The cover up started almost immediately
The bishop of Liverpool head of the independent enquiry to an event that happened in Sheffield âŚand would have attended most of those funerals . Thatâs nice if you can get it I suppose
Oh it was made a public issue alright. A very public issue. Without any evidence whatsoever.
- There was no evidence to support the proposition that alcohol played any part in the genesis of the disaster and it is regrettable that those in positions of responsibility created and promoted a portrayal of drunkenness as contributing to the occurrence of the disaster and the ensuing loss of life without substantiating evidence.
Yes. The same sort of cover up that happened in heysel and Athens . More very interesting deduction and approaches here, Iâd encourage you all to read this its composition and terms of reference
No forest fans interviewed , that was a right beano for the Liverpool side
-
The restricted approach to the Leppings Lane end and the comparatively low number of turnstiles resulted in inevitable congestion and delays in entering the stadium at capacity matches. The HSE noted that the number of fans that had to pass through each of the Leppings Lane turnstiles was between 2.9 and 3.5 times higher than at turnstiles serving other parts of the stadium. The calculated rate of admission shows that the crowd could not have completed entering the ground until approximately 40 minutes after the kick-off.
-
Following the publication of the Taylor Report, the Prime Minister was briefed that âthe defensive - and at times close to deceitful - behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiarâ. The Government did not seek to protect the SYP Chief Constable and it was considered inevitable that he would resign. His resignation, however, was rejected by South Yorkshire Police Authority.
-
Access to Cabinet documents reveals that in an exchange about her Government âwelcoming the Reportâ the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, expressed her concern that the âbroad thrustâ of the Taylor Report constituted a âdevastating criticism of the policeâ.
-
From the documents disclosed to the Panel it is apparent that the decision to gather self-taken recollections from SYP officers, rather than following the standard procedure of contemporaneous pocket-book entries as the foundation for formal Criminal Justice Act statements, originated in the immediate aftermath of the disaster on 16 and 17 April. The initial justification was to provide SYP and the Force solicitors with candid, âwarts-and-allâ accounts from officers that would be used to inform SYPâs submission to the Taylor Inquiry.
-
What followed, however, was an extensive process of review and alteration of the recollections and their transition to multi-purpose statements. The disclosed documents reveal confusion about the purpose of recollections, initially taken for SYP âinternalâ purposes, and their subsequent use by the WMP investigation. It was brought into stark relief in the confusion surrounding the status of statements presented to the Taylor Inquiry and the Inquiryâs acceptance of the âfinal versionsâ of the reviewed and altered statements.
[B]131. Examination of officersâ statements shows that officers were discouraged from making criticisms of senior officersâ responses, their management and deficiencies in the SYP operational response: âkeyâ words and descriptions such as âchaoticâ were counselled against and, if included, were deleted.
-
Some 116 of the 164 statements identified for substantive amendment were amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to SYP.[/B]
-
As the severity of the disaster was becoming apparent, SYP Match Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, told a falsehood to senior officials that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and caused an inrush into the central pens thus causing the fatal crush. While later discredited, this unfounded allegation was broadcast internationally and was the first explanation of the cause of the disaster to enter the public domain.
That there is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
The only persons reinterviewed were the families of the deceased. Nobody else was given right to reply , which is fine givens the terms of reference but not so clear if you are using it to dispel the possibility that the actions of certain factions of the Liverpool âsupportâ contributed to the events
From my brief reading no police officer or person in command lost their jobs ? Is that true ?
Youâre some man in fairness to try keep the joke going⌠Can you tell me tho, what was PM of England apologising for last year?
None of those in bloody Sunday lost their jobs either afaik.
In fact some of the police won substantial damages for post traumatic stress disorder.
Later overturned by the Law Lords.
