Hillsborough document release

[Strix]

That should be a sticky - it relates to all threads.

Don't get me started on the 'all posts must contribute to the thread' rule. Around 80% of all posts on this whole forum should be removed these days under this rule

 

There, now you've got me posting off topic too

[LeMaquis]

With whom did he conspire?

 

"Sir Norman’s decision comes two days after Merseyside MP Maria Eagle told the Commons about the claim the chief constable had bragged about “concocting” a story about Hillsborough.

 

She read from a letter sent by retired civil servant John Barry, who later repeated his allegations in TV interviews.

 

Mr Barry said: “Norman Bettison stood opposite me and said ‘I’ve been asked by senior officers to pull together the South Yorkshire Police evidence of the public inquiry and we’re going to try and concoct a story that all the Liverpool fans were drunk and that we were afraid they were going to force down the gates, so we decided to open them’."

 

 

From http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/video-west-yorkshire-police-chief-norman-bettison-quits-over-hillsborough-cover-up-1-5055594

[Strix]

"Sir Norman’s decision comes two days after Merseyside MP Maria Eagle told the Commons about the claim the chief constable had bragged about “concocting” a story about Hillsborough.

 

She read from a letter sent by retired civil servant John Barry, who later repeated his allegations in TV interviews.

 

Mr Barry said: “Norman Bettison stood opposite me and said ‘I’ve been asked by senior officers to pull together the South Yorkshire Police evidence of the public inquiry and we’re going to try and concoct a story that all the Liverpool fans were drunk and that we were afraid they were going to force down the gates, so we decided to open them’."

 

 

From http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/video-west-yorkshire-police-chief-norman-bettison-quits-over-hillsborough-cover-up-1-5055594

Such a shame we don't have specific names for those officers. Has he given them subsequently? Does the paper trail show which senior officers were those he refers to?

[LeMaquis]

Such a shame we don't have specific names for those officers. Has he given them subsequently? Does the paper trail show which senior officers were those he refers to?

 

I have no evidence other than the quote. However senior officers can't refer to too many people. The inquiry would have to ask who would benefit from a cover-up and who could order such a cover-up i.e. those who stood to be disgraced by the truth coming out and those with the authority to command others to cover things up. There can only be a few people who'd fall into those categories. And I'm sure Bettison will be asked although whether he'll be forthcoming with evidence we'll have to wait and see.

 

There will be plenty of officers and clerical staff who will be willing to admit that reports were tampered with. There will be evidence of tampering. Some of it has already come out.

[Strix]

Hmmm, I read that article too

 

Of course he could just mention anybody who is already dead...

[rossyrooney]

I am curious as to why you chose to focus on killing and being drunk and disorderly and ignore the plethora of other charges that could be levelled at the various individuals and organisations being investigated?

 

I wonder what you may be alluding to?

 

Defending Patnick and now Bettison - as investigations proceed your position on these two may become untenable - I hope, if it does, you will have the grace to admit you were wrong. We shall see what the future brings.

 

Has Patnick been exonerated after his apology,or is he to be subjected to more questioning?

[mikem8634]

Has Patnick been exonerated after his apology,or is he to be subjected to more questioning?

 

MP in call to strip Sir Irvine Patnick of knighthood

 

Sir Irvine Patnick said he had been given "wholly inaccurate" information by police

Continue reading the main story

Hillsborough papers

 

Profile: Sir Norman Bettison

Charges still possible: IPCC

Bettison quits over Hillsborough

Hillsborough: 1,444 police named

A former lord mayor of Liverpool and now Labour MP has called for the former Tory MP Sir Irvine Patnick to be stripped of his knighthood.

 

Sir Irvine, who represented Sheffield Hallam between 1987 and 1997, was knighted in 1980.

 

But he was later confirmed as a source for the Sun in smearing Liverpool fans after the Hillsborough disaster.

 

Labour's Steve Rotherham said scrapping "Patnick's knighthood" was a job for the forfeiture committee.

 

Ninety-six Liverpool fans died after the crush at Sheffield Wednesday's stadium during the 1989 FA Cup semi-final with Nottingham Forest.

 

Speaking in the Commons, Steve Rotheram, Liverpool Walton MP, said the honour should be examined.

 

Sir Irvine was criticised in the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report on the Hillsborough disaster published on 12 September.

 

It found that the sources for the Sun's story which had the headline "The Truth" was a news agency reporting conversations with South Yorkshire Police and Irvine Patnick, the then MP for Sheffield Hallam.

 

'Shift blame onto fans'

Sir Irvine has already apologised for his comments saying he was "deeply and sincerely sorry" and insisted he had been given "wholly inaccurate" information by police officers.

 

Mr Rotheram said Sir Irvine had first questioned the behaviour of Liverpool fans in the Commons just two days after the tragedy.

 

He said: "The April 17 1989 Hansard makes for particularly interesting reading.

 

"It was clear even then that there were those in this place seeking to shift the blame onto the fans for the disaster.

 

"No one more ignorant to the facts than Irvine Patnick, the then Tory MP for Sheffield Hallam, who asked the home secretary to 'examine the part that alcohol played in the disaster'.

 

"Why, on what basis, did he ask that question?"

 

Mr Rotheram said: "I think if there was ever a job for the forfeiture committee, surely the scrapping of Patnick's knighthood would be it."

 

The Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson has also called for Sir Irvine to be stripped of his knighthood following the publication of the report.

 

Mr Anderson said he had "brought the Honours system into disrepute" and helped to bring "overwhelming misery" to the people of Liverpool.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20036787

 

In my opinion Patnick still has some questions to answer - the main one being why did he not take any notice of the senior police officer who told him to take the now discredited allegations made by other officers "with a pinch of salt"?

 

His role in this is yet to be defined and I'm not aware of any current investigation which is seeking to define it (please correct me if I am wrong). Is he, as he makes out, an innocent pawn who simply exercised poor judgement or was he the filthy oil that greased the wheels of black propaganda? I have my suspicions but I cannot say I know for sure.

 

See Therese Coffey's speech at the Hillsborough Report Debate 22/10/12 for another perspective on Patnick's 'judgement'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9761000/9761115.stm around 1:42.

 

If there is to be no investigation into, and no charges are to be brought against, Patnick then I would prefer not to waste precious resources in seeking to refer him to the Forfeiture Committee at the current time. Should such a time arrive when it would not be a drain on the resources needed to provide justice I would welcome a questioning of his status as a peer via the Forfeiture Committee.

Edited October 24, 2012 by mikem8634

[Anna Glypta]

In my opinion Patnick still has some questions to answer - the main one being why did he not take any notice of the senior police officer who told him to take the now discredited allegations made by other officers "with a pinch of salt"?

 

 

As far as I can make out that's exactly what he did. When he repeated stories he had been told he added that he had no way of corroborating the stories. Most papers printed that. The Sun of course did not.

The Sun journalist who wrote the story used a headline asking

"Is this the Truth?. His editor altered that to THE TRUTH. Hence the Sun's castigation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-19507065

Edited October 24, 2012 by Anna Glypta

[rossyrooney]

Thank you Mikem,very illuminating,it seems Therese Coffey doesn't rate our Mr. Patnick very highly at all.

[mikem8634]

As far as I can make out that's exactly what he did. When he repeated stories he had been told he added that he had no way of corroborating the stories. Most papers printed that. The Sun of course did not.

The Sun journalist who wrote the story used a headline asking

"Is this the Truth?. His editor altered that to THE TRUTH. Hence the Sun's castigation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-19507065

 

Hi Anna, I'm familiar with Harry Arnold's position thanks. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of some verification for the bit in bold. I would be especially surprised as Patnick himself has said in his apology "I totally accept responsibility for passing on such information without asking further questions." http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/13/hillsborough-tragedy-sir-irvine-patnick-apologises-role-in-the-sun-coverage_n_1881282.html

 

 

 

I have found the following quote, however, from a communication between Whites News Agency (whose role in the dissemination of the SYP lies is well-documented) to the news editor of The London Standard.

 

"During the afternoon of the 13th we received further information which was filed to you as the day progressed (catchlined 'pocket' and 'patnick') adding allegations of fans stealing property of (sic) the dead and later quotes from a leading MP backing up many of the police claims."

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/NGN000000070001.pdf

 

 

In full from the report pg 344 -

 

2.12.62 In a section entitled ‘Patnick 1’ White’s noted that Irvine Patnick ‘backed up police claims that Liverpool fans attacked and urinated on them as they tended to the injured and dying’. Mr Patnick was quoted as saying:I spoke to many policemen in the makeshift mortuary afterwards. They told me they were hampered, harassed, punched, kicked and urinated on by Liverpool fans.

 

2.12.63 Mr Patnick claimed he had ‘kept quiet about this’ because he ‘did not want to inflame a delicate situation’. He continued:But it is a fact that these are the stories they told me and they had no reason to lie. I saw the bruising on their bodies and the state they were in and there is no doubt in my mind it is true. All this happened to them and yet they carried on doing their job trying to save lives and now they are being blamed. One important question that must be answered is what part alcohol played in this whole tragic business.

 

2.12.64 These were the statements underpinning the coverage of 18 and 19 April, including The Sun’s coverage that resulted in so much opprobrium.

 

 

It doesn't sound like he is taking much of an objective position here does it? He doesn't really seem to draw any attention whatsoever to notions like hearsay and corroboration. In fact it seems like he is giving his Knight of the Realm M.P. seal of approval to the most insidious cover-up this country has ever witnessed.

Edited October 25, 2012 by mikem8634