Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
davidball said:
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.
...
No, this thread is about the Hillsborough Inquest. Start one about Orgreave if you like and I'll happily join in, having lived around the corner from there with a father who was a fireman at the time. ...
desolate said:
Between the PCC and Crompton they could have chosen to give the inquest full disclosure, warts and all. They didn't.
Could they? Were they in charge of all 30 legal reps, specifically the ones representing retired individuals? What's your experience regarding complex legal preparation for inquests and experience of this matter claim the PPC and Crompton could have done X, Y and Z? desolate said:
An inquest isn't a trial either, Officer.
Where did I say it was? It isn't, but there's exposure for individuals to prosecutions, and the like, as a indirect result of what a jury may or may not conclude. That may influence the legal strategy an individual may wish to take with their legal team. davidball said:
Rubbish. That kind of attitude is just what the cover-up culture thrives on.
That kind of attitude makes objective assessments as to where finite resources should be focused. The IPCC have looked at the matter in quite a lot of detail and concluded there's no real prospect of any conviction. Their, and the time of others could be better spent. I expect and hope it will be, too. desolate said:
read the thread and the evidence.
then comment.
SYP knew what to do on the day but their officer Duckenfield couldn't be arsed to read the manual.
I did start to read the thread but after the second page it seemed to start to degenerate into a bit of a slanging match! However, it was documented what the likely consequence would be of opening that exit gate and Duckenfield wasn't aware because he hadn't taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the relevant information? Pretty poor if that's the case and not surprised the jury returned a verdict of gross negligence; however, I am slightly surprised that risk assessment of football grounds was that thorough going back to the 1980's!then comment.
SYP knew what to do on the day but their officer Duckenfield couldn't be arsed to read the manual.
JNW1 said:
desolate said:
read the thread and the evidence.
then comment.
SYP knew what to do on the day but their officer Duckenfield couldn't be arsed to read the manual.
I did start to read the thread but after the second page it seemed to start to degenerate into a bit of a slanging match! However, it was documented what the likely consequence would be of opening that exit gate and Duckenfield wasn't aware because he hadn't taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the relevant information? Pretty poor if that's the case and not surprised the jury returned a verdict of gross negligence; however, I am slightly surprised that risk assessment of football grounds was that thorough going back to the 1980's!then comment.
SYP knew what to do on the day but their officer Duckenfield couldn't be arsed to read the manual.
Duckenfield seems to have been pretty open at the Inquest about what happened, but the reporting still leaves something to be desired as it did on the day.
There are some people here who still claim he lied, and if you read the reporting carefully it seems to be a 'lie by omission'. You'll also see inference.
The reporting begins with the gates being broken, which quickly became obvious wasn't true and reported but somehow it stuck. That initial broken seems to have been an inference that it was done by the fans and no-one denied it even though the fans, the police, Duckenfield and the first reporting knew the police had opened the gate, otherwise a dangerous incident would occur outside
When asked about the lie by omission Duckenfield said something like that if that's what it's called, he fully apologises for it and all the hurt it's subsequently caused.
The way everything else built on that is incredible and why we have 50 pages just in this thread.
Part of the negligence must include not being clued up on how to run the show, opening the gates without closing off the tunnel. Simple mistake, drastic consequences
@ La Liga
If Crompton's statutory retirement age is 52 then he should retire at 52. If his statutory retirement age is greater than 52 then his actions leading to suspension should lead to a disciplinary process, the results of which should determine if he is sacked, reinstated or demoted. But it's more convenient for SYP, the PCC and Crompton for Crompton to retire. What is Crompton's statutory retirement age?
Given the serious nature of the allegations about Copley, Kent should have issued regular, confidental interim updates to GMP as the investigation continued. GMP should have provided similar to SYP and the SYP PCC to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC could manage the fallout from the Hillsborough inquest without being derailed at senior management level. Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
I haven't read much about Copley's background and her appointment because I have to find time for the day job to earn some shekels to pay the usual large tax bills. Astonishingly, it appears that the SYP PCC was unaware of the investigation into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment, that's another ambush http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Ambushed by failed multi-quoting.
If Crompton's statutory retirement age is 52 then he should retire at 52. If his statutory retirement age is greater than 52 then his actions leading to suspension should lead to a disciplinary process, the results of which should determine if he is sacked, reinstated or demoted. But it's more convenient for SYP, the PCC and Crompton for Crompton to retire. What is Crompton's statutory retirement age?