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords
Like the case of [I][U]Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[/U][/I], this case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of spectators to one end of the stadium which resulted in the fatal crush in which 95 people were killed and over 400 were physically injured. Whilst Alcock, involved claims by relatives, this case involved claims for psychiatric injury from police officers who were on duty that day . Their claims differ from those in Alcock, in that they based their claims on the grounds that as employees, the defendant owed them a duty of care not to cause them psychiatric injury as a result of negligence, alternatively they claim as rescuers, which they argued promoted them to primary victims as oppose to secondary victims. At trial Waller J dismissed the claims on both grounds. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision. The Defendant appealed to the House of Lords.
Held:
The appeal was allowed, the claimants were not entitled to recover for the psychiatric injury. (Lord Goff dissenting on both grounds, Lord Griffiths dissenting on the employment ground)
Whilst an employer owes a duty of care to employees not to cause them physical harm and there is some authority supporting claims for psychiatric injury caused by excessive stress imposed by the employer, there is no authority to support a finding of liability for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing horrific injuries to others. With regards to rescuers, their status as rescuers does not automatically place them as primary victims. To amount to a primary victim, even a rescuer must demonstrate that they are in the zone of physical danger. Since, the claimants were not themselves at risk of physical injury, their claims could not succeed.
This case is often explained on the grounds of policy, in that it would be repugnant to allow the police officers to recover where relatives had been denied compensation. This is supported by the following comments:
Lord Steyn:
âit is common ground that police officers who are traumatized by something they encounter in their work have the benefit of statutory schemes which permit them to retire on pension. In this sense they are already better off than bereaved relatives who were not allowed to recover in Alcock. The claim of the police officers on our sympathy, and the justice of the case, is great but not as great as that of others to whom the law denies redress.â
Lord Hoffman:
âBut I think that such an extension would be unacceptable to the ordinary person because (though he might not put it this way) it would offend against his notions of distributive justice. He would think it unfair between one class of claimants and another, at best not treating like cases alike and, at worst, favouring the less deserving against the more deserving. He would think it wrong that policemen, even as part of a general class of persons who rendered assistance, should have the right to compensation for psychiatric injury out of public funds while the bereaved relatives are sent away with nothing.â
I wouldnât bother mate. You donât have the intelligence.
And as has been borne out in your subsequent comments.
@Sidney[/USER] and [USER=2272]@TheUlteriorMotive
Please stop engaging that simpleton. Soon he will figure out that the world is round.
Its no joke TUM
Itâs clear the terms of reference were setup to appease and give the relatives of the dead some closure, itâs also clear that there was huge crowd control issues and negligence also on that side. Itâs also clear that the behaviour of the Liverpool fans and their numbers arriving without tickets also had and bearing on the events and however unpalatable it might seem, itâs important today that the people of Liverpool stand up and recognise that a section of their fans were ticketless hooligans , and contributed in no immeasurable way to some of the worst atrocities of the 80s. You canât have your hillsboroughs and forget your heysels
Thatâs if you want true closure and a clean slate. I doubt thatâs the agenda at play here though, we saw last year how art foley and Sidney were willing to stand out front and centre in front of a player who racially abused another simply because he wore a liverpool shirt.People like their mobs and they like running with them. Until thatâs recognised and confronted youâll have more heysels, hillsboroughs and best selling books re âhow i ran with the firmâ and all the associated shit that goes with it
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 932381, member: 24â]I wouldnât bother mate. You donât have the intelligence.
And as has been borne out in your subsequent comments.[/QUOTE]
I thought stated 4 pages back you were fucking off?
The kid started off wumming and now he believes this shit. And dodgy/baldrick cheerleading.
Whoâs baldrick?
Can anyone tell me why the PM of England apologized to the families of Hillsborough last year? ⌠Kid wumming is one things, very surprised at others here.
Signing off.
The same reason he apologised to the victims of Bloody Sunday ( not that I have the gall to equate the two) but that still doesnât mean the republicans who fired shots that day were innocent does it ? Iâll complete the analogy for you if you wish