Hillsborough Report

[Rufus Gwertigan]

however, a crime of murder (or worse) is unchanging.

The "duty of care" towards a crowd of people has changed beyond belief in the last 23 years, making any trial which might be held today around that duty of care a farce - such as any trial for manslaughter from Hillsboro.

[Essex_George]

As for the calls for prosecutions for manslaughter, why? What benefit will it bring?

I don't see the point in prosecuting someone for a dreadful decision they made on the day - but a decision they'd have made with no bad intentions - for something which happened 23 years ago. If they don't know by now how bad their decision was and the consequences that came from it then they never will.

[Spartacus Mars]

Only if they hold any responsibility for what went on of course. A foot-soldier copper who just happened to be on duty that day is unlikely to have had any direct involvement in any conspiracy...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Quite right. They need to be prosecuted for gross negligence. That H&S culture has advanced in the meantime is no excuse, they should be prosecuted under whatever legislation was active at the time.

Justice. That's kind of the point of prosecuting ANYONE responsible for manslaughter, let alone a nearly hundred manslaughters.

Prosecutions for manslaughter should not be dependent on apparent contriteness or not - though contriteness might have been better demonstrated if the police of the day made mass statements protesting the press coverage rather than hiding behind it. Contriteness might be a factor in sentencing, but should never be one in prosecuting.

If you raped and murdered one child twenty five years ago and the evidence came to light I would want you prosecuted even if the family had "moved on".

What is this I don't even?

I have absolutely no idea where your moral baseline is. Absolutely none.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

most of whom will have been about 12 years old when they served at that match.

[Rachie]

[strummer77]

At some point those directly effected have to say "it's time to move on".

[Spartacus Mars]

How can a modern jury understand how you you feel then as a copper given Heysel? Given all this shit there can not be a fair trial.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Spartacus Mars

[Rufus Gwertigan]

That would be the professional responsibility of the defence team, in terms of framing their case and bringing in any relevant experts, and the police themselves during their witness testimony.

It's arguable very many jury trials are truly fair - but they're fairer than any alternative I can think of.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I an going to move out of this thread. Over the years I have heard, and seen, so many shit things done by the police and our forces that we all accept. I cannot believe that I have now been trying to rationalise not prosecuting a copper. This from I guy with 4 convictions for "Assault of a police constable". I was asked years ago if I wanted to join the Met. My answer was "Shit. Do you think I am a bastard?"

ACAB

[Spindles]

Can't believe this is still being peddled about after this week and the findings that came out. People have been telling the families to 'move on' for 23 years. On Wednesday they proved exactly why they don't just 'move on'.

[Spartacus Mars]

However there will be a point were our need for vengeance becomes attrition. What do we want out of this?

[strummer77]

The point of a functioning legal system is any desire for vengeance, or any of our collective desires at all, should be irrelevant, be it phone hacking by a now-defunct newspaper, a thirty year old murder, or Hillsborough.

The point of Bloody Sunday, like Hillsborough, is agents of the state are not bound by the same laws civilians and citizens are - even though legally speaking in theory they should be. For me that's the reason to collectively push ever harder against criminality committed by those empowered by the state and who feel protected by it, but still only to the full force of the law - not beyond it.

[eFestivals]

i disagree with that

What? You think there's the same legal "duty of care" by 'officials' today as there was when Hillsboro happened?

Because there's a huge difference, it's impossible to have a fair trial.

Try telling that to the families that lost someone on that day.

I wouldn't have any problem explaining to them why I think they're misguiding in wanting certain individuals prosecuted for manslaughter.

Nothing of that means I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them.

[eFestivals]

Quite right. They need to be prosecuted for gross negligence. That H&S culture has advanced in the meantime is no excuse, they should be prosecuted under whatever legislation was active at the time.

who needs to be "prosecuted for gross negligence"?? Foot-soldier coppers who were following the orders of their superiors (and not in any Nazi "I know this is wrong" way either)?? Don't be silly.

