Hillsborough Inquest....
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Hillsborough Inquest....
What exactly do the 96ers actually want? Nobody got up that tragic day and thought of killing anyone. The event was a tragedy. Yes the aftermath was a vile cover up but the inquest should be about the deaths and nothing else.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Argie
"What exactly do the 96ers actually want? Nobody got up that tragic day and thought of killing anyone. The event was a tragedy."
The truth about why, how etc. their loved ones died. It is not just about what the families of those that died want. The accidental death verdicts on all 96 men, women and children who died stood for more than 20 years until they were quashed by the High Court in December 2012. The court then ordered that new inquests should be held.
Yes the aftermath was a vile cover up but the inquest should be about the deaths and nothing else.
It is about the deaths but to understand the how, why 96 people died the inquest needs to discuss:
stadium safety
South Yorkshire Police's preparations for the match
crowd management on the day
how the emergency services responded to the disaster
the individual experiences of the 96, including medical evidence about how exactly they died
This is required for the inquest to find out the how and the why of the deaths just as with any inquest.
"the inquest should be about the deaths and nothing else."
The inquest is not about the police cover-up for example. There are two other investigations going on into Hillsborough: a police investigation called Operation Resolve and an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry. Operation Resolve will feed information about crowd control etc. into the inquiry. The IPCC inquiry will look into the claims of police tampering with statements etc. etc.
The truth about why, how etc. their loved ones died. It is not just about what the families of those that died want. The accidental death verdicts on all 96 men, women and children who died stood for more than 20 years until they were quashed by the High Court in December 2012. The court then ordered that new inquests should be held.
Yes the aftermath was a vile cover up but the inquest should be about the deaths and nothing else.
It is about the deaths but to understand the how, why 96 people died the inquest needs to discuss:
stadium safety
South Yorkshire Police's preparations for the match
crowd management on the day
how the emergency services responded to the disaster
the individual experiences of the 96, including medical evidence about how exactly they died
This is required for the inquest to find out the how and the why of the deaths just as with any inquest.
"the inquest should be about the deaths and nothing else."
The inquest is not about the police cover-up for example. There are two other investigations going on into Hillsborough: a police investigation called Operation Resolve and an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry. Operation Resolve will feed information about crowd control etc. into the inquiry. The IPCC inquiry will look into the claims of police tampering with statements etc. etc.
Re: Argie
The inquests are exactly about the deaths... the original verdicts have been quashed, so now each victim has the right to have their cases reheard with ALL the available evidence as opposed to the selected / altered evidence of the last inquests.
Well put David, this is a matter very close to my heart, as the one thing that saved my cousin was his experince at the same stadium the previous year, so he opted to get in early and went upstairs.
Argie, it wouldn't still be going on if it had been handled properly in the first place. If you're bored of of it or just don't care anymore, then don't read about it.
Well put David, this is a matter very close to my heart, as the one thing that saved my cousin was his experince at the same stadium the previous year, so he opted to get in early and went upstairs.
Argie, it wouldn't still be going on if it had been handled properly in the first place. If you're bored of of it or just don't care anymore, then don't read about it.
Re: Argie
Who will benefit in the end? Lawyers.
Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve. People will continue to pay their respects at the shrine at Anfield. Which is as it should be...
How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't need 96 separate inquests to determine that.
Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen again.
No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost" or "unreliable" or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day.
All these enquiries ? Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Iraq war, Leveson ? who benefits in the end? The lawyers who get richer and richer...
They are all a waste of time and taxpayers' money.
Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve. People will continue to pay their respects at the shrine at Anfield. Which is as it should be...
How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't need 96 separate inquests to determine that.
Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen again.
No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost" or "unreliable" or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day.
All these enquiries ? Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Iraq war, Leveson ? who benefits in the end? The lawyers who get richer and richer...
They are all a waste of time and taxpayers' money.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
"Who will benefit in the end? Lawyers."
You can say exactly the same about all inquests. Do you want to ban them?
"Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve"
Statement of the bleeding obvious.
