| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... 09:38 - May 28 with 1161 views | bluelagos |
You know the ones, the ones responsible for unlawfully killing football fans, lying/misleading a public inquiry and then it being found that there is no legal requirement for the police to tell the truth in such cases...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/28/covid-bereaved-join-call-for-hi
Well you could always contract your MP and request that they support the new Hillsborough law to require our police to actually tell the truth in such cases.
Will take about 3 minutes of your time. 96 innocent football fans killed and no accountability at all for those responsible for their killing or the cover up of their actions. British justice system needs a change and the only people who can change it are our representatives.
https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/contact-your-mp/ |  |
| |  |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 11:22 - May 28 with 1025 views | HighgateBlue |
When a public inquiry is held into a planning matter involving a substantial dispute of fact (for example where the local planning authority argues that a house extension is unlawful and the homeowner argues that it was constructed more than four years ago), evidence is taken on oath (or non-religious affirmation which has the same legal effect), and it is a criminal offence knowingly to lie under oath.
All public inquiries dealing with anything of any importance whatsoever should be held under rules that include this basic principle. It goes without saying that any inquiry into the death of dozens of people is inestimably more important than any planning enforcement inquiry.
I can't understand why any inquiry into Hillsborough was not held as a statutory inquiry with statutory rules. The fact that it was not is really really troubling.
That does not make this judge's decision wrong in law at all, but it does mean that mistakes were made at the time of the original inquiry.
I don't believe that a change in the law is necessary to avoid the particular problem that has occurred here, if any future comparable inquiry is simply held under the statutory framework that now exists. But, the law that is proposed goes beyond merely solving this issue, creating a duty of candour. Sir John Goldring is a deeply bright and fair man and if he is calling for such a duty, it seems to me that one should be brought into existence.
I think that Burnham is right to support the creation of such a duty. He was ludicrously wrong to suggest that the judge should have put a question of law to the jury, however - what a stupid suggestion. The families of the deceased deserve someone to stick up for them, but they also deserve that that person knows what he's talking about on a basic level. |  | | |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 11:36 - May 28 with 999 views | bluelagos |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 11:22 - May 28 by HighgateBlue |
When a public inquiry is held into a planning matter involving a substantial dispute of fact (for example where the local planning authority argues that a house extension is unlawful and the homeowner argues that it was constructed more than four years ago), evidence is taken on oath (or non-religious affirmation which has the same legal effect), and it is a criminal offence knowingly to lie under oath.
All public inquiries dealing with anything of any importance whatsoever should be held under rules that include this basic principle. It goes without saying that any inquiry into the death of dozens of people is inestimably more important than any planning enforcement inquiry.
I can't understand why any inquiry into Hillsborough was not held as a statutory inquiry with statutory rules. The fact that it was not is really really troubling.
That does not make this judge's decision wrong in law at all, but it does mean that mistakes were made at the time of the original inquiry.
I don't believe that a change in the law is necessary to avoid the particular problem that has occurred here, if any future comparable inquiry is simply held under the statutory framework that now exists. But, the law that is proposed goes beyond merely solving this issue, creating a duty of candour. Sir John Goldring is a deeply bright and fair man and if he is calling for such a duty, it seems to me that one should be brought into existence.
I think that Burnham is right to support the creation of such a duty. He was ludicrously wrong to suggest that the judge should have put a question of law to the jury, however - what a stupid suggestion. The families of the deceased deserve someone to stick up for them, but they also deserve that that person knows what he's talking about on a basic level. |
"Sir John Goldring is a deeply bright and fair man"
The same coroner who allowed the police to repeat their lies to a jury, who then put to the jury Q7 of whether the supporters contributed to the deaths, yet refused to allow supporters legal representation at those inquests?
Appreciate your comments/tone, but feel the need to not allow a comment like that go unchallenged. You won't hear many survivors speak highly of the man who refused survivors legal representation at the inquests, yet was happy to put to a jury the question of our guilt despite our that lack of representation.
Fortunately the jury saw through the police lies about supporter behaviour and rejected them, that was despite Goldring's disgraceful ruling on that point. | |
| |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 13:10 - May 28 with 901 views | bluelagos |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 11:36 - May 28 by bluelagos |
"Sir John Goldring is a deeply bright and fair man"
The same coroner who allowed the police to repeat their lies to a jury, who then put to the jury Q7 of whether the supporters contributed to the deaths, yet refused to allow supporters legal representation at those inquests?
