Hillsborough document release

[Darth Vader]

 

 

....Bettison's statement

 

that Liverpool fans made policing Hillsborough ‘more difficult than it needed to be’

 

 

I wonder if he meant the Liverpool fans' behaviour AFTER the disaster made the police's cover up difficult?

[Darth Vader]

Were there more prisoners than usual? Less bobbys than usual? If you have found those figures (I know the number of police assigned to LL, so no need to show that one), then I'd love to read that - as you know if you've been reading the downloads, there is a LOT to get through. Even if there were more than usual, they still HAVEN'T caused the disaster, but to suggest that these details aren't contributory to the whole series of events, I find slightly perplexing.

 

Too few police then. Would it have made a difference to the whole outcome? Don't know. Nobody does.

 

You're clutching at straws here, ash, but I'll humour you.

 

SYP were in charge of 'policing' the event and 'policing' the crowd, just as they had been for years previously. IF there were more 'prisoners' than usual, what does that prove, ash? a) Worse behaviour than normal? - That's been investigated thoroughly, and evidence has proved otherwise. b)The police were clamping down more heavily on fans than in previous years? - The emphasis was evidently more about suppressing any hooligan element, than it was about crowd safety, according to information we have, so possibly. Even if we did have the information on 'prisoner' numbers, it proves absolutely nothing.

 

Also, a good manager, would never allow a situation to occur where too many staff are occupied with one element, at the expense of all others, anyway.

[Strix]

I really can't understand how you two, mike and ash, got into such a squabble

 

Many of the posters on this topic, in previous threads and this, have had very polarised views. Ash on the other hand has always acknowledged that elements which have been 'identified' and singled out by those posters as the one and only specific cause of this whole event (e.g. 'unruly fans'), were there, but were hardly the absolute root cause

 

I don't understand why taking a grey view instead of a black or white one is such a problem mike

 

Ash has always been of the opinion that the entire scenario was predictable based on historic events, and has long lamented that fact

 

Can you two stop getting bogged down in arguing the same point with different words? It'll only lead to more thread pruning, or closure (again)

[mikem8634]

I really can't understand how you two, mike and ash, got into such a squabble

 

Many of the posters on this topic, in previous threads and this, have had very polarised views. Ash on the other hand has always acknowledged that elements which have been 'identified' and singled out by those posters as the one and only specific cause of this whole event (e.g. 'unruly fans'), were there, but were hardly the absolute root cause

 

I don't understand why taking a grey view instead of a black or white one is such a problem mike

 

Ash has always been of the opinion that the entire scenario was predictable based on historic events, and has long lamented that fact

 

Can you two stop getting bogged down in arguing the same point with different words? It'll only lead to more thread pruning, or closure (again)

 

 

 

I get your point Strix and it is well made, thanks. I will attempt an explanation.

 

From my point of view it began when Ash presented evidence to support the picture of Liverpool fans 'not conforming to rule'. The much quoted photos.

 

I then provided counter-evidence which proved the photos (which he had interpreted as unruly behaviour) showed survival behaviour actually assisted by the police.

 

At no point did Ash acknowledge that he had been mistaken and retract his suggestion that he had evidence of Liverpool fans 'not conforming to rule'. Acknowledging the evidence of the counter argument is an essential part of civilised debate. Had Ash managed to prove me wrong I would have accepted it. The fact that he didn't and moved on to his next point (which, funnily enough also included a reference to poor fan behaviour) reflects upon his credibility as an open-minded debater and makes me wonder if I am wasting my time.

 

If Ash does have the impartial properties you suggest then I look forward to his future epistles from the evidence that do not include references to poor behaviour from the fans.

[mikem8634]

You're clutching at straws here, ash, but I'll humour you.

 

SYP were in charge of 'policing' the event and 'policing' the crowd, just as they had been for years previously. IF there were more 'prisoners' than usual, what does that prove, ash? a) Worse behaviour than normal? - That's been investigated thoroughly, and evidence has proved otherwise. b)The police were clamping down more heavily on fans than in previous years? - The emphasis was evidently more about suppressing any hooligan element, than it was about crowd safety, according to information we have, so possibly. Even if we did have the information on 'prisoner' numbers, it proves absolutely nothing.

 

Also, a good manager, would never allow a situation to occur where too many staff are occupied with one element, at the expense of all others, anyway.

 

Quite right. The evidence provided here by Ash ( PC Huckstepp's statement) was available to every investigation and enquiry that has taken place and it has been disregarded by all. If it carried any weight I think it is a fair assumption that the smear campaign at least might have latched on to it.

 

PC Huckstepp's statement has only been deemed significant to the cover-up and not the disaster and that is because his final paragraph criticising the police operation was initially removed.

