Hillsborough Cover-up revealed. MOD NOTE #1

Xavi6

Whippersnapper wrote: »

Caught that alright. Was wondering who you were because you spoke so well. Fair play.

That's not Dub13, must be one of the other Irish Kop lads

monkey9

kryogen wrote: »

Don't really think you can call anything good when it comes to Hillsborough, but today was certainly a good day in relation to it.

For the dead it really doesn't make a difference I guess, but for the families and friends of anybody lost that day it is a vindication, hopefully they can now move on properly that the truth is out.

Move onto the next stage. Far too long was spent justifying what they were doing and why!! They have finally being allowed to move onto the next stage and prosecutions!!

wonderfullife

I wonder what condition David Duckenfield is in now? Can't find too much about him online other than he conveniently retired on medical grounds after the disaster. So that'd put him in his 70s by now. Even if they go after him it'll take til maybe 2015 at best before the Courts of Appeal quash his original acquittal. I'd say it's almost 100% certain he will never ever see the inside of a prison cell for this.

NIMAN

wonderfullife wrote: »

I wonder what condition David Duckenfield is in now? Can't find too much about him online other than he conveniently retired on medical grounds after the disaster. So that'd put him in his 70s by now. Even if they go after him it'll take til maybe 2015 at best before the Courts of Appeal quash his original acquittal. I'd say it's almost 100% certain he will never ever see the inside of a prison cell for this.

Always wondered in situations like this can people actually do time?

After all, he may have made wrong decisions and cracked under pressure that day, and his actions may have led to the deaths, but he did not do it deliberately. We all make wrong decisions, just that some have far greater consequences than others. Who knows how any of us would have reacted in his situation.

As for him doing time, well when the commanders and soldiers who committed deliberate murder on Bloody Sunday, gunning down unarmed fleeing civilians, have never done a day in jail, I can't see this guy doing any time either.

I just hope that this decision today can give some closure to the families and let their loved ones rest now in peace, with the world knowing they did nothing wrong that day.

wonderfullife

NIMAN wrote: »

Always wondered in situations like this can people actually do time?

After all, he may have made wrong decisions and cracked under pressure that day, and his actions may have led to the deaths, but he did not do it deliberately. We all make wrong decisions, just that some have far greater consequences than others. Who knows how any of us would have reacted in his situation.

As for him doing time, well when the commanders and soldiers who committed deliberate murder on Bloody Sunday, gunning down unarmed fleeing civilians, have never done a day in jail, I can't see this guy doing any time either.

I just hope that this decision today can give some closure to the families and let their loved ones rest now in peace, with the world knowing they did nothing wrong that day.

It is extremely rare as a matter of public interest that any police force is brought to task in either criminal or civil cases arising out of the performance of their duties.

Look at Jean Charles de Menezes. The poor Brazilian bloke shot dead in London on the tube in 2005 in the mistaken belief he was a terrorist. Despite a jury ruling he was unlawfully killed, nobody has or ever will stand trial for his murder. Not one member of the police who surveilled, followed and killed him will ever see a court of law over his death.

Then you have the recent case of Ian Tomlinson, the G20 protester shoved to the ground (caught on camera) and subsequently died as a result of his injuries. The CPS originally wouldn't prosecute the officer, the trial ultimately went ahead and he was acquitted.

One of the original high-profile cases was the Stephen Lawrence murder in 1993, those of us around the 28-40 age bracket will know it well, the black teenager stabbed to death in Lewisham in 1993. The subsequent police inquiry, corruption and negligence was appalling and led to widescale reforms of the police force. Officers not passing on statements, destroying evidence and basically not giving a rats ass about doing the poor lad justice. Michael Mansfield was also heavily involved in this as he is with Hillsborough. Yet no member of the Metropolitan Police Force of London has ever stood trial for any aspect of wrongdoing in the case.

Police forces are generally immune from prosecutions (for the most part) as it is not in the public interest to go after the police force when they make legitimate, honest failings and f-uck-ups trying to exercise their duty of serving the public. Easy example - there is a serial killer on the loose, police are doing their utmost to find him, they eventually catch him then learn they had interviewed him previously and, if arrested sooner, more deaths would have been prevented. The idea is that the police shouldn't be liable for their failure to catch him sooner - they should not have to work with the fear of repercussions in trying to serve the public. They are not deliberately trying to f.uck up, they do their best for the most part.

