Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
You're being flippant regarding my concerns over the expenditure of taxpayer's money. Still, it's only taxpayer's money.
Flippant or not, it's the reply you deserve because it's a variable not in control by anyone involved so has no relevance. The current lot tapered the old pension so if you want to do anything other than complain, then make your feelings known to them. V8 Fettler said:
In light of Red 4's post, GMP, Kent and SYP could have managed this situation to ensure that Copley wasn't in post for just one day. All three forces and SYP PCC could have anticipated the various verdicts of the Hillsborough inquest and taken a measured, coordinated and controlled approach. Unlikely to occur with insular empires.
In light of you commenting on Red 4's post, it's evident you didn't bother to take the time to read a couple of paragraphs of news before commenting on the matter, which is probably why you made the invalid assumption below (or just made it up). I agree it could have been done better, regardless of whom did or didn't do what. Unless the picture has dramatically changed from when Copley was appointed (and it was known she was being investigated, in case you didn't know that as well), I'd have expected them to be more resilient and kept her to remain as temp CC. The knock-on effect of the suspension of Crompton now means North Yorkshire are without their CC for a bit.
La Liga said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.
How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere? It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.Red 4 said:
I'm sure Liga will say that's ok, even if South Yorkshire Police's legal strategy went against the public apology issued by Crompton 1n 2012 following the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.
There were over 30 legal representatives for the 'non-family side', from 15 different firms. To say that's going to create a complex mix of strategies and angles is a bit of an understatement. To say the CC and PCC (to be fair to him) are responsible for that, and to say it goes back on an apology is convenient, packaged-up simplicity that doesn't reflect the complex matter.
Red 4 said:
After all, despite what he said to the families, Crompton wanted to find more "innovative ways" of defending/ mitigating the case to avoid being "roadkill".
That's not what he said. The email is online. Red 4 said:
Still, SYP aren't the worst performing force according to Liga's polls, so all is good.
They're pretty much in line with most of the country. I can't help it if you don't like what the objective data says. Red - thanks for the correction. I see to do a lot of work in this field and had forgotten about the other associations for higher ranked officers.
La Lisa you said
There were over 30 legal representatives for the 'non-family side', from 15 different firms.
To say that's going to create a complex mix of strategies and angles is a bit of an understatement. To say the CC and PCC (to be fair to him) are responsible for that, and to say it goes back on an apology is convenient, packaged-up simplicity that doesn't reflect the complex matter.
I say:
He who pays the piper calls the tune. In my opinion this makes the PPC's position untenable and he needs to go. It's completely unacceptable that he should authorise public money to run such an adversarial position when the participants pants knew the truth and were at their own admission just trying to manage reputational damage.
Their approach was a disgrace. Expensive in terms of cash and reputation.
La Lisa you said
There were over 30 legal representatives for the 'non-family side', from 15 different firms.
To say that's going to create a complex mix of strategies and angles is a bit of an understatement. To say the CC and PCC (to be fair to him) are responsible for that, and to say it goes back on an apology is convenient, packaged-up simplicity that doesn't reflect the complex matter.
I say:
He who pays the piper calls the tune. In my opinion this makes the PPC's position untenable and he needs to go. It's completely unacceptable that he should authorise public money to run such an adversarial position when the participants pants knew the truth and were at their own admission just trying to manage reputational damage.
Their approach was a disgrace. Expensive in terms of cash and reputation.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 4th May 11:36
Liga - do you known Crompton personally ?
The reason I ask is that you continue to defend him at all costs.
I suspect you are a member of South Yorkshire Police.
The reason I suspect this is because you mentioned earlier that you know what candidates for the position of PCC in South Yorks have said - past and present.
That is unusual for someone who does not have an interest in South Yorkshire.
You also said that you have been a staff officer in the past - for those who don't know what that is, it is a role performed by a subordinate to assist a senior officer in the force's management team.
I know what Crompton said in his email - thanks.
We covered that a few pages back and I stand by my comments.
As far as Crompton's role in the legal strategy goes, he said that South Yorkshire Police were "Being respectful to the process, the victims and families .... by not asking any questions that were incompatible with the apologies previously given, or might seek to go behind any findings of previous inquiries, to suggest that the behaviour of the fans was being called into question".
What a load of rubbish !!!
A complaint was made to the coroner about SYP's conduct during the inquests.
