Hillsborough probe 'to be UK's biggest into police conduct'

[lastlid]

"The biggest ever independent investigation into police wrongdoing is to be carried out following a damning report into the Hillsborough disaster.

The IPCC police watchdog and director of public prosecutions have announced they will both launch inquiries into possible crimes committed by police.

The IPCC said both serving and former officers would be investigated over the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans in 1989.

The Hillsborough Family Support Group said it was "too good to be true".

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer will review evidence relating to how the 96 fans died, which could lead to charges of manslaughter through gross negligence.

Meanwhile, the IPCC said it would look at whether there was a criminal cover-up by South Yorkshire Police of failings by the force.

A "large number" of current and former officers now face investigation over claims made in a report on the Hillsborough disaster, the IPCC said."

Possibility of facing criminal charges.....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19922092

[johncar54]

I confess that I have not read the full report in this case but from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.

Statements which are to be used in criminal cases may only include admissible evidence.

It is a fact that even police officers, many of them, do not understand what evidence is admissible and thus, in many cases inadmissible evidence is normally edited from statements before they are submitted.

[lastlid]

I guess we will hear in the fullness of time....

[KeithD]

..... from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

:Erm: That's what happens wherever you have bad organisation and those in charge keep funneling people into an already crowded area. We see it time & time again in sport, concerts, etc .... it happened last year in Germany.

Individual People going to an event and being herded into an area by the authorities is not the inviduals fault.

[johncar54]

Individual People going to an event and being herded into an area by the authorities is not the individuals fault.

But people are not brainless cattle. If one enters a room which is full one does not keep pushing until they can get in.

Is anyone saying that in this case the 'authorities' saw what was happening and continued to physically push more people in ?

[KeithD]

[QUOTE=johncar54;395093]
But people are not brainless cattle. If one enters a room which is full one does not keep pushing until they can get in.[QUOTE]

As individuals they are not, but en masse they are and that is why we have people in charge of monitioring and directing them. Plus no human being on the planet, apart from the police, could see what was happening on the otherside of the tunnel they were all being herded down, and I'm pretty sure if those that died and got injured could have just turned back and walked out they would have but the police opened the gates and let in a mass crowd being pushed forward from the back by the police.

John, you're starting to sound like you worked for the Yorkshire police :icon_lol:

[lastlid]

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.



This bit bothers me. Phrases and expressions like "perverting the course of justice" spring to mind.

[johncar54]

Removing inadmissible passages from a statement, does not amount to any offence.

I did it practically every day when I was supervising reports for submission to Solicitors Dept New Scotland Yard, or before serving papers on the defence.

An example.
If an officer says in a statement, "I was told that Mr Smith stole the car." Unless it was in the presence and hearing of Mr Smith, it is hearsay and not admissible in a case against Mr Smith. Thus it must be excluded.

Similarity, if an officer said, "I knew Mr Smith had stolen cars before." inadmissible and must be excluded.

[lastlid]

I guess that if the intent was there to pervert the course of justice and this can be proven, then criminality could be proven. I presume this will all come out in due course.

[johncar54]

I guess that if the intent was there to pervert the course of justice and this can be proven,

Not sure how that relates to this post.

As I said, editing inadmissible parts from a statement, does not amount to an offence. Any offence nor any discipline regulation. On the contrary, not doing so, if the statement is to be submitted in evidence, would amount to incompetence.

From looking at the TV footage, it seems pretty clear that those who were pushing caused the deaths and injuries. Maybe some evidence will now come to light to support a prosecution of those.

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

[KeithD]

Removing inadmissible passages from a statement, does not amount to any offence.

But this evidence was supposed to have been admitted as evidence. They purposely removed it so that all the enquiries came to the wrong conclusion. That to anyone on the street is perverting the course of justice as this evidence was given under oath.

[johncar54]

But this evidence was supposed to have been admitted as evidence. They purposely removed it so that all the enquiries came to the wrong conclusion.

How do you know what was removed ?

[KeithD]

All the documents have been published online with the parts removed by the police included: http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

[KeithD]

This link goes directly to amended documents: http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/browse/by-material/s2-p2-c11.html

[johncar54]

I had a look at the referenced material, but I do not see what was excluded from the original statements. I did see a lot of information, hearsay, opinion, etc. which would appear be inadmissible in a prosecution. Although may have been useful to a person carrying out a review of what happened.