In Duckenfields/Murray Case, it was a private prosecution brought by the HSJF:

The counts:

"Counts one and two - Manslaughter for failure to prevent the crush after the gates were opened by failing to prevent access to and divert fans from the tunnel leading to the already full pens 3 and 4.

Count three - Misconduct in Public Office

Count four - Perverting the Course of Justice. Only laid against Duckenfield and dropped after intervention by the Attorney General.

Count five - Misconduct, again only Duckenfield. Arising out of his lie that gate C had been forced open by Liverpool fans when in fact it was he that ordered it open."


Jury Orders:

Are you sure that it was forseable by a reasonable match commander that by letting people in through the gates that there would be deaths in pens 3 and 4?

If the answer to this question was yes then they had to proceed to question two which was:

Are you sure there were effective steps could have been taken to close the tunnel? Yes?

Then:

Failure to take such steps was negligent as a reasonable match commander would have done so. Yes?

With regard to the risk involved, the failure to take such steps led to the serious criminal offence of manslaughter.

N.B. If the answer to Q.1 was 'no', then the verdict must be not guilty.




Murray was acquitted and Duckenfield was acquitted via a jury which could not reach consensus to convict. Slightly different. Murray flat out not guilty, some on the jury thought Duckenfield was. Sadly this trial was not a fair trial - the cut-off point in the Judges directions was 306pm (9 minutes earlier than the Coroners cut-off point!) and no images of victims were shown to the jury.

If this trial was to take place tomorrow, with the new information, it is likely Duckenfield would be found guilty. But there are all sorts of reasons it will never get to court. His legal team could successfully argue his inability to get a fair trial, they can appeal multiple times if the original acquittal is overturned and they can argue he is unfit to stand trial (if he is still sick).

Beyond Duckenfield and Murray i'm really not too sure who Mansfield wants to go after in criminal proceedings...... the ambulance service? Police perjury? There isn't a lot of people who he can go after.

Right i wrote way more than planned there but yeah it's a minefield and i doubt any of them will ever see jail over it.:rolleyes:

citytillidie

Whippersnapper wrote: »

It was 2007 I think when I saw it. It was very close to Anfield and I was very shocked to see it for sale. I thought you wouldn't have a hope of seeing it in that area especially.

All my times over in Liverpool for games and for stag weekends never once have a seen that paper on sale.

amiable

From Tony Barrett of The Times

Interesting that Royal & Sun Alliance (Sheff Wed's insurers) refused to release documents to the HIP. Make your own minds up about that.

amiable

The FA have issued a statement without an apology.
The FA are obviously beyond reproach.

kingshankly

citytillidie wrote: »

Whippersnapper wrote: »

It was 2007 I think when I saw it. It was very close to Anfield and I was very shocked to see it for sale. I thought you wouldn't have a hope of seeing it in that area especially.

All my times over in Liverpool for games and for stag weekends never once have a seen that paper on sale.

It is For sale in a few shops most of the bigger newsagents and of course wh smith

LiamoSail

]

citytillidie wrote: »

[

All my times over in Liverpool for games and for stag weekends never once have a seen that paper on sale.

Most of the bigger shops around the area sell it. I stay down near Iceland when I'm over there and they always stock it. It sells too

monkey9

amiable wrote: »

The FA have issued a statement without an apology.
The FA are obviously beyond reproach.

The fact that this happened in their own competition and didn't bother to check whether the stadium they chose to host the match had a safety certificate or not is pretty alarming. That they choose not to apologise now for it is pretty insulting.

citytillidie

LiamoSail wrote: »

]

Most of the bigger shops around the area sell it. I stay down near Iceland when I'm over there and they always stock it. It sells too

Well never been in the bigger shopping chain in Liverpool was talking more about independant shop owners

I take it you have never worked in retail for a big chain of stores.

If you want to get certain publications from certain distrubitors then you have to take all there publications.

Welease

amiable wrote: »

From Tony Barrett of The Times

Quote:
Interesting that Royal & Sun Alliance (Sheff Wed's insurers) refused to release documents to the HIP. Make your own minds up about that.

Not surprising, I wouldn't expect an insurance company to offer any information which would make them potentially liable for costs.. It is however interesting, that pre-merger (at the time of Hillsborough) Royal Insurance main offices were based in Liverpool (and Peterborough) in the tower above and around the offices of the Echo and the large sandcastle building beside the tower (not sure if they are still there now).

acquiescefc

So people want to start blaming Wednesday now.

Deluded.

Welease

acquiescefc wrote: »

So people want to start blaming Wednesday now.