"How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
Childish remark. Go away, read about the issue of timings and the cut-off time. Then come back and discuss the matter with something slightly more than ignorance.
"Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen again."
In carrying out an inquest it is a requirement to find out the how and why someone died in the light of the evidence. It is not a rerun of the Taylor report because the previous inquest verdicts have been quashed.
"No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost" or "unreliable"
Like Plebgate you mean?
" or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day."
Really? Like these senior police staff then
Please note: idiotic posts will be ignored.
You can say exactly the same about all inquests. Do you want to ban them?
"Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve"
Statement of the bleeding obvious.
"How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
Childish remark. Go away, read about the issue of timings and the cut-off time. Then come back and discuss the matter with something slightly more than ignorance.
"Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen again."
In carrying out an inquest it is a requirement to find out the how and why someone died in the light of the evidence. It is not a rerun of the Taylor report because the previous inquest verdicts have been quashed.
"No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost" or "unreliable"
Like Plebgate you mean?
" or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day."
Really? Like these senior police staff then
Please note: idiotic posts will be ignored.
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "Who will benefit in the end? Lawyers."
>
> You can say exactly the same about all inquests. Do you want to
> ban them?
YES.
>
> "Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be
> raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve"
>
> Statement of the bleeding obvious.
BUT TRUE ALL THE SAME.
>
> "How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't
> need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
>
> Childish remark. Go away, read about the issue of timings and
> the cut-off time. Then come back and discuss the matter with
> something slightly more than ignorance.
THEY STILL DIED AS A RESULT OF BEING CRUSHED AT LEPPINGS LANE.
>
> "Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen
> again."
>
> In carrying out an inquest it is a requirement to find out the
> how and why someone died in the light of the evidence. It is
> not a rerun of the Taylor report because the previous inquest
> verdicts have been quashed.
HAS IT HAPPENED AGAIN?
>
> "No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost"
> or "unreliable"
>
> Like Plebgate you mean?
WAS THE HEAD OF THE DOWNING STREET POLICE UNIT WHO HAD ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE DOCK OR SACKED OR DEMOTED OR WAS IT AN ORDINARY PC?
>
> " or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your
> bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day."
>
> Really? Like these senior police staff then
>
>
>
>
>
>
NOT THE SAME AT ALL AND YOU KNOW IT.
>
> Please note: idiotic posts will be ignored.
I DO TRY TO IGNORE YOURS BUT YOU KEEP COMING BACK.
> "Who will benefit in the end? Lawyers."
>
> You can say exactly the same about all inquests. Do you want to
> ban them?
YES.
>
> "Millions of pounds will be spent and none of the 96 will be
> raised from the dead. Their families will still grieve"
>
> Statement of the bleeding obvious.
BUT TRUE ALL THE SAME.
>
> "How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't
> need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
>
> Childish remark. Go away, read about the issue of timings and
> the cut-off time. Then come back and discuss the matter with
> something slightly more than ignorance.
THEY STILL DIED AS A RESULT OF BEING CRUSHED AT LEPPINGS LANE.
>
> "Stadium safety? The Taylor Report ensured it won't happen
> again."
>
> In carrying out an inquest it is a requirement to find out the
> how and why someone died in the light of the evidence. It is
> not a rerun of the Taylor report because the previous inquest
> verdicts have been quashed.
HAS IT HAPPENED AGAIN?
>
> "No policemen will face a court because evidence will be "lost"
> or "unreliable"
>
> Like Plebgate you mean?
WAS THE HEAD OF THE DOWNING STREET POLICE UNIT WHO HAD ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE DOCK OR SACKED OR DEMOTED OR WAS IT AN ORDINARY PC?
>
> " or if one or two do end up in the dock you can bet your
> bottom dollar it won't be those in charge that day."
>
> Really? Like these senior police staff then
>
>
>
>
>
>
NOT THE SAME AT ALL AND YOU KNOW IT.
>
> Please note: idiotic posts will be ignored.
I DO TRY TO IGNORE YOURS BUT YOU KEEP COMING BACK.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
Definition of "how" for Essex Lad "in what way or manner; by what means."