Following the verdicts, Crompton issued a statement which, amongst other things, tried to justify the force's stance - i.e. He tried to justify certain lines of questioning during the inquest which the families found offensive.
Basically, he appears to say one thing publicly and then do something else completely.
That's why he's been suspended.
The reason I ask is that you continue to defend him at all costs.
I suspect you are a member of South Yorkshire Police.
The reason I suspect this is because you mentioned earlier that you know what candidates for the position of PCC in South Yorks have said - past and present.
That is unusual for someone who does not have an interest in South Yorkshire.
You also said that you have been a staff officer in the past - for those who don't know what that is, it is a role performed by a subordinate to assist a senior officer in the force's management team.
I know what Crompton said in his email - thanks.
We covered that a few pages back and I stand by my comments.
As far as Crompton's role in the legal strategy goes, he said that South Yorkshire Police were "Being respectful to the process, the victims and families .... by not asking any questions that were incompatible with the apologies previously given, or might seek to go behind any findings of previous inquiries, to suggest that the behaviour of the fans was being called into question".
What a load of rubbish !!!
A complaint was made to the coroner about SYP's conduct during the inquests.
Following the verdicts, Crompton issued a statement which, amongst other things, tried to justify the force's stance - i.e. He tried to justify certain lines of questioning during the inquest which the families found offensive.
Basically, he appears to say one thing publicly and then do something else completely.
That's why he's been suspended.
desolate said:
I say:
He who pays the piper calls the tune. In my opinion this makes the PPC's position untenable and he needs to go. It's completely unacceptable that he should authorise public money to run such an adversarial position when the participants pants knew the truth and were at their own admission just trying to manage reputational damage.
Their approach was a disgrace. Expensive in terms of cash and reputation.
Are you saying the PCC was meant to tell the legal team representing Duckenfield and the other Supers what to do and what approach to take? He who pays the piper calls the tune. In my opinion this makes the PPC's position untenable and he needs to go. It's completely unacceptable that he should authorise public money to run such an adversarial position when the participants pants knew the truth and were at their own admission just trying to manage reputational damage.
Their approach was a disgrace. Expensive in terms of cash and reputation.
The job of the legal reps is to test 'all' the information and evidence, regardless of whether the other side like it or not. It's then for the jury to decide what's right and wrong. The link back to the CC and PCC is forced, as only a handful of people actually have any idea of how much involvement they had or didn't have.
Red 4 said:
Liga - do you known Crompton personally ?
The reason I ask is that you continue to defend him at all costs.
No, I'm just one of these awkward people whom likes there to be evidence. If there's evidence of people doing something wrong then they should be held to account, if there isn't then they shouldn't. The same standards I apply to anyone. I don't just accept things on face value. The reason I ask is that you continue to defend him at all costs.
Red 4 said:
I suspect you are a member of South Yorkshire Police.
The reason I suspect this is because you mentioned earlier that you know what candidates for the position of PCC in South Yorks have said - past and present.
Nope. I've been to Sheffield before, though. I looked at the candidates online as this thread involves the PCC from that area. The reason I suspect this is because you mentioned earlier that you know what candidates for the position of PCC in South Yorks have said - past and present.
Red 4 said:
That is unusual for someone who does not have an interest in South Yorkshire.
You also said that you have been a staff officer in the past - for those who don't know what that is, it is a role performed by a subordinate to assist a senior officer in the force's management team.
The thread relates to them thus the interest. If the thread were about another force I'd look at them etc. You also said that you have been a staff officer in the past - for those who don't know what that is, it is a role performed by a subordinate to assist a senior officer in the force's management team.
Red 4 said:
Basically, he appears to say one thing publicly and then do something else completely.
That's why he's been suspended.
You have no idea what he has and has not done in terms of the legal matters at the inquest. That's why he's been suspended.
4x4Tyke said:
I see the opposite, him breaking down red's unsubstantiated claims with evidence.
Coming from someone who still thinks Hillsborough was "an unfortunate accident" - your words - I don't think anyone will care what you see.The Taylor Report, the findings of the HIP and the determination of the inquests are readily available.
Alternatively, you could try watching the news, buying a newspaper and taking your head out of the sand.
Feel free to educate yourself ... maybe then you won't look such a muppet.
By the way, I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims - I've quoted Crompton, the IPCC and the PCC (amongst others) - that info is out there too if you can be bothered to look for it.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 4th May 14:36
I am not surprised that apologists for the SYP will go to such lengths to try to dilute the impact of the lies and cover-up. No matter how they twist and turn they will fail. We just need to apply the tenacity and grit of the Hillsborough families to the task of getting to the truth of Orgreave.