Deluded.

I don't think so.. I think it merely points out that much of the establishment and related business didn't (and in some cases still don't) want to uncover the truth of what happened.. They will continue to protect their own interests irrespective of what actually happened.

acquiescefc

amiable wrote: »

From Tony Barrett of The Times

Welease wrote: »

I don't think so.. I think it merely points out that much of the establishment and related business didn't (and in some cases still don't) want to uncover the truth of what happened.. They will continue to protect their own interests irrespective of what actually happened.

FRom the Guardian

"Legal representatives for the families of the 96 victims crushed to death at the Leppings Lane end of the ground said that South Yorkshire police, Sheffield city council and Sheffield Wednesday FC could all face charges for corporate manslaughter."

No mention of the FA who sanctioned the game and not us(SWFC). Anyway 'SWFC Plc' doesnt exist now thanks to Milan. I just know our club is going to be tarred with this again because the decision makers responsible for the vast majority of this horrendous day are no longer culpable.

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

The FA have issued a statement without an apology.
The FA are obviously beyond reproach.

Fa chairman David Bernstein makes full and unreserved apology following findings of Hillsborough report

From Sky Sports News.

noodler

citytillidie wrote: »

Well never been in the bigger shopping chain in Liverpool was talking more about independant shop owners

I take it you have never worked in retail for a big chain of stores.

If you want to get certain publications from certain distrubitors then you have to take all there publications.

?

Why are you getting cranky?

You said you never seen it onsale in Liverpool and the poster informed you that it is on sale in some places.

No one asked for the smart arse comments about the realities of large shopping chains.

Leiva

People need to stop looking at the recent report thinking why are X and Y been blamed for the tragedy?

Those named are named more so for their attempts to cover up the truth and not for causing the actual event.

Anyone who is found to have contributed to the cover up should face justice. end of

Welease

acquiescefc wrote: »

FRom the Guardian

"Legal representatives for the families of the 96 victims crushed to death at the Leppings Lane end of the ground said that South Yorkshire police, Sheffield city council and Sheffield Wednesday FC could all face charges for corporate manslaughter."

No mention of the FA who sanctioned the game and not us(SWFC). Anyway 'SWFC Plc' doesnt exist now thanks to Milan. I just know our club is going to be tarred with this again because the decision makers responsible for the vast majority of this horrendous day are no longer culpable.

If they are guilty, then they should be held accountable.. irrespective of who they are.. If not, then they should be found innocent..

The issue is (and always was) those who are/were in the know didn't release the info (as per The Guardian piece previously) which would have let justice take place and those determinations be made.

cournioni

Good to see the truth come out at last and that the SYP and beyond have been shown up for what they were at the time.

Mr.Crinklewood

Link to Apology.

amiable

acquiescefc wrote: »

FRom the Guardian

"Legal representatives for the families of the 96 victims crushed to death at the Leppings Lane end of the ground said that South Yorkshire police, Sheffield city council and Sheffield Wednesday FC could all face charges for corporate manslaughter."

No mention of the FA who sanctioned the game and not us(SWFC). Anyway 'SWFC Plc' doesnt exist now thanks to Milan. I just know our club is going to be tarred with this again because the decision makers responsible for the vast majority of this horrendous day are no longer culpable.

You are coming across as caring more about Sheffield Wednesday than the victims

acquiescefc

Welease wrote: »

If they are guilty, then they should be held accountable.. irrespective of who they are.. If not, then they should be found innocent..

The issue is (and always was) those who are/were in the know didn't release the info (as per The Guardian piece previously) which would have let justice take place and those determinations be made.

My point is that even the mention of fingers being pointed at the Club and potentially millions of pounds in litigation is not progressive to anyone especially not SWFC and im sick of our name being dragged into this again as villains.
Sure the SYP, everybody knows now theyve been proven to have forcefully brushed this under the carpet and got away with it for 23 years but bringing our club into this is just pointless.

Welease

acquiescefc wrote: »

My point is that even the mention of fingers being pointed at the Club and potentially millions of pounds in litigation is not progressive to anyone especially not SWFC and im sick of our name being dragged into this again as villains.
Sure the SYP, everybody knows now theyve been proven to have forcefully brushed this under the carpet and got away with it for 23 years but bringing our club into this is just pointless.

How do you know it's pointless?

According to that report linked, your insurance company have refused to hand over documents which would help people understand what happened.
If they are innocent then those documents will prove it.. if not, then it's hardly pointless if it prevents other such potential disasters occuring..