What I have seen does not persuade me to alter what I have posted.

[lastlid]

I had a look at the referenced material, but I do not see what was excluded from the original statements. I did see a lot of information, hearsay, opinion, etc. which would appear be inadmissible in a prosecution. Although may have been useful to a person carrying out a review of what happened.

What I have seen does not persuade me to alter what I have posted.

There appears to be material out there John, which came up at the Taylor Report, demonstrating what was originally written. Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

[raynaputi]

Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000030840001.pdf

[johncar54]

Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

Yes, but do we ?

And if we do not, then we cannot make allegations that there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, because we do not know.

[lastlid]

Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

Yes, but do we ?

And if we do not, then we cannot make allegations that there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, because we do not know.

I have seen people interviewed on TV, including ex police officers, state that their original statements have been crucially tampered with. These people will no doubt form a fraction of many that will give evidence in the future.

I think that the "roof is going to blown right off" of this case. I am not a Liverpool supporter, by the way. Just a supporter of justice.

[johncar54]

Lastlid, it is a sad reality that many officers (including some senior officers) do not understand what amounts to admissible evidence and what does not.

Some who may have 'enjoyed' including personal criticism of a senior officer, might well have been reluctant to accept that they were incompetent.

Again, without being able to see what was specifically excluded, I cannot add to what I have posted.

[johncar54]

Raynaputi Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done

But again, as far as I can see, it does not show what was done.

[lastlid]

"Police officers could face criminal charges over alleged changes to statements after the Hillsborough disaster, it has been announced.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said a 'large number' of current and former officers would be investigated over what happened on the day of the tragedy in Sheffield in 1989 - and during the subsequent alleged cover-up."

Its not looking good, John.

[KeithD]

..and the Attorney General is taking action due to cover-up by the police http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218547/Hillsborough-inquests-quashed-High-Court-Attorney-General-says.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[johncar54]

Lastlid, But a newspaper who want to sell newspapers, making such a wide ranging comment does not mean it is based on reality.

My saying;

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

Does not mean that is so.

Although I have my own opinion on it.

[raynaputi]

Raynaputi Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done

But again, as far as I can see, it does not show what was done.

If you want to read all the disclosed material http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/catalogue/index/organisation/all/outofscope/all/perpage/20/page/1.html and Keith already provided above the link of the materials that show the amended documents..clearly signed by officers with headers, timeline, etc. you can compare and see if it matches or not. I don't think they would release it in public if these doesn't prove anything.

[lastlid]

Lastlid, But a newspaper who want to sell newspapers, making such a wide ranging comment does not mean it is based on reality.

My saying;

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

Does not mean that is so.

Although I have my own opinion on it.

Time will tell.

I suppose one can also say that just because the police say it was the fault of the Liverpool fans, doesn't mean it was based on reality. Lets wait and see what further investigations reveal.....


"The Independent Hillsborough Panel Report last month revealed 164 police statements were altered - 116 of them to remove or change negative comments about the policing of the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at the Sheffield stadium.

It said police and emergency services had made "strenuous attempts" to deflect the blame for the disaster on to fans.

The panel also found that 41 of the 96 who died had the "potential to survive" and calls have been made for fresh inquests."

This isn't newspaper hype or greedy claimants. It is a lengthy independent report on the corruptness in the police force, amongst other things, at that time.

[lastlid]

"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."


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

I envisage some officers being charged and found guilty. It isn't just what is being reported in the papers. There are are a lot of untampered witness statements from outside of the police force to be heard along with witness statements to be heard from within the force.

Dont forget. Crompton has already apologised "...the police lost control and lies were told about how that happened"

South Yorkshire Police's Hillsborough apology

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19569708

[lastlid]

I confess that I have not read the full report in this case but from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.

Statements which are to be used in criminal cases may only include admissible evidence.

It is a fact that even police officers, many of them, do not understand what evidence is admissible and thus, in many cases inadmissible evidence is normally edited from statements before they are submitted.

It has become obvious through the Taylor report, a lengthy Justice for the 96 campaign and recent revelations in the press and TV etc etc that what was really key evidence was erased as inadmissible evidence by a number of the police in an attempt to cover up their incompetence / error. And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

[johncar54]

And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

Sorry Lastlid, but I had got the impression, from your previsions posts, that you were not professionally qualified to make such a statement. I must have been wrong !

Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us on what evidence (as opposed to newspaper gossip) you base that judgement.

I should also be grateful if you would define what you mean by Justice for the 96 campaign. I hope it at least includes a desire that the fans who actually injured and killed the victims are brought to justice and convicted of manslaughter.

Thanks John

[lastlid]

And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

Sorry Lastlid, but I had got the impression, from your previsions posts, that you were not professionally qualified to make such a statement. I must have been wrong !

Perhaps you would be good enough to tell on what evidence (as opposed to newspaper gossip) you base that judgement.

Thanks John

Were those that conducted the Taylor report not professionally qualified?
Is the current chief of South Yorkshire police not professionally qualified?

What they are saying is good enough for me. And the up and coming IPCC investigation will be good enough for me.

[johncar54]

But are you professionally qualified to say, "And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal."

[lastlid]

John. You and I both know what is looming as a result of further investigation. Watch this space.

[johncar54]

That's what 'they' said after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, but in the light of there being no EVIDENCE, no officer was in fact charged with any offence or discipline breach.

Newspaper gossip can be very unreliable.

[lastlid]

That's what 'they' said after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, but in the light of there being no EVIDENCE, no officer was in fact charged with any offence or discipline breach.

Newspaper gossip can be very unreliable.

Like I say, we will have to see.

The chief of South Yorkshire police is convinced so why shouldn't I be.

[johncar54]

Ian Blair, commission of the Met at the time of the De Menezes shooting made statements to the press which subsequently resulted in him having to resign, so Lastlid, as I said, just because something is in the newspapers does not mean it is true..

Lets wait and see.

I too would like to see those who actually killed the victims brought to justice, but I won't hold my breath.

[lastlid]

Ian Blair, commission of the Met at the time of the De Menezes shooting made statements to the press which subsequently resulted in him having to resign, so Lastlid, as I said, just because something is in the newspapers does not mean it is true..

Lets wait and see.

I too would like to see those who actually killed the victims brought to justice, but I won't hold my breath.

I know from my own profession that the press get things wrong. However, it doesn't mean that all they report is wrong.

Having heard testimony from various parties on the subject on TV, having heard of and seen things written in the Taylor report and having heard from the likes of the Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police and yes, having read a number of newspaper articles on the topic aswell, I think that on balance there is a good chance that some of the officers in charge at Hillsborough will be successfully prosecuted. If they are guilty then they should be prosecuted.

[KeithD]

The government is qualified and has agreed with the reports findings, so has the attorney general. Police officers (qualified) have verified that evidence was tampered with.

[johncar54]

have verified that evidence was tampered with.

I think more strictly it was, that statements were altered. In law that is a different situation and does not necessary mean that any wrong was done. ( As I have explained at length above)

But I know you will correct me if you think I am wrong !

[KeithD]

Here's me thinking statements are used as evidence. Silly me :doh ... no idea why the police gave any statements to the enquiry as evidence then! It's already been stated by many legal and qualified sources that what the police done was wrong and criminal... not my words, but that of many others up high in the judicial world.

[johncar54]

Sorry I thought I had made in clear from a professional point of view:_

Removing inadmissible passages from a statement, does not amount to any offence.

I did it practically every day when I was supervising reports for submission to Solicitors Dept New Scotland Yard, or before serving papers on the defence.

An example.
If an officer says in a statement, "I was told that Mr Smith stole the car." Unless it was in the presence and hearing of Mr Smith, it is hearsay and not admissible in a case against Mr Smith. Thus it must be excluded.

I also posted:-


Similarity, if an officer said, "I knew Mr Smith had stolen cars before." inadmissible and must be excluded.

As I said, editing inadmissible parts from a statement, does not amount to an offence. Any offence nor any discipline regulation. On the contrary, not doing so, if the statement is to be submitted in evidence, would amount to incompetence.

[lastlid]

As I said, editing inadmissible parts from a statement, does not amount to an offence. Any offence nor any discipline regulation. On the contrary, not doing so, if the statement is to be submitted in evidence, would amount to incompetence.
[/I]

Fair enough, but editing admissible elements to a statement is inadmissible. :biggrin:

[johncar54]

Bravo Lastlid, we got there at last.

So now we just need to know EXACTLY what was removed and then an educated guess/opinion can be given.