The fact that other police forces were involved does nothing to reassure me. On the contrary, the same senior officers were involved in the aftermath of Orgreave and Hillsborough so other forces could have learned a few tricks from them.
The fact that other police forces were involved does nothing to reassure me. On the contrary, the same senior officers were involved in the aftermath of Orgreave and Hillsborough so other forces could have learned a few tricks from them.
In the interests of balance, they don't help themselves with messes like this: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
It's not for me to have to defend people whom there isn't evidence of wrong-doing.
Another example would be your defence of various Plebgate/fed rep 3 participants.
Red 4 & I don't normally see eye-to-eye but we seem to be on the same page with this subject. If such diametrically opposed individuals share an opinion then maybe there's some merit to it.
Not read through all of this thread but it seems to me that South Yorkshire Police were guilty of both incompetence (in the sense their actions created the circumstances that allowed the disaster to happen) and deceit (in the sense they focused huge attention on covering-up their incompetence rather than admitting to it).
To take the two in reverse order, the second is completely indefensible and has without doubt contributed to the whole affair being dragged-out for far longer than it should have been; had SYP told the truth from the start this matter would surely have been resolved many years ago and the anguish for the families could (and should0 have been considerably less.
On the first point, you clearly have to respect the findings of the inquest jury as they have been privy to far more information than Joe public. However, from some of the comments made you get the feeling that some almost believe the exit gate was opened in the knowledge it would cause a crush inside the ground and I find that hard to believe; that SYP made a mistake in opening the gate is undeniable but I don't think anyone who was party to that decision knew the consequences it would have. I suppose the implication of the inquest verdict is that they should have known the likely consequences but being honest that seems a little harsh to me; I'm not sure what training police officers who run football matches receive but back in the 1980's would they have had anything to tell them the consequences of opening an exit gate in those circumstances? It seems clear that those in charge on the day panicked and should have consulted with others before making their decision but gross negligence implies they've done something when they should have known the awful consequences that would follow and I'm really not sure that was the case here; however, the jury obviously was and the fact SYP then went to great lengths to cover-up what they did probably does little to help their defence.
All in all a seriously sorry episode and sadly nothing will bring back those 96 innocent people; however, it looks like action of some sort will rumble on for a while yet and if it does I just hope all involved remember that revenge and justice aren't the same thing...
To take the two in reverse order, the second is completely indefensible and has without doubt contributed to the whole affair being dragged-out for far longer than it should have been; had SYP told the truth from the start this matter would surely have been resolved many years ago and the anguish for the families could (and should0 have been considerably less.
On the first point, you clearly have to respect the findings of the inquest jury as they have been privy to far more information than Joe public. However, from some of the comments made you get the feeling that some almost believe the exit gate was opened in the knowledge it would cause a crush inside the ground and I find that hard to believe; that SYP made a mistake in opening the gate is undeniable but I don't think anyone who was party to that decision knew the consequences it would have. I suppose the implication of the inquest verdict is that they should have known the likely consequences but being honest that seems a little harsh to me; I'm not sure what training police officers who run football matches receive but back in the 1980's would they have had anything to tell them the consequences of opening an exit gate in those circumstances? It seems clear that those in charge on the day panicked and should have consulted with others before making their decision but gross negligence implies they've done something when they should have known the awful consequences that would follow and I'm really not sure that was the case here; however, the jury obviously was and the fact SYP then went to great lengths to cover-up what they did probably does little to help their defence.
All in all a seriously sorry episode and sadly nothing will bring back those 96 innocent people; however, it looks like action of some sort will rumble on for a while yet and if it does I just hope all involved remember that revenge and justice aren't the same thing...
Rovinghawk said:
You seem to be not just defending the Hillsborough cover-up/smear campaign & all those involved, you're actively praising the CC who has been seen to be hypocritical between what he says in public & what he does 'in camera'.
He hasn't been hypocritical. His email is rather clear he is aiming for the truth given the factual references that would anchor any of the would-be points. Rovinghawk said:
Another example would be your defence of various Plebgate/fed rep 3 participants.
A brief look at the Plebgate topic finds this: La Liga in the Pleb Gate thread said:
The Fed 3 tried to play politics and be clever with the big boys. They messed it up and helped add to the whole farce. An absolute waste of time, energy and money, but if their conduct amounts to misconduct then they need to be held to account for it.
