Hillsborough document release

[Darth Vader]

I can't ever recollect being 'filtered'.

 

Then again, I'd never been to a ground where just close to half the crowd entered into such a small corner area (edit, Barnsley away being the nearest I can think of).

 

I've been 'filtered' by police on my approach to Leppings Lane end, and at loads of other grounds - I remember Manchester games particularly, as it was very extensive, so that fans normally never had the chance to meet.

 

The Liverpool fans recalled being 'filtered' the year previous to the disaster at Hillsborough.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Darth Vader

[mikem8634]

Hots On and Jim Hardie - you both display an observable pattern of popping up making allegations about poor behaviour by the Liverpool fans.

 

What then happens is that you are challenged to provide evidence.

 

You the stick it out for a little bit without any evidence and then disappear until the next time.

 

Is that going to happen again?

 

The reason I ask is that if I repeatedly accused both of you of, for example, hiding inside post boxes and frightening the elderly, you would, quite reasonably, expect me to prove it or shut up.

 

Firstly, THAT is not evidence. that is your interpretation of a word I used which you then extrapolated into a theory.

 

Secondly, THIS is evidence - direct quote from the HIP report http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

 

 

Thirdly, this information (evidence) is freely available in the HIP report which is very easy to Google. Worse still I posted exactly this evidence 7 pages ago in post 822 - a page you also posted on. You have chosen not to read the evidence and continued to make baseless statements.

 

Lastly, can you, for a second, imagine the frustration of having to answer the same questions and challenge the same misconceptions time and time again?

 

Now, are you going to skulk away only to return a few pages later with a similar misconception?

 

Or are you going to acknowledge the evidence I have, once again, been forced to spoon-feed you and explain why you have not bothered to seek it out for yourself?

 

That is not you providing evidence that is you saying there is evidence.

 

Still, in the interests of balance and fairness if you think that there is evidence that can prove your point find it, post it and I'll have a look. Fair enough?

 

Once again, what you know is not evidence no matter how long you have been going to football matches. Evidence requires independent verification. Try saying something then backing it up with some proof that you can provide a link to.

 

So what about the evidence I have once again posted for you Jim (for the third time by the way)? Any response to that? Any counter evidence? It's all there in the report and if you have a look you won't find anyone saying 'well I just know cause I've been going to footy for ages' you will find layers and layers of evidence that blow your opinions out of the water.

 

 

 

Hots On and Jim Hardie - Looks like another disappearance as history repeats itself once again. Why keep running away from the evidence? I don't think you and your points of view have any credibility left now.

 

Let's move on and see what tomorrow's Commons debate brings.

Edited October 21, 2012 by mikem8634

[mikem8634]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8219531.html

 

 

 

 

Hillsborough: Now CPS is under fire

 

 

Senior prosecutor was at 1990 meeting that decided not to read all the eyewitness evidence

 

 

Related articles

 

CPS 'told of Hillsborough cover-up 14 years ago'

 

 

 

 

One of the most senior officials at the Crown Prosecution Service –which will decide whether South Yorkshire Police should be put in the dock over the Hillsborough disaster – was present when prosecutors decided in 1990 that they did not need to read all of the evidence before ruling out criminal charges.

 

 

Mike Kennedy, operations director at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), warned colleagues at the time that it could be "particularly embarrassing" if the public found out that the body had failed to read all the witness statements before reaching their momentous decision on who should be blamed for the tragedy, in which 96 Liverpool fans died.

 

The Independent on Sunday understands that the CPS did not consider all the witness statements so they could reach a "speedy conclusion", during a meeting in London nine months after the crush. Rather, they allowed the police to choose the evidence on which prosecutors based their decision.

 

Minutes of the meeting, released to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, reveal that: "Mr Kennedy indicated that he would be unhappy if that were to occur, particularly as there was a possibility of being discovered at a later stage [that not all the statements had been seen] … this might be particularly embarrassing if a decision not to prosecute was reached." A subsequent legal ruling recorded that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was sent "approximately 11 per cent" of the Hillsborough witness statements.

 

The revelations put the legal establishment in the spotlight over the official failure to get to the truth of what happened when 96 people died at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989. They also raised questions over whether Mr Kennedy should have any involvement in discussions over what happens next.