Given the serious nature of the allegations about Copley, Kent should have issued regular, confidental interim updates to GMP as the investigation continued. GMP should have provided similar to SYP and the SYP PCC to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC could manage the fallout from the Hillsborough inquest without being derailed at senior management level. Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
I haven't read much about Copley's background and her appointment because I have to find time for the day job to earn some shekels to pay the usual large tax bills. Astonishingly, it appears that the SYP PCC was unaware of the investigation into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment, that's another ambush http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Ambushed by failed multi-quoting.
It's a separate issue to the thread topic but this taking on of senior officers, while under investigation, isn't new. A trawl shows some others who've applied for positions and accepted.
The problem is the investigations take so long. You cant take a competent person out of the way until it concludes if youre looking for the current best person for the job.
Once it's complete the outcome can be assessed to see if affects their current position.
The problem is the investigations take so long. You cant take a competent person out of the way until it concludes if youre looking for the current best person for the job.
Once it's complete the outcome can be assessed to see if affects their current position.
saaby93 said:
hat's a pretty good summary considering you've missed out 48 pages
Duckenfield seems to have been pretty open at the Inquest about what happened, but the reporting still leaves something to be desired as it did on the day.
There are some people here who still claim he lied, and if you read the reporting carefully it seems to be a 'lie by omission'. You'll also see inference.
The reporting begins with the gates being broken, which quickly became obvious wasn't true and reported but somehow it stuck. That initial broken seems to have been an inference that it was done by the fans and no-one denied it even though the fans, the police, Duckenfield and the first reporting knew the police had opened the gate, otherwise a dangerous incident would occur outside
When asked about the lie by omission Duckenfield said something like that if that's what it's called, he fully apologises for it and all the hurt it's subsequently caused.
The way everything else built on that is incredible and why we have 50 pages just in this thread.
Part of the negligence must include not being clued up on how to run the show, opening the gates without closing off the tunnel. Simple mistake, drastic consequences
I've been in the Leppings Lane end when it was relatively full and I can see that that tunnel could be a scary place to be if lots of people were surging through it en-mass; turnstiles obviously control the flow but open an exit gate to let lots of people through and it becomes a very different scenario. However, what I've never quite understood is if the tunnel had been closed where would all those people entering through the open gate have gone? My memory of the ground layout is a bit hazy but if the tunnel was closed - and the exit gate opened - wouldn't that have just moved the congestion from outside the ground to inside? Duckenfield seems to have been pretty open at the Inquest about what happened, but the reporting still leaves something to be desired as it did on the day.
There are some people here who still claim he lied, and if you read the reporting carefully it seems to be a 'lie by omission'. You'll also see inference.
The reporting begins with the gates being broken, which quickly became obvious wasn't true and reported but somehow it stuck. That initial broken seems to have been an inference that it was done by the fans and no-one denied it even though the fans, the police, Duckenfield and the first reporting knew the police had opened the gate, otherwise a dangerous incident would occur outside
When asked about the lie by omission Duckenfield said something like that if that's what it's called, he fully apologises for it and all the hurt it's subsequently caused.
The way everything else built on that is incredible and why we have 50 pages just in this thread.
Part of the negligence must include not being clued up on how to run the show, opening the gates without closing off the tunnel. Simple mistake, drastic consequences
However, I think what's beyond doubt with all of this is that SYP didn't tell the truth about what happened and actually sought to deflect attention from their own mistakes by trying to blame others; pretty shameful and proof again that honesty is the best policy - lies always catch-up with you in the end!
Red 4 said:
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.
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.
Play the ball, not the man; address the details and back up your claims with links like most others posters do and stop acting up the negative 'scouser' stereotype, you do yourself and city no favours.V8 Fettler said:
If Crompton's statutory retirement age is 52 then he should retire at 52
For his pension it's length of service, not age. V8 Fettler said:
Given the serious nature of the allegations about Copley, Kent should have issued regular, confidental interim updates to GMP as the investigation continued. GMP should have provided similar to SYP and the SYP PCC to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC could manage the fallout from the Hillsborough inquest without being derailed at senior management level.
Think about it a little more, why would they pass confidential updates to those who they are investigating (GMP's PSD are implicated by the accuser)? In any event, the GMP were in a strong position to make any kind of assessment as to the likelihood of any positive outcome given they investigated the accuser and have all the information to hand.
V8 Fettler said:
Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
You were talking about the probability of the timings of the announcement, and suggesting the GMP were the source (see the next quote below). Now you're trying to go down some indirect, flailing (another V8 bingo word) scuttle-route to try and justify your unfounded assumption. At least for consistency you’re doing this by making further unfounded assumptions which you have no basis to make (that there was a failure of updates being passed). There's so much unknown, but that doesn't stop you filling in the voids with whatever you care to make up as you go along.
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.
V8 Fettler said:
I haven't read much about Copley's background and her appointment because I have to find time for the day job to earn some shekels to pay the usual large tax bills. Astonishingly, it appears that the SYP PCC was unaware of the investigation into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment, that's another ambush http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
That much in bold is clear - perhaps if your willingness to read were in line with your willingness to post you'd avoid another inaccuracy: http://www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/News-and-Even...PCC Billings said:
"There has been media comment today about Mrs Copley. I would like to make clear that Mrs Copley fully declared the details of allegations into her conduct when she applied for the post of Deputy Chief Constable here at South Yorkshire Police."
Quick tip, always look for direct quotes. Especially from people / organisations where statements can be expected, like, for example, PCCs... 4x4Tyke said:
Red 4 said:
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.
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.
Play the ball, not the man; address the details and back up your claims with links like most others posters do and stop acting up the negative 'scouser' stereotype, you do yourself and city no favours.You accuse me of playing the man, not the ball and then launch into a personal attack !
Just so you can educate yourself, here's a link to the jury's determination https://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/wp...
"An unfortunate accident" (your words) it was not.
Other findings are available should you choose to look (Taylor/ HIP).
Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 5th May 11:59
JNW1 said:
I've been in the Leppings Lane end when it was relatively full and I can see that that tunnel could be a scary place to be if lots of people were surging through it en-mass; turnstiles obviously control the flow but open an exit gate to let lots of people through and it becomes a very different scenario. However, what I've never quite understood is if the tunnel had been closed where would all those people entering through the open gate have gone? My memory of the ground layout is a bit hazy but if the tunnel was closed - and the exit gate opened - wouldn't that have just moved the congestion from outside the ground to inside?
However, I think what's beyond doubt with all of this is that SYP didn't tell the truth about what happened and actually sought to deflect attention from their own mistakes by trying to blame others; pretty shameful and proof again that honesty is the best policy - lies always catch-up with you in the end!
There were 3 entry points to the Leppings Lane terrace. The one that led to pens 3 and 4 where the crush occurred. This had a nice big sign above the tunnel saying 'Terracing' or some such and you could see the pitch through the tunnel which is why everyone headed that way. There were also 2 other access points to the other pens, one at each end of the stand, but these were not well signed.However, I think what's beyond doubt with all of this is that SYP didn't tell the truth about what happened and actually sought to deflect attention from their own mistakes by trying to blame others; pretty shameful and proof again that honesty is the best policy - lies always catch-up with you in the end!
Russ35 said:
There were 3 entry points to the Leppings Lane terrace. The one that led to pens 3 and 4 where the crush occurred. This had a nice big sign above the tunnel saying 'Terracing' or some such and you could see the pitch through the tunnel which is why everyone headed that way. There were also 2 other access points to the other pens, one at each end of the stand, but these were not well signed.
I suppose hindsight is 20:20 but if you're getting a large crowd build-up outside the ground - and it's clear everyone won't get in before kick-off - surely the obvious thing to do is delay the kick-off and tell supporters there's no need to worry about missing any of the match? Probably easier said than done if the game's being televised live and you're under pressure to keep to a schedule but the safety of the supporters should be the main concern. I also never understood why all the turnstiles weren't open for such a big game but as an away fan I've experienced this before; the host club and the local police knew to expect a large number of supporters but instead of planning and preparing accordingly you end-up with loads of people outside the ground with no chance of getting in before the stated kick-off time. Tempers flare as a result but back in the 1980's it was always the fans to blame for becoming restless and never the poor organisation which caused the problem in the first place.... Police Media Officer refused to follow South Yorkshire Police's media strategy during inquests, saying it was "unethical".
"South Yorkshire Police, having made a full apology for the disaster in 2012, should not have been seeking to spread the blame onto others, including Liverpool supporters, at the inquests."
"I tried to make this point in every formal way within the South Yorkshire Police, but in response I faced criticism for my own performance and felt bullied".
