|
|
Post by conman on Aug 21, 2018 14:35:09 GMT 1
I agree . Whether these folks serve time after all these years is irrelevant to me ( though maybe not to the family of the victims ) I fear though that “Sir Norman” may be the egomaniac you allude to So do I. There was culture in the police at that time, deference superiority and big anti football hooligan sentiment which all played a part in the football SUPPORTERS deaths. 30 years on and what has really changed in the upper echelons of society. The money and the power remain with the rich & powerful and they still don’t give a damn about the poor. Not football supporters this time just poor people who’s shitty building was unsightly for those travelling past. So they lined each other’s pockets with some massively flammable but very cheap product. (It was cheap because no one would buy it because it was massively flammable & everyone knew this) Totally inept public procurement combined with ruthless private sector criminals, add in a fire officer who had no idea how to tackle a blaze in a tower block- he hadn’t even had basic training in this field and you wind up with more people effectively murdered. No one gave a shit. No one had checked the building to confirm compartmentation was still valid. Something like 80% of internal fire doors had been replaced by yes you’ve guessed it- cheap shit doors with no fire resistance. They then actively sent the remaining inhabitants up to the top floor to be burnt alive even when many could still have escaped at that time as the useless fire officer persisted with enforcing horizontal evacuation when it was painfully fucking clear compartmentation had failed. The whole fucking building was a raging inferno. Going to prison for these deaths should be members of the home office, public sector workers who brokered the appalling deal, all the heads of companies involved in the ‘refurbishment’, the chief fire officer who sent a rookie to the scene and no one else and the fire officer at the scene who had no idea what he was doing and made criminally negligent decisions in the night. I felt sorry for him in interviews but fire officers job is to react at the scene not clindky follow procedure when your eyes tell you everything you need to know. How many will actually face prosecution. I’ll have a bet- none of ‘em. Especially South yorkshire police. I went to a lot of town away games in the 70/80s, and they were by far the worst. Wouldn't think twice about giving you a quick whack with a truncheon for no reason whatsoever.. |
|
|
|
Post by ozterrier on Aug 21, 2018 14:38:24 GMT 1
Worth noting that the CPS have issued the following. Some on here should take heed. "There are five other defendants and each has the right to a fair trial. It is therefore extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information which could in any way prejudice those proceedings" A kind way of saying, don't post shit on online forums so their lawyers can claim a mistrial. How realistic is that? Honestly? It's realistic that the news organisations will take heed. As far as personal comment goes, I agree it's wildly unrealistic! Still, it's important to ensure the integrity of the trial is upheld so whatever they can do to make sure justice is done. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Aug 21, 2018 22:28:37 GMT 1
How realistic is that? Honestly? It's realistic that the news organisations will take heed. As far as personal comment goes, I agree it's wildly unrealistic! Still, it's important to ensure the integrity of the trial is upheld so whatever they can do to make sure justice is done. just 30 years of commentary, documentaries, wild accusations in the commons that have been found to have no basis that could ever get a conviction by legal teams??? the 'integrity' left about 10 minutes after the worst was made known to the public.. the tactics 'chosen' to chase Norman by outing it in the commons and using trial by media has just backfired badly and that does not help the trials yet to take place, albeit they are on the facts of the day itself. I said months ago he would walk away. any person who affirms they have not got a strong opinion prior to the trials is lying..they have seen a lot of the 'evidence' on tv without a defence team picking any holes in it.. common sense tells you what happened, unfortunately the presentation of hours of evidence already, outside a court, means that can be put to one side, legally.. the 'fair trial' could be very tough for the CPS to pull off... I sincerley hope the charges were not laid to placate public opinion that would be adding salt.. |
|
|
|
Post by Torquayterrier on Apr 3, 2019 15:26:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Torquayterrier on Jun 25, 2019 13:51:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by frankslegs on Jun 25, 2019 18:12:55 GMT 1
A depressing thought......I cannot see any more point in spending yet more huge amounts of taxpayers money going through this tragedy again in a quest for ultimate blame.Wherever you sit on your own view I believe those great young supporters who died have left a huge legacy that we all currently benefit from.I fully accept their parents will never find peace but feel another trial will not help in that process.
|
|
bogart
David Wagner Terrier
Posts: 2,882
|
Post by bogart on Jun 25, 2019 18:47:45 GMT 1
To some degree I agree with your comments. A trajic incident but what seems in my mind is the fact, that is overlooked, is that nobody wilfully set out to cause such an event.
Will sending this guy Duckenfield to prison make any difference to the victims relatives/loved ones? Personally I think he has paid the price, he must go to bed every night thinking "what if". Banging him up will do him no good nor to my mind anybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 25, 2019 21:31:08 GMT 1
To some degree I agree with your comments. A trajic incident but what seems in my mind is the fact, that is overlooked, is that nobody wilfully set out to cause such an event. Will sending this guy Duckenfield to prison make any difference to the victims relatives/loved ones? Personally I think he has paid the price, he must go to bed every night thinking "what if". Banging him up will do him no good nor to my mind anybody else. They can't prove to the definition of the law, manslaughter. I believe they had a very good idea that once the 'cover up and the rest' was totally removed from the equation, they probably wouldnt. Hindsight is also removed in a criminal case and the decisions made will be looked at in the context of the 'perfect storm' and the information held by the bloke in charge at the time he made any one decision. Was he reckless or without regard and did he go against protocol or better informed advice or orders??? Appears not. That he followed a number of previously made decisions for the semis before at that ground is a big marker. The elite and powerful who instigated a cover up almost immediately and ran the long running 'blame the dead' media campaign are still out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 0:46:48 GMT 1
Old bill were accountable but won’t ever be put properly against them. If you wear uniform it goes in favour and has done for the army too and I’ve served. There is a big carpet and a big broom. Sweep it under and nobody sees it until years later when everyone is near death. That’s how it is and always will be
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jun 26, 2019 9:24:55 GMT 1
Old bill were accountable but won’t ever be put properly against them. If you wear uniform it goes in favour and has done for the army too and I’ve served. There is a big carpet and a big broom. Sweep it under and nobody sees it until years later when everyone is near death. That’s how it is and always will be you get promoted and paid to make decisions using the information that you have at the time, as long as you act quickly and always in the best interests of those you are supposed to be assisting etc you have done your duty. Forget the high level cover up and lies afterwards, manslaughter charges are not about that. This was a court case about one police officer and manslaughter, not about subsequent events, don't mix the two up. He has been made 'accountable' for the events on the day and the evidence it appears is not there to convict. His mistakes in 'hindsight' does not amount to evidence of 'reckless or without regard' as it appears the defence has proven to enough of the jury(who will all come with very definite views or opinions on the matter, given the amount of coverage this has had for decades) that the decisions made were in good faith and on the information and protocol known and used at that time. Don't get caught in the 'new' thinking that an event years ago can be seen and commented upon using all that we know and live by today. |
|