Appreciate your comments/tone, but feel the need to not allow a comment like that go unchallenged. You won't hear many survivors speak highly of the man who refused survivors legal representation at the inquests, yet was happy to put to a jury the question of our guilt despite our that lack of representation.
Fortunately the jury saw through the police lies about supporter behaviour and rejected them, that was despite Goldring's disgraceful ruling on that point. |
https://twohundredpercent.net/hillsborough-full-exposure/
If you get a chance to (re)watch this at some point I'd recommend it. Goldring's ruling on the evidence of Cherry Daniels has been much criticised and again indicates anything but a "fair" approach to justice imho.
His ruling allowed her evidence to be presented to a jury thus supporting the SYP narrative "smearing fans", whilst denying family lawyers the opportunity to point out to the jury that her father was an inspector in the SYP. She was presented as an independent witness when she was anything but.
When you have a judge/coroner making judgements like that, it supports the view that many of us hold that the coroner was anything but fair in many of his rulings. | |
| |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 20:15 - May 28 with 708 views | Crawfordsboot |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 13:10 - May 28 by bluelagos |
https://twohundredpercent.net/hillsborough-full-exposure/
If you get a chance to (re)watch this at some point I'd recommend it. Goldring's ruling on the evidence of Cherry Daniels has been much criticised and again indicates anything but a "fair" approach to justice imho.
His ruling allowed her evidence to be presented to a jury thus supporting the SYP narrative "smearing fans", whilst denying family lawyers the opportunity to point out to the jury that her father was an inspector in the SYP. She was presented as an independent witness when she was anything but.
When you have a judge/coroner making judgements like that, it supports the view that many of us hold that the coroner was anything but fair in many of his rulings. |
This is a truly appalling situation and my sympathies are fully aligned with the families. I also bow to your greater knowledge re Goldrings ruling around the Cherry Daniels evidence, however on this latest development are there other questions to ask.
Phil Scraton says that for years it was self evident that the case would fail on a point of law. He goes on to blame Goldring for putting families through the circus that was ultimately bound to fail. If it was indeed self evident that the case would fail on a point of law I can’t help but wonder what the lawyers representing the families were thinking to pursue this case. Presumably they will have been earning fees, but more importantly families will have had hopes of justice drawn out painfully and unnecessarily. Again if the problem with the case was self evident then the last few years could have been better spent campaigning for the necessary change in the law such that public servants have a legal responsibility to provide an honest account to any form of enquiry. Instead that campaign only gets launched now. |  | | |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 21:21 - May 28 with 656 views | bluelagos |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 20:15 - May 28 by Crawfordsboot |
This is a truly appalling situation and my sympathies are fully aligned with the families. I also bow to your greater knowledge re Goldrings ruling around the Cherry Daniels evidence, however on this latest development are there other questions to ask.
Phil Scraton says that for years it was self evident that the case would fail on a point of law. He goes on to blame Goldring for putting families through the circus that was ultimately bound to fail. If it was indeed self evident that the case would fail on a point of law I can’t help but wonder what the lawyers representing the families were thinking to pursue this case. Presumably they will have been earning fees, but more importantly families will have had hopes of justice drawn out painfully and unnecessarily. Again if the problem with the case was self evident then the last few years could have been better spent campaigning for the necessary change in the law such that public servants have a legal responsibility to provide an honest account to any form of enquiry. Instead that campaign only gets launched now. |
The family lawyers didnt persue this case. It was the CPS. The family lawyers put forward to the CPS a list of proposed prosecutions 5 years ago. What the CPS persued was a fraction of those.
And the proposed Hillsborough law was first proposed in 2016 before any prosecutions.. It was put forward by Andy Burnham, written I believe in consultation with Pete Wetherby, one of the leading family lawyer. It got dropped (like all laws) when a parliament ended and was never restarted.
David Conn as ever gives some background in one of his pieces below
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/hillsborough-families-orde | |
| |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 22:19 - May 28 with 575 views | Crawfordsboot |
| P*ssed off with the unaccountability of the police... on 21:21 - May 28 by bluelagos |
The family lawyers didnt persue this case. It was the CPS. The family lawyers put forward to the CPS a list of proposed prosecutions 5 years ago. What the CPS persued was a fraction of those.
And the proposed Hillsborough law was first proposed in 2016 before any prosecutions.. It was put forward by Andy Burnham, written I believe in consultation with Pete Wetherby, one of the leading family lawyer. It got dropped (like all laws) when a parliament ended and was never restarted.
David Conn as ever gives some background in one of his pieces below
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/hillsborough-families-orde |
Thanks for the clarification | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