Murh7355,
This thread is about police corruption in the aftermath of Hillsborough as much as the failings on the day. Orgreave and Hillsborough are linked by the senior officers.
You should read this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/orgreav...
There are many more articles in a similar vein.
It appears that there is still more to come about Orgreave which cannot be aired until all prosecutions over Hillsborough have concluded. In 1991 SYP had to pay £425,000 to 39 miners who sued for assault, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution. Now the IPCC said there cannot be prosecutions over Orgreave because too long a time has elapsed.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-announces-decisi...
This is just another way of saying that if the cover-up succeeds and is maintained long enough no-one can be brought to account. Is this the way criminal proceeding over Hillsborough will go?
How do we know that this culture of close ranks and cover-up is not endemic in our police forces?
This thread is about police corruption in the aftermath of Hillsborough as much as the failings on the day. Orgreave and Hillsborough are linked by the senior officers.
You should read this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/orgreav...
There are many more articles in a similar vein.
It appears that there is still more to come about Orgreave which cannot be aired until all prosecutions over Hillsborough have concluded. In 1991 SYP had to pay £425,000 to 39 miners who sued for assault, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution. Now the IPCC said there cannot be prosecutions over Orgreave because too long a time has elapsed.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-announces-decisi...
This is just another way of saying that if the cover-up succeeds and is maintained long enough no-one can be brought to account. Is this the way criminal proceeding over Hillsborough will go?
How do we know that this culture of close ranks and cover-up is not endemic in our police forces?
In your own words:
davidball said:
You should read this.
davidball said:
There are better things for investigatory bodies to spend their time on than Orgreave. For example, the police workforce and Specials equate to over 220,000 people. Within that number, there will be people whom should not be working for the police and are up to no good. The IPCC and others should be focusing on getting rid of them to stop current and prevent future harm, not spending time on something like Orgreave. La Liga said:
In the interests of balance, they don't help themselves with messes like this: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...
.... apart from this story, there has been much in-fighting between senior ranks at Northumbria.An excellent example of how not to set an excellent example.
Sue Sim to give evidence against the current chief ? That'll be interesting ....
How far/long should Orgreave run for?
IPCC said:
IPCC Deputy Chair Sarah Green said:
“The events at the Orgreave coking plant during May and June 1984 not only marked a critical point in the miners’ strike, but also in the relationships with, and trust in, the police. I recognise the seriousness of the allegations and their continuing effect on public confidence in the affected communities. For that reason, we have made a careful and detailed analysis of material that has come in over a two-year period.
“These are events from more than 30 years ago, and I have considered the impact such a passage of time could have on an IPCC investigation and possible outcomes. In addition, because the miners arrested at Orgreave were acquitted or no evidence offered, there are no miscarriages of justice due to alleged police failures for the IPCC to investigate. Allegations of offences amounting to minor assaults could not be prosecuted due to the passage of time; and as many of the police officers involved in events at Orgreave are retired, no disciplinary action could be pursued.
“I have therefore concluded that there should not be an IPCC led investigation.”
“The events at the Orgreave coking plant during May and June 1984 not only marked a critical point in the miners’ strike, but also in the relationships with, and trust in, the police. I recognise the seriousness of the allegations and their continuing effect on public confidence in the affected communities. For that reason, we have made a careful and detailed analysis of material that has come in over a two-year period.
“These are events from more than 30 years ago, and I have considered the impact such a passage of time could have on an IPCC investigation and possible outcomes. In addition, because the miners arrested at Orgreave were acquitted or no evidence offered, there are no miscarriages of justice due to alleged police failures for the IPCC to investigate. Allegations of offences amounting to minor assaults could not be prosecuted due to the passage of time; and as many of the police officers involved in events at Orgreave are retired, no disciplinary action could be pursued.
“I have therefore concluded that there should not be an IPCC led investigation.”
Sorry that i can't work out how to do the multiple quoting thing - been a long day
La Liga said -
Are you saying the PCC was meant to tell the legal team representing Duckenfield and the other Supers what to do and what approach to take?
The job of the legal reps is to test 'all' the information and evidence, regardless of whether the other side like it or not. It's then for the jury to decide what's right and wrong. The link back to the CC and PCC is forced, as only a handful of people actually have any idea of how much involvement they had or didn't have.
