 96.
This second Inquest was only necessary because Police Officers lied in their statements during the course of the first Inquest, thus preventing the real truth to become known. But now, after 2 years of hearing evidence, the Jury have come to these conclusions, and still there are some that won't believe the truth when it is laid out before them.
And TTT...the point of an Inquest to get to the truth, and if the Police lied, than that should be of concern to us all.
Here is a detailed lost of the questions that the Jury were asked to consider
http://
Its a damning list of Police incompetence.
This is a key part of the above BBC link ::
6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
Jury's answer: Yes
To paraphrase what chrissa has already said .... "The victim's families deserved to know the truth "
TTT...no I am not happy about that, any more than you are, but if the Police hadn't have been so incompetent, the disaster would not have happened.
The Police have been banged to rights over this and there is now no escape for them. They lied and lied and lied, and it took a second Inquest for he truth to come out.
The Police have been banged to rights over this and there is now no escape for them. They lied and lied and lied, and it took a second Inquest for he truth to come out.
In English law, unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales when someone has been killed by one or several unknown persons. The verdict means that the killing was done without lawful excuse and in breach of criminal law. This includes murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing death by dangerous driving. A verdict of unlawful killing generally leads to a police investigation, with the aim of gathering sufficient evidence to identify, charge and prosecute those responsible.
The inquest does not normally name any individual person as responsible. The standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure on the balance of probabilities may be returned.
The inquest does not normally name any individual person as responsible. The standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure on the balance of probabilities may be returned.
From the BBC site:
Police had also closed some turnstiles to keep Liverpool and Nottingham Forest fans apart. This decision - and the design of the approach to the stand - combined to make the congestion worse. The number of fans passing through each turnstile was three times higher than at other turnstiles in the stadium, an HSE investigation found in 1990. The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP), set up to oversee the release of documents relating to the disaster, concluded there was "clear evidence in the build-up to the match, both inside and outside the stadium, that turnstiles serving the Leppings Lane terrace could not process the required number of fans in time for the kick-off."
______________
Perceived fan behaviour appears to have played a part(as I alluded to earlier) but also maybe the FA must take some share for choosing a venue that was inherently unsuitable?
Police had also closed some turnstiles to keep Liverpool and Nottingham Forest fans apart. This decision - and the design of the approach to the stand - combined to make the congestion worse. The number of fans passing through each turnstile was three times higher than at other turnstiles in the stadium, an HSE investigation found in 1990. The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP), set up to oversee the release of documents relating to the disaster, concluded there was "clear evidence in the build-up to the match, both inside and outside the stadium, that turnstiles serving the Leppings Lane terrace could not process the required number of fans in time for the kick-off."
______________
Perceived fan behaviour appears to have played a part(as I alluded to earlier) but also maybe the FA must take some share for choosing a venue that was inherently unsuitable?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
What Is Your Favourite Piece Of...
Music6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Nationwide Building Society Advert
Adverts14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.