History1 min ago
Hillsborough Disaster: Charges Decision Due
http://
I can't get to sleep tonight, so I thought I would post this thread, ready for the morning, as I feel it will be the Topic of the Day.
I can't get to sleep tonight, so I thought I would post this thread, ready for the morning, as I feel it will be the Topic of the Day.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it's not a logical result, it was brow beaten at the nth enquiry. The police made mistakes, they covered it up (prosecute them for that) but they did not set out to cause harm they are guilty, only of trying to control a difficult situation that was at least partly brought about by ticketless fans. They therefore must be partially to blame so if you are going to prosecute anyone they must be included. This is just the last phase of a which hunt. Finally they have got their figure if hate so they can blame a face rather than the true cause. quite disgusting.
GG.....you could perhaps benefit from reading about the proceeds of the 2nd Inquest. ::::
https:/
https:/
Full Crown Prosecution Service statement on Hillsborough ::::
http://
Sue Hemmings, CPS, has asked that due to sub judice rules, that no more comment is to be made, and I, for one, will abide by that.
http://
Sue Hemmings, CPS, has asked that due to sub judice rules, that no more comment is to be made, and I, for one, will abide by that.
I understand from other press sources that the initial proceedings will start at Warrington Magistrates' Court which then suggests that the Crown Court hearing will be in the in the same area. I really do think that a fair hearing can only be heard by a Crown Court not in the Liverpool/North West area of England. The pool of jurors is likely to be too influenced by local pressures (as I suspect was the verdict of the inquest jury). The Central Criminal Court is, I suggest, the only fair venue for this trial.
at the time I think Mrs T thought it was inconceivable the police would lie to HER ! She had written on the files of the Oirish Bombers - "do we have to go thro all this again?" because she thought they were obviously guilty and not obviously innocent
in 2004 a High Court Judge found that changing statements was lawful practice - subjective comments were excluded and witness statements "I was at stand 2 and the police were wandering around as though they didnt know what they were doing" was edited to
"I was at stand 2".
The judge at the time basically said - so what ?
so I am not sure what the upshot of this is gonna be
For the Oirish Bombers ( Reade Schedule - was that Brum or Guildford) the magistrate Bartels refused to send the indictment onto the Crown Court as it was such a longtime ago and the police couldnt get a fair trial after 20 years. Also subject to an appeal where the court said - yeah we agree with that
In calmer times ( 1950s but it coudda been the 1850s ) a chancery judge observed that a wrongly decided case wrecked three generations. Hillsborough it is the victims their parents and their children.
in 2004 a High Court Judge found that changing statements was lawful practice - subjective comments were excluded and witness statements "I was at stand 2 and the police were wandering around as though they didnt know what they were doing" was edited to
"I was at stand 2".
The judge at the time basically said - so what ?
so I am not sure what the upshot of this is gonna be
For the Oirish Bombers ( Reade Schedule - was that Brum or Guildford) the magistrate Bartels refused to send the indictment onto the Crown Court as it was such a longtime ago and the police couldnt get a fair trial after 20 years. Also subject to an appeal where the court said - yeah we agree with that
In calmer times ( 1950s but it coudda been the 1850s ) a chancery judge observed that a wrongly decided case wrecked three generations. Hillsborough it is the victims their parents and their children.
// but who except in foresight could have seen what actually followed?// or something like that
the leading case is R v Adomako- foresight is not required - if someone else said 'dont do that sir ...' and he did it anyway - he doesnt get off by saying he really didnt think ..... ( also guilty if he had said "oh *** lets do it anyway".
also guilty if he should have seen the consequences but thro negligence and didnt
and finally guilty if the negligence was so crass it deserved unishment
[ That for slow readers was a comment on a case called R v Adomako where four conditions could found a finding by the jury of manslaughter by gross negligence. [from memory]]
the leading case is R v Adomako- foresight is not required - if someone else said 'dont do that sir ...' and he did it anyway - he doesnt get off by saying he really didnt think ..... ( also guilty if he had said "oh *** lets do it anyway".
also guilty if he should have seen the consequences but thro negligence and didnt
and finally guilty if the negligence was so crass it deserved unishment
[ That for slow readers was a comment on a case called R v Adomako where four conditions could found a finding by the jury of manslaughter by gross negligence. [from memory]]
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.