And while there might have been a breach of H&S law of the time at Hillboro, it's not possible to hear a case today in the terms of yesterday - and so any trial will not be a fair trial.

A wrong is not put right via the creation of another wrong.

Justice. That's kind of the point of prosecuting ANYONE responsible for manslaughter, let alone a nearly hundred manslaughters.

it only brings justice if it's a fair trial.

Care to tell me how it will be a fair trial, when the consideration of guilt will unavoidably be made in today's H&S terms and not the terms of the time?

Unless you can guarantee a way of making the trial fair against that change in culture then what you ask for makes things worse and not better.

Prosecutions for manslaughter should not be dependent on apparent contriteness or not - though contriteness might have been better demonstrated if the police of the day made mass statements protesting the press coverage rather than hiding behind it. Contriteness might be a factor in sentencing, but should never be one in prosecuting.

I'm not saying it should be dependent on contriteness.

Manslaughter is a wide ranging offence, the covers unintentional deaths all the way from the wholely-accidental (as was the case at Hillsboro ... unless you're going to try claiming it was a deliberate act with the intention of the deaths of fans?) to those where there was bad intention amongst what happened (such as when someone punches someone, they fall down and hit their head on the ground and die from that ground impact).

Given that the consideration of what happened at Hillsboro will unavoidably be warped by today's H&S laws along with the fact that nothing that happened to cause the tragedy was a deliberate bad act, nothing good will come from any prosecution for manslaughter.

If you raped and murdered one child twenty five years ago and the evidence came to light I would want you prosecuted even if the family had "moved on".

As I've already said, the law of murder has not changed in 23 years, nor the public's perception of that.

The same is not true of H&S laws and the duty of care they bring. They have changed beyond recognition in the last 23 years.

Any guilt can only be determined against the laws of the time. Because of the changes in the law over time and the public's perception of those laws, it's not possible to hold a fair trial.

I have absolutely no idea where your moral baseline is. Absolutely none.

It's a moral baseline based on fairness and not revenge.

Prove to me that it's possible for a fair trial to be heard around the failure of the duty of care of the coppers in charge on that day 23 years ago - on the terms of 23 years ago - and I'll be shouting for them to be put on trial.

Until you can demonstrate that a fair trial is possible then it ultimately means that you just wish to add further injustices to the many injustices that have come from what happened that day at Hillsboro.

Edited September 17, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Can't believe this is still being peddled about after this week and the findings that came out. People have been telling the families to 'move on' for 23 years. On Wednesday they proved exactly why they don't just 'move on'.

deliberately or not, you've chosen to completely miscontrue what I've been saying, and even in this reply.

Try reading better than you have done.

[eFestivals]

The point of a functioning legal system is any desire for vengeance, or any of our collective desires at all, should be irrelevant, be it phone hacking by a now-defunct newspaper, a thirty year old murder, or Hillsborough.

So why are you not asking yourself why you wish vengeance on some people for the shockingly bad decisions they made that day - but with the best intentions - but where, because of the passing of time, those decisions cannot be evaluated in the culture and laws of the day?

The point of Bloody Sunday, like Hillsborough, is agents of the state are not bound by the same laws civilians and citizens are - even though legally speaking in theory they should be. For me that's the reason to collectively push ever harder against criminality committed by those empowered by the state and who feel protected by it, but still only to the full force of the law - not beyond it.

Those "agents of the state" were bound by the H&S laws of the day, and not bound by the VERY different H&S laws of today. That's one prosecution that it is not possible to make on any 'fair justice' basis.

The other parts - the cover-up and the slurs - is something different, where it IS possible to make a fair and reasonable prosecution. Let's get them to court.

Edited September 17, 2012 by eFestivals

[the_hedge]

I think any effort/energy should be directed towards the cover up rather than prosecuting individuals for what happened on that day. It's clear some wrong decisions were taken that day but steps have now been taken to prevent that from happening again.