[Strix]

Mike, I KNOW the reasons for Ash's perspective on this, and I (as a Scouser who had two relatives in the ground that day) respect his opinion all the more for it

 

Please accept that you both are really singing from the same hymnsheet on this, but that the camp who claim there were absolutely no unruly fans are wearing their rose tinted glasses

 

Thank you for highlighting to the readers of this thread that some of the photographs held up as evidence of bad behaviour really were people behaving in desparation - the same as the spin put on the 'pitch invasion'

 

Edit: I think you're also missing the fact that Ash will post in a similar fashion to myself, and raise questions for discussion rather than tabling them in a loaded fashion with preconceived ideas to the answers. When I read the links, I too was curious as to why the number of officers had depleted to just two. I would be interested to know whether (with the lack of communication facilities) officers leaving the gate with arrested fans had not returned having become embroiled in more drastic incidents, for instance

Edited October 17, 2012 by Strix

[mikem8634]

Mike, I KNOW the reasons for Ash's perspective on this, and I (as a Scouser who had two relatives in the ground that day) respect his opinion all the more for it

 

Please accept that you both are really singing from the same hymnsheet on this, but that the camp who claim there were absolutely no unruly fans are wearing their rose tinted glasses

 

Thank you for highlighting to the readers of this thread that some of the photographs held up as evidence of bad behaviour really were people behaving in desparation - the same as the spin put on the 'pitch invasion'

 

I certainly don't believe that and have said so. Some were undoubtedly unruly (as are elements of probably every football crowd) but it just wasn't a significant factor in how events unfolded on that day.

 

I feel I am treading on some highly personal ground here and, as a result, I will stop.

 

Thanks Strix and apologies to Ash if I have caused any distress.

Edited October 17, 2012 by mikem8634

[Strix]

thanks mike

 

(I think you may have been typing when I added an edit to my post above)

[mikem8634]

Fresh inquests on the way.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19960279

 

 

The Attorney General is applying to have the verdicts in the inquest into the 96 deaths at Hillsborough quashed.

 

Dominic Grieve QC announced the move in Parliament in his response to the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report published on 12 September.

 

The report revealed 41 fans could potentially have been saved.

 

The victims' families have always challenged the original inquest verdict of accidental death.

 

Mr Grieve said his consideration of the evidence was far from over, but he was taking the exceptional step of indicating he must apply to the High Court for new inquests to be held on the basis of the evidence he has already read.

 

He told the Commons: "I will apply to have every one of those 96 inquests quashed.

 

"I believe that these deaths, arising as they do from a common chain of events, should all be considered afresh."

 

'Sensible decision'

He added that any criminal proceedings would have an impact on when a new inquest could take place but he said this would not affect the timing of his application to have the original verdicts overturned.

 

Mr Grieve also said the resources for fresh inquests would be funded by taxpayers.

 

 

 

Joshua Rozenberg

BBC Radio 4, Law in Action

The Attorney General's announcement does not necessarily mean that new inquests will be held into the deaths of all 96 people who died in the Hillsborough disaster.

 

Still less does it mean that criminal charges will follow. But Dominic Grieve's request is likely to be granted by the High Court, leading to fresh inquests.

 

It is also likely that the original verdicts of accidental death will be quashed.

 

The Attorney General's announcement raises the possibility that new inquests will return narrative verdicts recording that some of the Liverpool fans might have survived if mistakes had not been made in 1989.

 

 

When asked about where the inquests would take place if the application was successful, he said it would be for the court and coroner to decide if the hearings would take place in Liverpool, as the victims' families have requested.

 

He also told MPs Home Secretary Theresa May will lead a debate on the Hillsborough panel's report in the Commons on Monday.

 

Michael Mansfield QC, who is representing Hillsborough families, said it was an "extremely sensible decision" to apply for fresh inquests.

 

He said: "I think it is very welcome especially as the families have suffered so much anguish for so long.

 

"The original inquest was conducted on a false basis and many families refused to accept death certificates until a proper, thorough and independent hearing takes place."

 

Liverpool Walton MP Steve Rotheram said the move "marks one of the biggest steps forward in the fight for justice for the families in 23 years".

 

He said: "The undeniable fact is that the original inquest was unsound and this application, if successful, will mean that evidence will be able to be heard after the 3.15pm cut off imposed by the original coroner in the 1989 inquests," he said.

 

Police wrongdoing

The Hillsborough Independent Panel spent 18 months looking through more than 450,000 pages of documents relating to the fatal crush at the Hillsborough stadium during Liverpool's FA Cup semi-final match against Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989.

 

 

Chief Constable David Crompton gave evidence to a select committee

It found the lives of 41 of the victims could potentially have been saved if the response of the emergency services had been swifter.

 

The Attorney General's announcement follows confirmation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Director of Public Prosecutions that the biggest ever independent investigation into police wrongdoing is to be carried out into the disaster.

 

South Yorkshire Police has announced it will give the IPCC details of officers on duty on the day of the Hillsborough disaster.

 

Chief Constable David Crompton told a parliamentary select committee there were 100 serving officers on duty, as well as hundreds now retired and some from other forces.

 

Mr Crompton, who agreed under questioning that some police had been "sick" to deflect blame on to Liverpool fans, said his force was not making decisions about officers' culpability and was leaving that to the IPCC.

 

Asked by committee member David Winnick what would represent "closure" for the force, the chief constable said prosecutions if officers had broken the law.

[Darth Vader]

Fresh inquests on the way.

 

 

That's good news for the families.