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

You are coming across as caring more about Sheffield Wednesday than the victims

Ffs man,what a stupid comment.
He's a Wednesday supporter that doesn't want to see his club wrongly blamed.
And I stress the words wrongly blamed in case it didnt register the first time.

citytillidie

acquiescefc wrote: »

My point is that even the mention of fingers being pointed at the Club and potentially millions of pounds in litigation is not progressive to anyone especially not SWFC and im sick of our name being dragged into this again as villains.
Sure the SYP, everybody knows now theyve been proven to have forcefully brushed this under the carpet and got away with it for 23 years but bringing our club into this is just pointless.

Also asking for money from the FA for lost revenue was a bit tastless as well

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/FFA000004890001.pdf

Seemed SWFC were all about the cost and cutting corners when it came to their stadium

amiable

cambo2008 wrote: »

Ffs man,what a stupid comment.
He's a Wednesday supporter that doesn't want to see his club wrongly blamed.
And I stress the words wrongly blamed in case it didnt register the first time.

I'm giving an opinion. Get over it

amiable

cambo2008 wrote: »

From Sky Sports News.

Just saw the apology. An awful attempt at one and this after having to be dragged to do so.

citytillidie

cambo2008 wrote: »

From Sky Sports News.

Only came after the 1st statement was laughed at to be honest

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

I'm giving an opinion. Get over it

What??
You think everybody should just shut up and accept any blame in case you come across as caring more about your own club than supporters of another club that died 23 years ago?

Will I Amnt

citytillidie wrote: »

Only came after the 1st statement was laughed at to be honest

Was just passing on some news.
I didn't even know there was a previous statement.

amiable

cambo2008 wrote: »

What??
You think everybody should just shut up and accept any blame in case you come across as caring more about your own club than supporters of another club that died 23 years ago?

They were human beings that died needlessly 23 years ago that were treated like criminals and animals. It's as simple as that and IF Sheffield Wednesday are to blame and I use the IF in case you didn't notice it the first time then if there is a way of prosecuting them it should be done IMO.

telekon

For anyone interested, some scouse lad on Liveline now talking about his experience in Lepping's Lane.

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

They were human beings that died needlessly 23 years ago that were treated like criminals and animals. It's as simple as that and IF Sheffield Wednesday are to blame and I use the IF in case you didn't notice it the first time then if there is a way of prosecuting them it should be done IMO.

It was an obviously terrible thing that happened and the attempts to cover it up.
He was defending his club.
No need for the silly comment.

Welease

cambo2008 wrote: »

Ffs man,what a stupid comment.
He's a Wednesday supporter that doesn't want to see his club wrongly blamed.
And I stress the words wrongly blamed in case it didnt register the first time.

Thats understandable.. but as per the query in the Guardian..

If they are completely absolutely 100% innocent and want everyone to know that.. then wouldn't releasing the documentation make sense????

wonderfullife

Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, if a corporation's activities cause a person's death and the failure was because of a breach that falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances, the offence is made out.

Given that, it's worth reading SWFC account in the Report under Crowd Responsibility:

2.3.88 "Club Secretary Mr Mackrell considered that police officers had a crowd management role. They 'had got the close circuit television, the Police Control Box is right above the area where it took place. You know, I would regard that as being the prime Police responsibility ... to monitor that situation'.[52] No written agreement existed allocating duties and responsibilities to stewards and police."

2.3.91 The SWFC document 'Instructions for Match Day Staff' provided some details about the role and behaviour of stewards.[54] Advising gatemen and turnstile operators it stated that 'All exit gates must be manned at all times. If any gate is left unmanned at all, the entire staff covering the gate will be instantly dismissed'. It noted that a coded message would be announced over the public address system regarding emergency evacuation.

2.3.92 Club staff were warned against 'becom[ing] involved with crowd misbehaviour' as this was 'a matter for the police - AND THE POLICE ONLY' (emphasis in original). At the head of an SWFC document entitled 'Instruction to stewards', an unattributed handwritten note read 'not a word about terraces or packing supporters'.[55]


The original F.A. submission to the enquiry agreed with SWFC's position. I honestly think it's getting to a stage of foolishness to try prosecute the original members of the SWFC board for corporate manslaughter.

This should be about truth and justice but there is always the danger it becomes more than that. You will have solicitors swarming over the families now trying to get what they can for them and themselves. You have a lot of pent-up anger and frustration and people will want to see guilty parties in court. But, as has been said, that should be directed at the cover-up not the disaster itself.

