But are you professionally qualified to say, "And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal."
But are you professionally qualified to say, "And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal."
John. You and I both know what is looming as a result of further investigation. Watch this space.
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.Originally Posted by johncar54
The chief of South Yorkshire police is convinced so why shouldn't I be.
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.
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.
Keith - Administrator
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 !
Here's me thinking statements are used as evidence. Silly me... 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.
Keith - Administrator
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.
Fair enough, but editing admissible elements to a statement is inadmissible.
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.
"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....e-9/index.html
"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'".
I will let you read it John. To me that is evidence and shouldn't have been removed.
"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.
"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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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
Keith - Administrator
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.
The Prime Ministers own words....
"Report on Hillsborough football disaster exposes “biggest cover-up in British legal history”"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/se...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/sport...ars-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/commentisf...-bare-the-lies
Nick Clegg speaking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19593087
John. Have a look at this video of Andy Burnham MP on the BBC news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19587902
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...
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/liver...#ixzz29pUpQ5yM
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...#ixzz2A3ftG6yp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20035472
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/comp...?camefrom=home
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