Story here ...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/05/so...
"South Yorkshire Police, having made a full apology for the disaster in 2012, should not have been seeking to spread the blame onto others, including Liverpool supporters, at the inquests."
"I tried to make this point in every formal way within the South Yorkshire Police, but in response I faced criticism for my own performance and felt bullied".
Story here ...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/05/so...
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
If Crompton's statutory retirement age is 52 then he should retire at 52
For his pension it's length of service, not age. V8 Fettler said:
Given the serious nature of the allegations about Copley, Kent should have issued regular, confidental interim updates to GMP as the investigation continued. GMP should have provided similar to SYP and the SYP PCC to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC could manage the fallout from the Hillsborough inquest without being derailed at senior management level.
Think about it a little more, why would they pass confidential updates to those who they are investigating (GMP's PSD are implicated by the accuser)? In any event, the GMP were in a strong position to make any kind of assessment as to the likelihood of any positive outcome given they investigated the accuser and have all the information to hand.
V8 Fettler said:
Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
You were talking about the probability of the timings of the announcement, and suggesting the GMP were the source (see the next quote below). Now you're trying to go down some indirect, flailing (another V8 bingo word) scuttle-route to try and justify your unfounded assumption. At least for consistency you’re doing this by making further unfounded assumptions which you have no basis to make (that there was a failure of updates being passed). There's so much unknown, but that doesn't stop you filling in the voids with whatever you care to make up as you go along.
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.
V8 Fettler said:
I haven't read much about Copley's background and her appointment because I have to find time for the day job to earn some shekels to pay the usual large tax bills. Astonishingly, it appears that the SYP PCC was unaware of the investigation into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment, that's another ambush http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
That much in bold is clear - perhaps if your willingness to read were in line with your willingness to post you'd avoid another inaccuracy: http://www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/News-and-Even...PCC Billings said:
"There has been media comment today about Mrs Copley. I would like to make clear that Mrs Copley fully declared the details of allegations into her conduct when she applied for the post of Deputy Chief Constable here at South Yorkshire Police."
Quick tip, always look for direct quotes. Especially from people / organisations where statements can be expected, like, for example, PCCs... No requirement for GMP or Kent to pass confidential info to SYP or the SYP PCC as the investigation into Copley proceeded, a yellow "caution" flag would have been sufficient.
GMP cannot possibly have all the information to hand unless GMP are now omnipresent.
GMP should have been the route by which the status, interim updates and results of the investigation into Copley should have been communicated to SYP and the SYP PCC. Clear lines of communication and reporting between the various empires is essential to reduce the risk of screw-ups.
If the SYP PCC was aware of the continuing investigation into Copley at the time she applied for the SYP DCC position then - demonstrably - SYP shouldn't have employed her where there was a possibility of her stepping into Crompton's shoes as a result of the Hillsborough inquest. All this was foreseeable and should have been considered as part of a risk management strategy, unless the various parties were relying on the gift of omnipresence.
Thanks for the tip, perhaps your tips could become a regular feature on PH?
carinaman said:
Red 4 got there before me. Former SYP Media woman ordered to spin Inquest news reported on Radio 4 Midnight news.
Perhaps the College of Policing will award her a Code of Ethics medal?
desolate got there before me too.
It's here tooPerhaps the College of Policing will award her a Code of Ethics medal?
desolate got there before me too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36...
If youre in that type of job, it's to make sure your company is given a fair crack of the whip in the media. This sentence explains it best
article said:
Hayley was asked to encourage the media to report on the positives (as well as accepting that they would report the negatives).
One of the points that came out is useful for usarticle said:
In July 2014 Ms Court sent a BBC reporter covering the inquests a text message saying: "Sorry to text late - is there going to be any mention of the new evidence which came to light from SYP on the BBC at some point tonight?"
It was sent at 21:28, following a day at court when a SYP barrister had argued CCTV footage appeared to show supporters forcing open perimeter gates in Leppings Lane.
Up till now we only knew that the as it happened reporting on the day said the gates may have been broken by the fans. The police didnt say anything about it they were reported as opening the gates to avoid a serious incident outside the ground, but the inference was as you know.It was sent at 21:28, following a day at court when a SYP barrister had argued CCTV footage appeared to show supporters forcing open perimeter gates in Leppings Lane.
If the CCTV can be construed that way - it may help explain the reporting.