Will I Amnt

Welease wrote: »

Thats understandable.. but as per the query in the Guardian..

If they are completely absolutely 100% innocent and want everyone to know that.. then wouldn't releasing the documentation make sense????

Of course,doesn't mean you should question a lads morality on the internet over it.

acquiescefc

citytillidie wrote: »

Seemed SWFC were all about the cost and cutting corners when it came to their stadium

Please explain what basis you use the term 'cutting corners'. They are a business and they have insurance for eventualities like anybody else. Its not like they sent a bill to LFC to pay for damage.(this is not meant in any way a joke, this is how the implication sounds)

Im not saying the club is innocent, but potentially guilty of what? I believe our safety certificate wasnt up to date, but the FA sanctioned the game due to location and we've had numerous semi's and no problems occurred with the same levels of support.

amiable

acquiescefc wrote: »

Im not saying the club is innocent, but potentially guilty of what? I believe our safety certificate wasnt up to date, but the FA sanctioned the game due to location and we've had numerous semi's and no problems occurred with the same levels of support.

That's like telling the Police when you are caught drink driving that you have done it lots of times and not crashed.

In saying all that I honestly don't know if Sheffield Wednesday are to blame. In other words, I am not blaming the club.

Welease

cambo2008 wrote: »

Of course,doesn't mean you should question a lads morality on the internet over it.

I assume you don't mean me.. I never questioned anyone's morality..

I (and others) were merely pointing out that he cannot be sure SWFC are 100% innocent, as they (or their insurers) have not released that information. If they are desperate not to be assigned unfair blame and are infact 100% innocent, then surely releasing that information would be a priority?

Lets not rat hole here.. the issues was and still is sadly (in the case of RSA/SWFC), that many organisation were refusing to release important information on what exactly happened.. and in terms of the primary issue of truth.... they argueably continue to be 100% guilty of obstructing the truth..

Will I Amnt

Welease wrote: »

I assume you don't mean me.. I never questioned anyone's morality..

I (and others) were merely pointing out that he cannot be sure SWFC are 100% innocent, as they (or their insurers) have not released that information. If they are desperate not to be assigned unfair blame and are infact 100% innocent, then surely releasing that information would be a priority?

Lets not rat hole here.. the issues was and still is sadly (in the case of RSA/SWFC), that many organisation were refusing to release important information on what exactly happened.. and in terms of the primary issue of truth.... they argueably continue to be 100% guilty of obstructing the truth..

Not you mate.It was a silly comment from another poster,I'm not here to defend SWFC,just annoyed by said comment.

Jelle1880

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/13/hillsborough-disaster-sun

What the actual ****.

missingtime

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-daily-cartoon-760940.html

billybudd

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/13/hillsborough-disaster-sun

What the actual ****.

Bizzarre alright, wonder what the Guardian are up to its like they think the s*n have just recieved this news yesterday and that they had no inkling they where wrong 23 yrs ago.

billybudd

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/13/hillsborough-disaster-sun

What the actual ****.

Bizarre alright i mean the way the Guardian are going on you would think the s*n had no inkling they where wrong until yesterday when ive no doubt they knew they where wrong 23 yrs ago.

billybudd

acquiescefc wrote: »

Please explain what basis you use the term 'cutting corners'. They are a business and they have insurance for eventualities like anybody else. Its not like they sent a bill to LFC to pay for damage.(this is not meant in any way a joke, this is how the implication sounds)

Im not saying the club is innocent, but potentially guilty of what? I believe our safety certificate wasnt up to date, but the FA sanctioned the game due to location and we've had numerous semi's and no problems occurred with the same levels of support.

Your posts are being a bit precious, the fact is that all involved that day should be investigated and either cleared or found gulity and that includes SWFC, the FA and so on and so forth.

It would be wong to just rest on the truth, justice needs to be done now.

amiable

billybudd wrote: »

Bizarre alright i mean the way the Guardian are going on you would think the s*n had no inkling they where wrong until yesterday when ive no doubt they knew they where wrong 23 yrs ago.

To be fair that is a blog piece in the Guardian

billybudd

amiable wrote: »

To be fair that is a blog piece in the Guardian

Didnt realise that. Thanks.

wonderfullife

Micky Quinn going MENTAL on the radio (Talksport) right now about The Sun, i'm actually worried for Jason Cundy sitting so close to him!!