Hillsborough document release

[mumkin]

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/prosecutions-call-over-lack-of-hillsborough-stadium-safety-certificate-1-4927865

 

It's not a 'weapon', just a fact.

 

Yep, a fact that they had a valid safety cert.

[Mr Bloom]

Yep, a fact that they had a valid safety cert.

 

Sorry, is the link not working?

 

Here you go, then:

 

 

CALLS have been made for prosecutions over the failure to ensure Hillsborough stadium had a valid safety certificate at the time of the 1989 disaster.

 

 

Top barrister Michael Mansfield QC, acting on behalf of families of the 96 Liverpool fans killed, said there was serious negligence.

 

He said: “There was no safety certificate then. They breached the safety rules, that is the beginning of serious negligence and there is a causational relationship here which the director of public prosecutions will have to look at.

 

“There’s more than the police here, it’s not just the police.

 

“Sheffield Wednesday need to answer some questions and the Sheffield authorities too on that score.”

 

But Sheffield South East Labour MP Clive Betts, city council leader at the time of the disaster, said: “The process surrounding safety certificates was handled by a committee of officers with delegated powers and it was not the responsibility of councillors.”

 

Concern about the council and Sheffield Wednesday was contained in the interim report of Lord Taylor.

 

The Taylor report revealed Hillsborough’s safety certificate had been unchanged since 1979 despite several changes to the layout of the stadium in the following decade - rendering the certificate invalid.

 

Changes included division of the Leppings Lane stand into ‘pens’ after a crush in an FA Cup semi final at the ground in 1981, when there were injuries but no fatalities.

 

Police wanted the 10,100 capacity of the Leppings Lane terraces to be reduced.

 

But although changes were made to the layout, the capacity of the new ‘pens’ was not fully calculated.

 

A crush barrier near the entrance to pens three and four was also removed after a request by police, to ‘assist the flow of fans’.

 

There were no electronic or mechanical means for counting numbers of fans entering pens.

 

To remain valid, Hillsborough’s safety certificate should have been changed to specify the maximum number of people allowed into different parts of the ground after layouts were altered.

 

In his summary, Lord Taylor said: “The performance of the city council of its duties in regard to the safety certificate was inefficient and dilatory.

 

“The failure to revise or amend the certificate over the period of three years preceding this disaster despite important changes in the layout of the ground, was a serious breach of duty.”

[Hemibr]

Didnt see the new footage released on the Panorama program this week.

 

Is this unreleased footage to the public / media which the inquest viewed or is is it from the "broken" cctv from the day and simply hidden away from everyone along with the police statements ?

 

If it is the latter then exactly whose job is it to impound footage in S Yorks when it shows awkward images as per the menezes case on the tube.

 

Reason for asking is a S Yorks camera patrol car and officer bringing speeding charges then informing the court that the cameras werent operating in the car when a defence was put up against the statement evidence of two officers.

 

How widespread is this practice ?

[Mr Bloom]

Didnt see the new footage released on the Panorama program this week.

 

Is this unreleased footage to the public / media which the inquest viewed or is is it from the "broken" cctv from the day and simply hidden away from everyone along with the police statements ?

 

If it is the latter then exactly whose job is it to impound footage in S Yorks when it shows awkward images as per the menezes case on the tube.

 

Reason for asking is a S Yorks camera patrol car and officer bringing speeding charges then informing the court that the cameras werent operating in the car when a defence was put up against the statement evidence of two officers.

 

How widespread is this practice ?

 

The Panorama programme showed that West Midlands police who were supposed to be investigating South Yorkshire police had withheld vital evidence from the coroner and failed to raise the issue of statement tampering which was evident. So I guess, this type of thing is pretty widespread. I thought of you, as it showed people a signature and then talked about the statement - and I remembered you were looking for signatures to match up.

[mumkin]

Sorry, is the link not working?

 

Here you go, then:

 

 

 

“The failure to revise or amend the certificate over the period of three years preceding this disaster despite important changes in the layout of the ground, was a serious breach of duty.”

 

So there was an active certificate, just not revised.

 

It would also seem that Liverpool fans didn't learn by their actions at Hillsborough.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/24/uefa-liverpool-fans-to-blame-for-ticket-chaos-400126/

[Mr Bloom]

So there was an active certificate, just not revised.

 

You've made it quite clear that you don't have a clue what you're posting about.

[mumkin]

You've made it quite clear that you don't have a clue what you're posting about.

 

I've made it clear on a number of occasions that I was there (at Hillsborough) and reported upon what I saw/witnessed first hand.. Were you?

[Mr Bloom]

I've made it clear on a number of occasions that I was there (at Hillsborough) and reported upon what I saw/witnessed first hand.. Were you?

 

That makes it even more of a shame that you spout rubbish on the internet about the disaster, without knowing what you are talking about, and still fail to acknowledge the truth when it is presented to you in black and white. I suppose you witnessed first hand that there was a fictitious valid safety certificate on the day?

 

No, I wasn't, thank God.

[mumkin]

That makes it even more of a shame that you spout rubbish on the internet about the disaster, without knowing what you are talking about, and still fail to acknowledge the truth when it is presented to you in black and white. I suppose you witnessed first hand that there was a fictitious valid safety certificate on the day?

 

No, I wasn't, thank God.

 

I think you'll find that there was a safety certificate in place at the time albeit ready for renewal by the SCC. At this point in time hardly any other football grounds had a "valid safety certificate, Hillsborough was one of the few that had one albeit etc etc. You should research a bit further than the blind and unwilling "truth mongers" of the press.

 

I notice (not surprisingly) that you completely ignored the link to the ticketless fans report.

It seems to me that you completely disregard the fact ticketless and drunken fans were in the slightest responsible(or contributing factor) for/of the incident.

 

Had you been there, maybe your whole outlook on this topic would be completely different.

[Mr Bloom]

I think you'll find that there was a safety certificate in place at the time albeit ready for renewal by the SCC. At this point in time hardly any other football grounds had a "valid safety certificate, Hillsborough was one of the few that had one albeit etc etc. You should research a bit further than the blind and unwilling "truth mongers" of the press.

 

I notice (not surprisingly) that you completely ignored the link to the ticketless fans report.

It seems to me that you completely disregard the fact ticketless and drunken fans were in the slightest responsible(or contributing factor) for/of the incident.

 

Had you been there, maybe your whole outlook on this topic would be completely different.

 

I think you'll find, if you read the article I provided a link to, that the safety certificate was not valid because the section capacities had not been re-assessed after the alterations, which rendered it invalid and therefore, worthless.

 

The fact that other clubs also failed to have current valid safety certificates at that time is of little comfort to the Hillsborough Families, I'm sure.

 

No, I didn't ignore your link, I followed it to find an article about ticketless fans that has nothing to do with the Hillsborough Disaster.

 

I find it difficult to comprehend why you would insist that Hillsborough had a valid safety certificate in place at the time of the Hillsborough Disaster, even after unequivocal evidence has been put in front of you.

 

Are you still maintaining that Hillsborough had a valid safety certificate at the time?