I asked before if anyone know why the inquest jury weren't asked to make an assessment about the way the tragedy unfolded in the media
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 6th May 08:52
V8 Fettler said:
What is Crompton's statutory retirement age?
It's length of service so the retirement age is variable depending on when someone started. I don't believe there's an upper age for Chief Constables on his pension scheme since they're contracted. V8 Fettler said:
No requirement for GMP or Kent to pass confidential info to SYP or the SYP PCC as the investigation into Copley proceeded, a yellow "caution" flag would have been sufficient.
So the make-it-up-as-you-go-along coloured flag still is an indication to the force they're investigating, for alleged corruption, they may need to do something then. V8 Fettler said:
GMP cannot possibly have all the information to hand unless GMP are now omnipresent.
They'll have all the information they need to make an assessment as to whether or not there's any realistic misconduct risk. The italics indicated that they are really only missing the account from the ex-CI, although since they interviewed him they'll have a lot of the aspects of that, too. V8 Fettler said:
GMP should have been the route by which the status, interim updates and results of the investigation into Copley should have been communicated to SYP and the SYP PCC.
Not when their department is being counter-accused.V8 Fettler said:
Clear lines of communication and reporting between the various empires is essential to reduce the risk of screw-ups.
Perhaps there were clear lines and it was the PCC who, at the last minute, decided to make a politically-influenced decision. V8 Fettler said:
If the SYP PCC was aware of the continuing investigation into Copley at the time she applied for the SYP DCC position then - demonstrably - SYP shouldn't have employed her where there was a possibility of her stepping into Crompton's shoes as a result of the Hillsborough inquest. All this was foreseeable and should have been considered as part of a risk management strategy, unless the various parties were relying on the gift of omnipresence.
I wouldn't avoid employing someone for that risk if they were right for the team. I think the approach they should have taken was a more resilient one i.e. kept her in post and simply said investigations are standard fare. There's are times to stand strong and not give in to irrational, short-term public sentiment.
Again, whom has forced this decision is unknown. I expect the right decision would have been more likely with the older, non-political Police Authority structure.
V8 Fettler said:
Thanks for the tip, perhaps your tips could become a regular feature on PH?
Hopefully less frequent than your mistakes on this matter. You did do well in that post not to assume, for no reason, someone was the source when they weren't (BTW, why did you assume the GMP were the source of Copley's investigation?) and find the wrong information about a matter that was rather easy to avoid.
...... OR ......
The Kent Police report into allegations made against DCC Copley was sent to GMP very shortly before she stepped down as Acting Chief Constable.
Some might say - being cynical, you understand - that it's possible that Copley has a case to answer and she's been tipped the wink by somebody in the know at GMP.
Of course, this is just speculation but if you consider the actions and timings ...
It was another embarrassment for South Yorks to appoint an Acting Chief only to have her step down after a day .... something doesn't quite add up.
There's also an Employment Tribunal to come - brought by former Chief Inspector Buttress.
Buttress has been very vocal about his opinion of GMP and Dawn Copley. He hasn't pulled any punches and I think things are likely to continue that way.
No doubt Copley will appear and give evidence at the Employment Tribunal.
You could assume, perhaps, if somebody was 100% certain they had done nothing wrong, and would be cleared by any findings then they wouldn't have a problem taking up the position of Acting Chief at South Yorks.
Like I said - I'm just being cynical - but I do know "the old boys'/ girls' club" still has a few members.
The Kent Police report into allegations made against DCC Copley was sent to GMP very shortly before she stepped down as Acting Chief Constable.
Some might say - being cynical, you understand - that it's possible that Copley has a case to answer and she's been tipped the wink by somebody in the know at GMP.
Of course, this is just speculation but if you consider the actions and timings ...
It was another embarrassment for South Yorks to appoint an Acting Chief only to have her step down after a day .... something doesn't quite add up.
There's also an Employment Tribunal to come - brought by former Chief Inspector Buttress.
Buttress has been very vocal about his opinion of GMP and Dawn Copley. He hasn't pulled any punches and I think things are likely to continue that way.
No doubt Copley will appear and give evidence at the Employment Tribunal.
You could assume, perhaps, if somebody was 100% certain they had done nothing wrong, and would be cleared by any findings then they wouldn't have a problem taking up the position of Acting Chief at South Yorks.
Like I said - I'm just being cynical - but I do know "the old boys'/ girls' club" still has a few members.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 6th May 13:19
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff