ChatterBank1 min 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
JTH
A world of difference between holding forthright views and being verballed with lies. PP would be the first to complain about police procedures and alleged "verbals" so I find he can adopt that practise against me and it is OK in your book.
I wish I had never asked a simple question that was NOT insensitive but was made to make me look insensitive to others feelings by a malicious ABer who thinks it's clever.
A world of difference between holding forthright views and being verballed with lies. PP would be the first to complain about police procedures and alleged "verbals" so I find he can adopt that practise against me and it is OK in your book.
I wish I had never asked a simple question that was NOT insensitive but was made to make me look insensitive to others feelings by a malicious ABer who thinks it's clever.
jackthehat
/// To read any comments which appear to hark back to long disproved suggestions that the fans were complicit creates an automatic response. ///
If the fans were not complicit, then who actually killed those unfortunate victims?
Read what andy-hughes put:
/// If this had been a pensioners' outing to a Vera Lynn concert, the result would have been the same - if a crowd are struggling to get free from each other, and they see an open gate, they will go for it at once.
That is what happened here. ///
/// To read any comments which appear to hark back to long disproved suggestions that the fans were complicit creates an automatic response. ///
If the fans were not complicit, then who actually killed those unfortunate victims?
Read what andy-hughes put:
/// If this had been a pensioners' outing to a Vera Lynn concert, the result would have been the same - if a crowd are struggling to get free from each other, and they see an open gate, they will go for it at once.
That is what happened here. ///
AOG - I have no intention of going round in circles with you; addressing your questions, the answers to which can be found in this thread and external links.
I find it fascinating that people who have no idea whatsoever of the events and are strong in their convictions that they know exactly what happened....
I find it fascinating that people who have no idea whatsoever of the events and are strong in their convictions that they know exactly what happened....
jack - My commenst about crowd behaviour were designed to negate the popular (and proven patently false as of yesterday) notion that the Liverpool fans acted like mindless yobs, and were therefore culpable, if not entirely responsible for their own deaths.
They were not intended as evidence that the crowd were responsible for their own deaths - which I agree with the jury, is entirely spurious.
Crowd behaviour is not something that is controlled easily, but to try and use my view as a defence for the accusation that the crowd was responsible for what happened is utterly without foundation.
They were not intended as evidence that the crowd were responsible for their own deaths - which I agree with the jury, is entirely spurious.
Crowd behaviour is not something that is controlled easily, but to try and use my view as a defence for the accusation that the crowd was responsible for what happened is utterly without foundation.
The Jury gave its verdicts yesterday, so can I suggest that we all now wait for the IPCC, Operation Resolve and the CPS to do their jobs ?
Its going to be another year at least, but after 27 years, another year should be doable !
And I speak as someone that has contributed more than his pennyworth to this debate !
Its going to be another year at least, but after 27 years, another year should be doable !
And I speak as someone that has contributed more than his pennyworth to this debate !
jack - //I find it fascinating that people who have no idea whatsoever of the events and are strong in their convictions that they know exactly what happened.... //
I entirely agree.
Yesterday was the culmination of a hearing if evidence over years, and the stated beliefs and opinions of the jury, and they alone know what the evidence is, and they have spoken and ruled.
For armchair pontificators to continue to peddle the notion that it was the fans' behaviour that caused the deaths is frankly puzzling - rather like those who deny the Holocaust in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The jury has decided, based on detailed evidence, that the fans were not to blame. Why is that so hard to accept?
I entirely agree.
Yesterday was the culmination of a hearing if evidence over years, and the stated beliefs and opinions of the jury, and they alone know what the evidence is, and they have spoken and ruled.
For armchair pontificators to continue to peddle the notion that it was the fans' behaviour that caused the deaths is frankly puzzling - rather like those who deny the Holocaust in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The jury has decided, based on detailed evidence, that the fans were not to blame. Why is that so hard to accept?
AOG - For someone who highly esteems the forces of law and order and likes to see the 'right and proper' way of doing things carried out, you are treating this very serious and heart-breaking tragedy with a surprising amount of flippancy.
I was addressing your comments in my previous, not andy's.....
I was addressing your comments in my previous, not andy's.....
Unlawful killing was described on the morning news as being the worst level on manslaughter. Very very annoyingly I can not recall the exact phrase used, but basically where the neglect was as bad as it could be. This I found a satisfying explanation as I couldn't see how there could be an unlawful killing without a killer, implying intent.
If that is not a good description then the phrase becomes confusing again. Whoever did or denied what, surely no one made a decison in order to cause a tragedy, they made what they thought was a correct decision in the circumstances but which turned out to be a disastrous one.
If that is not a good description then the phrase becomes confusing again. Whoever did or denied what, surely no one made a decison in order to cause a tragedy, they made what they thought was a correct decision in the circumstances but which turned out to be a disastrous one.
This from Wiki: //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.//
I don’t know much about this, and I understand the accusations that the police lied, but bearing in mind that according to Mikey’s OP //The Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation//, if the police are indeed wholly culpable, I’m concerned by the word “contributed”. It appears that this terrible tragedy resulted from several contributing factors; the actions of the police, the behaviour of some of the fans, and the safety issues within the ground. Therefore, I don’t see how the police can be deemed, without reasonable doubt, to have been solely responsible, hence the ruling of 'Unlawful Killing' against the police alone appears to be questionable.
I don’t know much about this, and I understand the accusations that the police lied, but bearing in mind that according to Mikey’s OP //The Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation//, if the police are indeed wholly culpable, I’m concerned by the word “contributed”. It appears that this terrible tragedy resulted from several contributing factors; the actions of the police, the behaviour of some of the fans, and the safety issues within the ground. Therefore, I don’t see how the police can be deemed, without reasonable doubt, to have been solely responsible, hence the ruling of 'Unlawful Killing' against the police alone appears to be questionable.
Mr AOG
//anotheoldgit
Lets face it this thread is an exercise in the usual police bashing, instigated by no other than the police bashing master, mikey.//
I hope they save some of their spleen. I hear there is soon to be an enquiry in to the fun and games at the Miner's Strike all those years ago. Allegations will abound. They will all be choking on their breakfast again no doubt.
//anotheoldgit
Lets face it this thread is an exercise in the usual police bashing, instigated by no other than the police bashing master, mikey.//
I hope they save some of their spleen. I hear there is soon to be an enquiry in to the fun and games at the Miner's Strike all those years ago. Allegations will abound. They will all be choking on their breakfast again no doubt.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Farage Vs. Johnson Vs The Daily Mail
News57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 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.