Extract from the Hillsborough Independent Report.
" At the conclusion of the mini-inquests families raised concerns with their legal representatives and the Coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, about 'sufficiency of inquiry' because of the limitations placed on the presentation and examination of evidence put to the jury. This chapter focuses on a central issue - the introduction at the generic hearing of a 3.15pm cut-off.
2.10.5 Dr Popper's rationale for imposing this restriction on evidence continues to be misunderstood or misrepresented. Most significant has been the false assumption that he proposed that in all cases death had occurred before 3.15pm. This was not the case.
2.10.6 Put simply, his position was that those who died received the injuries that caused their death before 3.15pm, even if they lived beyond that time. His logic was that in each case there was no 'intervening act' (novus actus interveniens) that contributed to death. This rationale, however, also suggested that whatever the interventions, or lack of interventions, as part of the emergency response each death was unavoidable once 3.15pm had been reached.
2.10.7 The documents considered in Chapter 5 contain clear medical evidence that a significant number of those who died may have been alive after removal from the pens. These individuals might have survived given appropriate and timely intervention, but remained vulnerable while unconscious to the effects of a new event such as being positioned incorrectly or inhaling stomach contents.
"How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't
need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
If only it was as idiotically simplistic as your statement.
I will leave you to make some moronic, ill-informed remark on the subject. I have no intention of wasting any more time on you on this topic.
Extract from the Hillsborough Independent Report.
" At the conclusion of the mini-inquests families raised concerns with their legal representatives and the Coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, about 'sufficiency of inquiry' because of the limitations placed on the presentation and examination of evidence put to the jury. This chapter focuses on a central issue - the introduction at the generic hearing of a 3.15pm cut-off.
2.10.5 Dr Popper's rationale for imposing this restriction on evidence continues to be misunderstood or misrepresented. Most significant has been the false assumption that he proposed that in all cases death had occurred before 3.15pm. This was not the case.
2.10.6 Put simply, his position was that those who died received the injuries that caused their death before 3.15pm, even if they lived beyond that time. His logic was that in each case there was no 'intervening act' (novus actus interveniens) that contributed to death. This rationale, however, also suggested that whatever the interventions, or lack of interventions, as part of the emergency response each death was unavoidable once 3.15pm had been reached.
2.10.7 The documents considered in Chapter 5 contain clear medical evidence that a significant number of those who died may have been alive after removal from the pens. These individuals might have survived given appropriate and timely intervention, but remained vulnerable while unconscious to the effects of a new event such as being positioned incorrectly or inhaling stomach contents.
"How did 96 people die? They were crushed to death. We don't
need 96 separate inquests to determine that."
If only it was as idiotically simplistic as your statement.
I will leave you to make some moronic, ill-informed remark on the subject. I have no intention of wasting any more time on you on this topic.
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
So if the jury decide that it was, in my opinion wrongly, a crime, rather than a horrible tragedy will the Scousers (the most law abiding saintly people on the planet) shut the fuck up about it and leave the rest of the UK's sports fans have some peace?
Rangers Crush. People got over it.
Bradford Fire. People got over it.
Le Mans Mercedes crash. People got over it.
As an Everton supporting Liverpudlian colleague said there are people in Liverpool who claim to be affected by the tragedy that weren't even born on the day it happened and couldn't find Sheffield if they lived in Rotherham.
Last year's Guardian article summed it up. It has nothing to do with football and all to do with Scouser's getting excited by seeing their arch rivals, aka The Police, in the dock.
Rangers Crush. People got over it.
Bradford Fire. People got over it.
Le Mans Mercedes crash. People got over it.
As an Everton supporting Liverpudlian colleague said there are people in Liverpool who claim to be affected by the tragedy that weren't even born on the day it happened and couldn't find Sheffield if they lived in Rotherham.
Last year's Guardian article summed it up. It has nothing to do with football and all to do with Scouser's getting excited by seeing their arch rivals, aka The Police, in the dock.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Argie
Trolling again I see.
Deeply tedious. Deeply stupid.
Deeply tedious. Deeply stupid.