 

The present DPP, Keir Starmer, ordered a fresh inquiry this month after the panel revealed police had changed scores of statements in an attempt to push blame on to the fans. More than 200 serving and former officers are expected to be investigated.

 

But the CPS "Joint Opinion", issued in August 1990, ruled out charges against any organisations or individuals. The advice, from the late Lord Justice Williams and Peter Birts QC, has been used as a reference point ever since. The Hillsborough panel's report, released last month, stated that the Joint Opinion "was accepted by the CPS, apparently without further consideration".

 

Minutes from the meeting between Mr Birts, police officers and the CPS in January 1990, state: "There was considerable discussion to whether all the documentation, ie statements should be submitted to counsel [Mr Birts]." The document adds: "Mr Birts indicated he would be quite happy to read everything." The minutes also state that police should be told to "edit out superfluous material" from the statements.

 

A CPS spokeswoman last night insisted that a fresh team, not including Mr Kennedy, would review Hillsborough. She added: "There were no criticisms of the CPS in the panel report, and we are not specifically reviewing the previous decision-making. The DPP at the time took the advice of two highly distinguished counsel, Peter Birts QC and Gareth Williams QC … However, if when reviewing the material disclosed by the panel we reach different conclusions to those arrived at by the CPS previously, we will inevitably assess how and why any earlier decisions were taken."

 

Sheila Coleman, of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign, said the revelations about the original CPS review were "absolutely disgraceful". She added: "To only go through 11 per cent of the witness statements – it's unbelievable." Neither Mr Birts nor Mr Kennedy was available for comment yesterday.

[Michael_W]

Good youtube clip here of how the disaster was reported back in 1989, definately worth watching especially if your one of those people who have only read about how it was reported. The police generally getting the blame back then and not the Liverpool supporters, as some commentators would now have you believe, the exception being the foreign press and Jacques Georges the then president of UEFA.

[mikem8634]

Good youtube clip here of how the disaster was reported back in 1989, definately worth watching especially if your one of those people who have only read about how it was reported. The police generally getting the blame back then and not the Liverpool supporters, as some commentators would now have you believe, the exception being the foreign press and Jacques Georges the then president of UEFA.

 

Haven't watched your clip yet but I certainly will. Thanks.

 

Another point that is often missed is that Des Lynam on Match of the Day from the very day of the disaster comments on the good behaviour of the fans. At the end Jimmy Hill pretty much sums up a lot of what is only being accepted now thanks to The HIP report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUgbFssZ2xI

Edited October 23, 2012 by mikem8634

[mikem8634]

Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle claimed Sir Norman Bettison, who was a chief inspector with South Yorkshire Police at the time of the 1989 tragedy, revealed he had been asked to help "concoct" the force's version of events.

 

The claims come during a commons debate on the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report, which last month revealed some fans could have survived if emergency services had responded sooner, and blamed police for an official cover-up designed to smear innocent supporters.

 

Ms Eagle, a Merseyside MP, used parliamentary privilege to make the allegations which were based on new evidence from a witness who discussed the disaster with Sir Norman.

 

She said Sir Norman had "always denied any involvement in the dirty tricks campaign".

 

But she alleged he was behind the "black propaganda" campaign.

 

She quoted from a letter from John Barry, who was at Hillsborough for the FA Cup semi-final tie that led to the death of 96 Liverpool fans.

 

The letter, written in 1998 to a solicitor for the Hillsborough Family Support Group, was copied to Ms Eagle in 2009 and she has been given permission to make it public.

 

Ms Eagle said Mr Barry was studying part-time at Sheffield Business School where one of his fellow students was a "middle-ranking police officer".

 

Mr Barry wrote: "Some weeks after the game, and after I had been interviewed by West Midlands Police, we were in a pub after our weekly evening class.

 

"He told me that he had been asked by his senior officers to put together the South Yorkshire Police evidence for the forthcoming inquiry.

 

"He said that 'we are trying to concoct a story that all the Liverpool fans were drunk and we were afraid that they were going to break down the gates so we decided to open them'."

 

Ms Eagle said: "Mr Barry confirmed to me in the covering letter in 2009 that the middle-ranking police officer to whom he referred is Norman Bettison.

 

"He has agreed to swear a statement to that effect and I have put him in touch with the families' solicitors.

 

"Here we have an account of a contemporaneous conversation in which Norman Bettison boasted he is engaged in a South Yorkshire Police plot to fit up the Liverpool fans and deflect blame from the force.

 

"That is indeed what happened subsequently, so what Sir Norman denies in public he boasts about in private conversations."

 

Sir Norman, who has announced he will retire in March, faces two investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

 

Home Secretary Theresa May told the Commons that she would work with Labour to see if new laws were needed to compel former officers to co-operate with the IPCC.

 

She said the "thorough and wide-ranging" IPCC probe will focus on "potential criminality and police misconduct in respect of police officers, both serving and retired",

 

There were also calls during the debate for former Tory MP Sir Irvine Patnick to be stripped of his knighthood over his part in the smearing of Liverpool fans in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy.

 

Former lord mayor of Liverpool Steve Rotheram, now a Labour MP, said the forfeiture committee should examine the honour.

 

Sir Irvine, who was revealed as one of the sources behind The Sun's controversial coverage of the tragedy, has said he was "deeply and sincerely sorry".

 

He insisted he had been given "wholly inaccurate" information by police officers.

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/policeman-boasted-about-hillsborough-cover-up-mp-claims

 

 

There were many condemnations of Bettison and Patnick from both sides of the Commons today. If accepted as conclusive Bettison may have hanged himself - I just don't know if it could be corroborated. Either way he must be suspended until the investigation is complete. One of the charges levelled at him is that he sought to unduly influence an inquiry to leave him out of it. Unbelieveable. Another MP (not sure which - a geordie I think) said in all of his experience of workplace investigations and tribunals he has never seen a case where the person investigated is not suspended (apologies if I've got the gist of that bit wrong in any way as I'm typing it from memory)

 

Alec Shelbrooke in Commons today: 'I cannot say whether Norman Bettison is guilty of the allegations levelled against him but If the public are to have faith in IPCC report, they must be sure no undue influence has been brought to bear on it. Their position is otherwise untenable. He must suspend himself or be suspended while this is being examined.'

 

I just pray that if he is found to be guilty he is not allowed to use retirement as a hiding place.

Edited October 23, 2012 by mikem8634

[Strix]

Good youtube clip here of how the disaster was reported back in 1989, definately worth watching especially if your one of those people who have only read about how it was reported. The police generally getting the blame back then and not the Liverpool supporters, as some commentators would now have you believe, the exception being the foreign press and Jacques Georges the then president of UEFA.

 

that's a great clip. I seem to recall the sun article was some days (a week?) after the event, so it's interesting to see how the whole thing was viewed prior to that

 

I didn't know the police held around 400 fans at wadsley bridge station until 2.30 until now

 

I haven't seen the whole thing yet. It's over an hour long

[Hots on]

Good youtube clip here of how the disaster was reported back in 1989, definately worth watching especially if your one of those people who have only read about how it was reported. The police generally getting the blame back then and not the Liverpool supporters, as some commentators would now have you believe, the exception being the foreign press and Jacques Georges the then president of UEFA.

 

I find the bit at roughly 58:50 interesting, where the Liverpool supporter talked about how the previous year there was a police cordon 50 yards back from the Leppings lane turnstyles and anyone without tickets were not aloud to even go to the turnstyles, whereas on that particular saturday there was no such cordon.

 

Now you could ask, why no police cordon like the previous year, but a more pertinent question would be, why are large numbers of Liverpool fans trying to enter the ground without tickets?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Hots on

[Strix]

I find the bit at roughly 58:50 interesting, where the Liverpool supporter talked about how the previous year there was a police cordon 50 yards back from the Leppings lane turnstyles and anyone without tickets were not aloud to even go to the turnstyles, whereas on that particular saturday there was no such cordon.

 

Now you could ask, why no police cordon like the previous year, but a more pertinent question would be, why are large numbers of Liverpool fans trying to enter the ground without tickets?

Watch the video I linked to - the fans HAD tickets

[Hots on]

Watch the video I linked to - the fans HAD tickets

 

So that Liverpool supporter was wrong or isn't credible??

 

Seems you dont want to hear anything that doesn't fit your Thatcher-stormtroopers-killed-96 Liverpudlians narative.