[lastlid]

Bravo Lastlid, we got there at last.

So now we just need to know EXACTLY what was removed and then an educated guess/opinion can be given.

I didn't get there at last John. This was implied from the off. The recent Hillsborough Independent Report, police and witness statements from others that are connected to the incident and the up and coming IPCC investigation will nail any foul play on the part of the police at Hillsborough.

[lastlid]

"2.11.149 Another officer's comments about poor radio communications - '[w]e could only contact control with extreme difficulty ... equipment was inadequate' - was excluded from his final statement."

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/main-section/part-2/chapter-11/page-9/index.html

[lastlid]

"2.11.155 A statement made by an ambulance officer concerning his ignorance of the Hillsborough emergency plan had the following comment deleted: 'At this stage I did not realise that the casualty clearing point was in the gym. I was not aware of any Hillsborough plan prior to this emergency'".

[lastlid]

I will let you read it John. To me that is evidence and shouldn't have been removed.

[lastlid]

"Examination of officers' statements shows that officers were discouraged from making criticisms of senior officers' responses, their management and deficiencies in the SYP operational response: 'key' words and descriptions such as 'chaotic' were counselled against and, if included, were deleted.

Some 116 of the 164 statements identified for substantive amendment were amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to SYP. "

From the Hillsborough Independent Report.

Not newspaper hype, John.

[lastlid]

"One officer stated he had accepted the changes only because he was suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress. He considered it an 'injustice for statements to have been "doctored" to suit the management of South Yorkshire Police'. Another officer had accepted the process, but had not realised how much of his statement had been removed. "

From the Hillsborough Independent Report.

[johncar54]

the up and coming IPCC investigation will nail any foul play on the part of the police at Hillsborough.

Good.

And the people who were physically responsible for the deaths and injuries, will they be prosecuted ?

[lastlid]

I should also be grateful if you would define what you mean by [I]Justice for the 96 campaign. I hope it at least includes a desire that the fans who actually injured and killed the victims are brought to justice and convicted of manslaughter.

Thanks John

Ouch .

I am a neutral. I am not a Liverpool fan. I am not a police officer or directly connected to the Hillsborough disaster. I detect foul play here and see how easy it was to blame the Liverpool fans. Fortunately I am not the only one. Unfortunately it looks like the police at Hillsborough where naughty boys and the country has woken up to that.

I also note that there were other factors at play here. I know that the Police aren't solely to blame. But the focus in this thread is on the part played by the police.

"Justice for the 96 campaign". Surely that is self evident.

[johncar54]

Lastlid,

I am disappointed. I really thought you were going to give us a couple of excluded lines which said something to effect, that a PC saw a senior officer with a smoking gun, standing over a person who had been shot.

Even if any senior officer is prosecuted, I will be very surprised if they will shown as being directly responsible for any death or injury. But I have an open mind.

PS as I said Lastlid in my private message to you, I really do think this is now well past it's sell by date, so I will not be adding any further posts.

[KeithD]

The police made the families suffer for 25 years, now I hope the police who are responsible in anyway will suffer in some way. The criminal and civil court cases are going to go on for years, so with a bit of luck the buggers will not be getting much sleep :biggrin:

[lastlid]

Lastlid,

I am disappointed. I really thought you were going to give us a couple of excluded lines which said something to effect, that a PC saw a senior officer with a smoking gun, standing over a person who had been shot.

Even if any senior officer is prosecuted, I will be very surprised if they will shown as being directly responsible for any death or injury. But I have an open mind.

PS as I said Lastlid in my private message to you, I really do think this is now well past it's sell by date, so I will not be adding any further posts.

Nothing as immediately obvious as that, unfortunately, which is why it has been so difficult to assess and deal with. Perverting the course of justice is perverting the course of justice and those who organised it are surely going to be found guilty big time.

I don't suppose you have trawled through the rest of the report. You will then see for yourself the nature of the beast at hand.