I am 100% saying that.
"The role of the PCCs is to be the voice of the people and hold the police to account. They are responsible for the totality of policing."
Between the PCC and Crompton they could have chosen to give the inquest full disclosure, warts and all. They didn't.
They chose the adversarial route - and lost.
The questions about the the fans where heavily weighted in favour of the police et al - and they still lost, after spending 18 or so million of public funds running an aggressive campaign.
f
k the pair of them.
An inquest isn't a trial either, Officer.
La Liga said -
Are you saying the PCC was meant to tell the legal team representing Duckenfield and the other Supers what to do and what approach to take?
The job of the legal reps is to test 'all' the information and evidence, regardless of whether the other side like it or not. It's then for the jury to decide what's right and wrong. The link back to the CC and PCC is forced, as only a handful of people actually have any idea of how much involvement they had or didn't have.
I am 100% saying that.
"The role of the PCCs is to be the voice of the people and hold the police to account. They are responsible for the totality of policing."
Between the PCC and Crompton they could have chosen to give the inquest full disclosure, warts and all. They didn't.
They chose the adversarial route - and lost.
The questions about the the fans where heavily weighted in favour of the police et al - and they still lost, after spending 18 or so million of public funds running an aggressive campaign.
f
k the pair of them.An inquest isn't a trial either, Officer.
JNW1 said:
Not read through all of this thread but it seems to me that South Yorkshire Police were guilty of both incompetence (in the sense their actions created the circumstances that allowed the disaster to happen) and deceit (in the sense they focused huge attention on covering-up their incompetence rather than admitting to it).
To take the two in reverse order, the second is completely indefensible and has without doubt contributed to the whole affair being dragged-out for far longer than it should have been; had SYP told the truth from the start this matter would surely have been resolved many years ago and the anguish for the families could (and should0 have been considerably less.
On the first point, you clearly have to respect the findings of the inquest jury as they have been privy to far more information than Joe public. However, from some of the comments made you get the feeling that some almost believe the exit gate was opened in the knowledge it would cause a crush inside the ground and I find that hard to believe; that SYP made a mistake in opening the gate is undeniable but I don't think anyone who was party to that decision knew the consequences it would have. I suppose the implication of the inquest verdict is that they should have known the likely consequences but being honest that seems a little harsh to me; I'm not sure what training police officers who run football matches receive but back in the 1980's would they have had anything to tell them the consequences of opening an exit gate in those circumstances? It seems clear that those in charge on the day panicked and should have consulted with others before making their decision but gross negligence implies they've done something when they should have known the awful consequences that would follow and I'm really not sure that was the case here; however, the jury obviously was and the fact SYP then went to great lengths to cover-up what they did probably does little to help their defence.
All in all a seriously sorry episode and sadly nothing will bring back those 96 innocent people; however, it looks like action of some sort will rumble on for a while yet and if it does I just hope all involved remember that revenge and justice aren't the same thing...
read the thread and the evidence. To take the two in reverse order, the second is completely indefensible and has without doubt contributed to the whole affair being dragged-out for far longer than it should have been; had SYP told the truth from the start this matter would surely have been resolved many years ago and the anguish for the families could (and should0 have been considerably less.
On the first point, you clearly have to respect the findings of the inquest jury as they have been privy to far more information than Joe public. However, from some of the comments made you get the feeling that some almost believe the exit gate was opened in the knowledge it would cause a crush inside the ground and I find that hard to believe; that SYP made a mistake in opening the gate is undeniable but I don't think anyone who was party to that decision knew the consequences it would have. I suppose the implication of the inquest verdict is that they should have known the likely consequences but being honest that seems a little harsh to me; I'm not sure what training police officers who run football matches receive but back in the 1980's would they have had anything to tell them the consequences of opening an exit gate in those circumstances? It seems clear that those in charge on the day panicked and should have consulted with others before making their decision but gross negligence implies they've done something when they should have known the awful consequences that would follow and I'm really not sure that was the case here; however, the jury obviously was and the fact SYP then went to great lengths to cover-up what they did probably does little to help their defence.
All in all a seriously sorry episode and sadly nothing will bring back those 96 innocent people; however, it looks like action of some sort will rumble on for a while yet and if it does I just hope all involved remember that revenge and justice aren't the same thing...
then comment.
SYP knew what to do on the day but their officer Duckenfield couldn't be arsed to read the manual.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff