Anyone watching the Hillsborough Panorama doc tonight?

[bristol_Wanderer3]

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be quite funny to know which comedy genius came up with WMP to conduct oversight.

Like the Gestapo conducting oversight on the SS....

Some of the WMP officers assigned to Hillsborough were already under scrutiny for their role in the notorious Serious Crime Squad that was disbanded for essentially fitting people up!!

Its like the thought process went something like...."We need a hatchet job here, who shall we turn to, oh yeah, I know..."

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So the bit on the Panorama program where attempts were made to discredit a doctor who gave evidence that the emergency response was not up to scratch,

Did you think that was a significant point? As far as I could tell the evidence he gave wasn't really 'medical' in nature anyway. So they commented on the fact that he was a research doctor rather than a GP, which was true - so what?

and also the accounts of a female police officer who was bullied into changing her statement about Kevin Williams being alive long after 3.15pm (not on panorama, link http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex ... how-390294 ), don't these two instances point to an establishment cover up, particularly in the part of the process where West Midlands Police where involved?

For me the 3.15 cut off and the case of Kevin Williams are one of the worst bits of how the case was handled. Partly I think the blame lies at the feet of the coroner who was a bit of nice person of a man and out his depth to boot. And partly, yes - I would say the emergency service response was perhaps the only genuine example of an attempt to suppress substantive facts.

Like the Gestapo conducting oversight on the SS....

How anybody can think that the strident criticism of the Taylor Report was the result of an institutional stitch-up is beyond me. Indeed - the allegation was that the stitch-up had gone the other way!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ne-6330027" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Erm...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

https://twitter.com/IPCCNews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's only a matter of time before they start putting #JFT96 on the end of their tweets.

[Prufrock]

Looks nice and independent then.

[Burnden Paddock]

Why bother with another costly investigation? Seems she's already decided the outcome.

[malcd1]

Why bother with another costly investigation? Seems she's already decided the outcome.

Because all the police officers on duty have not been locked up for life. Oh yes, there has been no compensation yet.

[Wandering Willy]

Why bother with another costly investigation? Seems she's already decided the outcome.

Because all the police officers on duty have not been locked up for life. Oh yes, there has been no compensation yet.

No shit.

[Lord Kangana]

Looks nice and independent then.

You are allowed to think for yourself, you know.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So... more Hillsborough stuff on Newsnight last night and Phil Scraton given 5 minutes of the Today programme this morning to pontificate about how the evidence on which the Taylor Inquiry was based was unsafe.

As I always say, this will be the same Taylor Inquiry that, even by the account Scraton the Scouser gave in his own Hillsborough 'Independent' Panel Report, said the following:

" LJ Taylor noted that a minority of fans had been drinking but concluded that they had not caused the congestion, nor had 'hooliganism' played any part in the disaster."

"LJ Taylor directed severe criticism towards senior officers. He emphasised that once C/Supt Duckenfield acceded to Supt Marshall's request to open Gate C, he should have ordered the closing of the tunnel. It constituted 'a blunder of the first magnitude'."

etc. http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ ... -1/page-7/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is presumably why a revolution in football policing and stadia safety followed very swiftly.

[Lord Kangana]

Its enough to make you think that Andrew Mitchell is guilty after all.

[Harry Genshaw]

Still surprises me (I know it shouldn't) when I hear the depth investigating officers went to, to discredit the witnesses. The latest story of the lad still suffering PTSD a fortnight later, being badgered because he had a 'left wing t-shirt on' and labelled as 'anti Police'

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Still surprises me (I know it shouldn't) when I hear the depth investigating officers went to, to discredit the witnesses. The latest story of the lad still suffering PTSD a fortnight later, being badgered because he had a 'left wing t-shirt on' and labelled as 'anti Police'

It's obviously not good... but bear in mind that PTSD was a relatively new concept then and it's not difficult to imagine an unpleasant police officer giving voice to a raised eyebrow at a Mandela T-shirt.

Again I just ask what of substance ended up being suppressed?

[Lord Kangana]

The stuff we don't know about?

[Athers]

So the new inquest has begun and will presumably run as daily news for a year, there's even signs to the venue on the M56. This is quite odd though -

There are two other investigations going on into Hillsborough: a police investigation called Operation Resolve and an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry. Both will continue while the inquests are going on.

Operation Resolve, which is being led by Assistant Commissioner Jon Stoddart, who is Durham's former chief constable, is looking at events leading up to the disaster, as well as the disaster itself.

That includes all the decisions about managing the crowds on the day, responding to the events as they unfolded, as well as the stadium design and safety checks. The Operation Resolve team is feeding material into the inquests as they find it.

The IPCC is looking at police activity after the disaster and whether any serving or former officer is guilty of misconduct, including any allegations of a cover-up.

How long will it all take?

The inquests are currently due to last until the end of the year, but some of the legal teams say they could run into 2015.

Operation Resolve and the IPCC investigations do not have a fixed time frame, but are unlikely to conclude before the inquests are over.

So Operation Resolve and the inquest are both sifting through 500,000 pages about the same thing? and there's the possibility that the inquests will conclude before Resolve has fed all this information to them! What if they find something dynamite later on?

I assume the inquest will back up most of the findings of the Taylor Report & the Independent Panel (of Scousers) and then it's a matter of whether the actual verdict will mean compensation is available to the families?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So Operation Resolve and the inquest are both sifting through 500,000 pages about the same thing? and there's the possibility that the inquests will conclude before Resolve has fed all this information to them! What if they find something dynamite later on?

I assume the inquest will back up most of the findings of the Taylor Report & the Independent Panel (of Scousers) and then it's a matter of whether the actual verdict will mean compensation is available to the families?

A coroner isn't able to name any individual or organisation as being criminally (or civilly) liable, so I suppose the separation and duplication of effort is sadly inevitable if there is a determination to do both?

I'm not sure what the compensation implications of an unlawful killing verdict would be. I think all the civil claims were settled (jointly with SWFC, the FA etc) a while ago. Could we then be looking at the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Pru?

Anyway, I still find it incredibly unlikely that the inquest will go for unlawful killing and my predictions stay as they were in 2012:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23908&p=773508&hil ... es#p773508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read this on the BBC website yesterday:

"Families of the victims will be invited to read out "background statements" - or what they are calling "pen portraits" - of their loved ones.

During proceedings the jurors will make a site visit to the Hillsborough stadium but will be directed not to read the "deeply moving" tributes on the memorial to the tragedy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-26783600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a bloody circus.

[bobo the clown]

What a bloody circus.

Well summed up in one very short sentence.


The families will want more from this inquest than it can possibly deliver so we can expect more anguished outcries in 12 months time as they claim cover-up.

What MAY come to pass, via the IPCC investigation is that some police acted improperly ... more after the event than during it, by the changed statements and the possible attempt to cover up & so pervert the course of justice. Whether past practices can be compared with current practices remains to be seen. Then there will be the court cases and the inevitable appeals and the claims that they've been stitched up and that politicians and IPCC officials have already effectively condemned them due to political expedience. Not to mention that a fair proportion of these will be very old, if not passed away, by the time this has seen its course.

Meanwhile I'll have a year of avoiding the local BBC News as it reports on progress.

[Prufrock]

So Operation Resolve and the inquest are both sifting through 500,000 pages about the same thing? and there's the possibility that the inquests will conclude before Resolve has fed all this information to them! What if they find something dynamite later on?

I assume the inquest will back up most of the findings of the Taylor Report & the Independent Panel (of Scousers) and then it's a matter of whether the actual verdict will mean compensation is available to the families?

A coroner isn't able to name any individual or organisation as being criminally (or civilly) liable, so I suppose the separation and duplication of effort is sadly inevitable if there is a determination to do both?

I'm not sure what the compensation implications of an unlawful killing verdict would be. I think all the civil claims were settled (jointly with SWFC, the FA etc) a while ago. Could we then be looking at the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Pru?

Anyway, I still find it incredibly unlikely that the inquest will go for unlawful killing and my predictions stay as they were in 2012:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23908&p=773508&hil ... es#p773508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read this on the BBC website yesterday:

"Families of the victims will be invited to read out "background statements" - or what they are calling "pen portraits" - of their loved ones.

During proceedings the jurors will make a site visit to the Hillsborough stadium but will be directed not to read the "deeply moving" tributes on the memorial to the tragedy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-26783600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a bloody circus.

Short answer: don't know. Don't know anything about it so had a quick Google. Wiki (I know) says injuries must be caused by a 'crime of violence'. Looked at the 2012 scheme where Annex B describes what that is as I wouldn't think, on the face of it, this could be called a 'crime of violence'. Annex says a crime of violence can include "any other act or omission of a violent nature which causes physical injury to a person". Am I being stupid here? What on earth is an 'omission of a violent nature' when it's at home? Wiki also says "The time limit for claiming compensation is two years from the date the injury occurred. There are slightly different rules in the case of applicants who are children, or who were children when they were injured. The time limit may be extended in exceptional circumstances but is treated very strictly. "

As for the rest, I also think it highly unlikely we'll get unlawful killing or an open verdict. There's always a doubt though when a case is so emotive, well-known, politically sensitive, and conducted in such a circus-like setting.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

An omission of a violent nature is not that difficult a concept surely.
Here's some I've made up:
Bloke stands by unraised barrier knowing a passenger train is hurtling towards it - he can lift the barrier by pressing a button but deliberately does not.
Man sees somebody accidently light a fuse from a dropped dogend, but man does not stomp on fuse and put it out, instead he watches it burn down and blow a schoolyard full of children up (it's always best to play the children card at some stage).
Plane full of explosives is heading towards the White House but the bloke on radar duty sees it but doesn't report it (because he voted Republican not Democrat).

[boltonboris]

Corporate Manslaughter?