[lastlid]

The Prime Ministers own words....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnottxUXMlg

[lastlid]

"Report on Hillsborough football disaster exposes “biggest cover-up in British legal history”"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/sep2012/hill-s15.shtml

"Truth, but not yet justice"
http://www.economist.com/node/21562949

"Hillsborough Report Shines Light on Soccer Tragedy 23 Years Later"
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/soccer/hillsborough-report-shines-light-soccer-tragedy-23-years-after-fact

"But the investigations had always come up short--those people were just frenzied, or stupid, or what have you. We have known for awhile that the logistics of the game were terribly considered. That part is not news. While the educated public has known for a while that the victims of Hillsborough were not drunken rioters (the photos alone should have put that one to bed) there was always the suggestion that the fans, coupled with bad logistics and poorly thought out barriers, did it to themselves.

The report out yesterday destroys that premise. What that report states is very much like what a movie conspiracy looks like. I did not know it was possible to cover up this level of malfeasance against one's own citizens for as long as the Sheffield police (and others) had managed. Quite simply, the families of the victims have been lied to, over and over again, for more than two decades."

I think there is only you that cant see that, John.

"The Hillsborough report once and for all lays bare the lies"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-report-lays-bare-the-lies

Nick Clegg speaking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19593087

[lastlid]

John. Have a look at this video of Andy Burnham MP on the BBC news.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19587902

[lastlid]

I know that the FA, Sheffield Wednesday, the Sun newspaper and the emergency services are all implicated but let me ask you this John:

To what extent is it okay for the police to turn a blind eye to a potentially dangerous situation for a large crowd?
To what extent is it okay for the police to focus on crowd control and not crowd safety?
To what extent is it okay for the police to alter statements that otherwise might detail the lack of resources / unsafe circumstances / lack of organisation / incompetence etc etc?
To what extent is it okay for the police to be complicit in diverting the blame away from themselves and in turn blaming the Liverpool fans for their own demise?

Did the police not have a duty of care that day? Was there an element of negligence on their part?

As far as I know, John, we are indeed talking of criminal acts. Not a smoking gun as we know it, John....but...

[lastlid]

Hillsborough special prosecutor to be appointed by Government

"THE Home Secretary will appoint a "special prosecutor" to prevent criminal investigations into the Hillsborough cover-up dragging on for many years, the ECHO can reveal.

Theresa May has agreed to the move – a key priority for the Hillsborough families – amid growing concern that several different inquiries will cause further delay and pain.

Keir Starmer, the powerful Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), is favourite to take on the role, although the prosecutor’s identity has not been decided.

He or she will explore possible criminal charges – whether manslaughter, relating to the original tragedy, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, following the exposé of the cover-up.

Mrs May will announce the highly-unusual move on Monday, when she opens the landmark Commons debate on the Hillsborough Panel’s damning findings.


She will also say the government will:

Take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the investigation is concluded as speedily as possible."



Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/10/20/exclusive-hillsborough-special-prosecutor-to-be-appointed-by-government-100252-32070147/#ixzz29pUpQ5yM

[lastlid]

Hillsborough: '1,400 police named'

"The police watchdog has been given the names of more than 1,400 officers as it investigates South Yorkshire Police's role in the Hillsborough tragedy, MPs were told today.

Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz said the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) received the names from the force's top officer. Mr Vaz added: "The South Yorkshire chief constable wrote to me on Friday to say he sent a list of 1,444 names of former and serving officers of South Yorkshire to the IPCC. This is a huge number of names - more than we expected."
"


Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/2012/10/22/hillsborough-1-400-police-named-91466-32084234/#ixzz2A3ftG6yp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20035472

[lastlid]

Its all coming out now John!

Bettison 'boasted of smearing fans'
"West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison "boasted" about smearing Liverpool fans in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, a senior Labour MP has claimed.
Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle claimed Sir Norman, 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.
She used parliamentary privilege to make the allegations which were based on new evidence from a witness who discussed the disaster with Sir Norman.
Ms Eagle, a Merseyside MP, 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). The senior officer was referred to the IPCC over claims that he gave misleading information in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster and that he tried to influence West Yorkshire Police Authority's decision-making process in relation to the referral."



http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2012/10/22/bettison_boasted_of_smearing_fans?camefrom=home

[KeithD]

It seems now Yorkshire police were at it during the miner's strike, which means a culture of changing evidence :doh. If more comes out and is proven a lot of past convictions may come into question.

We complain about corrupt police in places like the Philippines, and yet this has to be one of the worst police cover ups ever involving nearly 100 dead anywhere on the planet.

[lastlid]

John. You said to me that this thread is well past its sell by date. Agreed, 23 years is a long time for the police to get away with corruption on such a large scale.