We really need to look at who was responsible for the cover up. I'm pretty sure the foot soldiers didn't all decide on their own to change their statements, this was obviously a decision taken higher up. Heads need to roll for that, whether or not that happens remains to be seen.

[Spartacus Mars]

eFestivals - are you a former copper or squaddie or something?

To you a "fair" trial is one where police negligence leading to nearly a hundred deaths should not be prosecuted because standards have also risen in the meantime.

Suffice to say we dress on very different sides of the trouser crease.

[the_hedge]

eFestivals - are you a former copper or squaddie or something?

[eFestivals]

eFestivals - are you a former copper or squaddie or something?

PMSL

As those who have been around here far longer than you have can tell you, there's no one who posts on these forums who overall expresses as big a distrust (and from that, a dislike) in the old bill than I do.

The view I have is formed by numerous contacts with the old bill over 30 years - including 3 malicious &/or lying prosecutions I've suffered, of which just one I succeeded in being found not guilty - along with some very deep study into both the justice system as a whole as well as the manner of operation of the police (both formally, and culturally), as a result of my ex doing a lot of research into the old bill & the justice system (and who is now a professor of criminal justice at a Uni). FYI: I've read far more about the law and it's operation than that professor.

So no, I don't give the old bill an inch.

But neither do I wish to be as big a c**t as they can be, and bring an unjust prosecution or gain an unjust conviction by doing so.

To you a "fair" trial is one where police negligence leading to nearly a hundred deaths should not be prosecuted because standards have also risen in the meantime.

No. To me a fair trial is one where the basis of the trial is fair, and the result of the trial is fair.

Those coppers can only be justly tried on the basis of the law as it stood at the time. Anything else is being as big a c**t as the old bill have been to others in this case.

As I've already said, if you're able to tell me how it's possible to try them fairly - and not just be a vengeful c**t - I'll drive them to court myself.

So, put your money where your mouth is and tell me how it's possible to give them a fair trial on the basis of the law as it was 23 years ago - or otherwise realise you're being as big a c**t as they were, and shut the fuck up with your empty headed accusations at me.

Suffice to say we dress on very different sides of the trouser crease.

Yep - because you're of the belief that being as unjust on the old bill as they've been on Liverpudlians is justice, and not you being as big a c**t as they've been.

[eFestivals]

Spartacus Mars,

as you're obviously a youngster who can't grasp just how much has changed in the last 23 years - and so why a trial for manslaughter would not be 'justice' - I suggest that you have a read of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19596766

Don't concentrate on just how wrong it was for the old bill to have that attitude, but instead concentrate on what effects that attitude had on the decisions that the old bill made that day.

I'm not in any way trying to say that those decisions were right, I'm merely accepting that there was that attitude and that I'm able to recognise that attitude then impacted onto the decisions that were made.

For any trials for manslaughter to be fair, the jury that would make their trial judgement would have to work from just that attitude - which is impossible, because attitudes have changed massively.

Much the same applies with any 'duty of care' and H&S considerations - we're on a completely different planet with these things nowadays, as a direct result of Hillsboro as well as other things.

I want justice for the 96, but justice is not achieved thru a further injustice, even if that new injustice is against 'the enemy'.

[zahidf]

I wonder if the next private eye will make jokes about it, or ignore it?

[Spartacus Mars]

You guys can urinate in your thongs as much as you like, I'm going on the evidence before my eyes not assertions made otherwise.

I was an adult when Hillborough happened (far more of an adult than I am now, heh). I know fans were feared and loathed, and I know H&S culture has legislatively advanced in the meantime (I've done H&S training for industries). But it's also wrong afaik to suggest there was no legal duty of care by the police at the time. Any prosecutions of the police for negligence could only be brought under the applicable legislation of the time.

I remember Hillsborough, no way on earth was what happened there normal - even supposedly "for the time".

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

It depends what you call normal. Remember that was the third time in eight years a crushing incident had occured at Hillsborough.