Hillsborough - wasnt the inquiry enough?

[saaby93]

Did anyone else think the Hillsborough inquiry had run its course and brought closure to everyone involved

It seems not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Another chance to rake everything up again and spend years taking through the courts?
Isnt there a time when a line is drawn and wasnt that at the inquiry end?

[saaby93]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

There's a criminal case to be put to the CPO, they are looking for witnesses to assist in their enquiries. Where's the problem?

Why is there a criminal case?
If there's been an inquiry outcome published- why not leave it there?
Surely half the trouble was about people fearing being prosecuted so unwilling to speak. Surely if they follow inquiries with prosecutions theres going to be even less willingness

[saaby93]

hepy said:

saaby93 said:

Did anyone else think the Hillsborough inquiry had run its course and brought closure to everyone involved

It seems not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
Another chance to rake everything up again and spend years taking through the courts?
Isnt there a time when a line is drawn and wasnt that at the inquiry end?

The police lied and cheated, falsifying evidence and you think this should go unpunished. Or is it because the crime happened back in 1989?

Someone post up what the inquiry really found?

[saaby93]

Jockman said:

Should we turn a blind eye to police deceit and incompetence?

Of course not but that's not what the inquiry came up with - there was a whole thread on the inquiry a while back.
It was what the police didn't say that was picked up wrong by the press and began to run as 'what happened'
The officer in charge I think said something like he was guilty of omission, but at the time would he have known that not saying something would have led to what was reported.
The tv news feeds at the time are also in the other thread and show what was being said by media wasn't what the police said or what happened, but that seems to have appeared in the papers next day.

The inquiry found all this out, and I thought closure had been achieved.
It said what the failings were. Besides the way grounds were designed, policed and managed changed significantly in the aftermath.
Same as most disasters it was a sequence of failings that led to the dreadful outcome
Why will bringing it all up again help?

[saaby93]

FlyingMeeces said:

This is emphatically only a comparison in terms of time passed, and absolutely not on the gravity of alleged crimes etc. but is it different for you when it's 98 year old German or Polish former SS officers being tried in war crimes tribunals? It's the only other large-scale long-after-the-event set of trials I know of. (I don't doubt Wikipedia could tell me about plenty more, mind…)

That's highly different - thats where a system was deliberately devised for mass extermination

Hillsborough was where a sequence of events unfolded accidentally to create the disaster. No one planned it to happen.

I cant believe youve even compared them but this is PH and sometimes anything goes

[saaby93]

FlyingMeeces said:

Dude. I very, very clearly and carefully said I am only comparing the time passed, nothing else.

yes yes I know you did

But one was deliberate the other accidental - how can they be compared?

[saaby93]

FlyingMeeces said:

Okay, turning away from the IWC tribunals, because I truly don't think these belong in the same paragraph in this context.

At Hillsborough, the inquest found:
That deliberate choices were made, by parties who could have been reasonably expected to know that those choices would risk life and limb.
That those parties then sought, absolutely deliberately, to focus the blame away from themselves in the aftermath.
That failure to promptly declare an emergency once it was clear there were terrible problems (I don't know the proper police terminology) very likely prevented some lives from being saved once things had begun to go wrong.

And various other stuff, easily pick-uppable from reading the coroner's reports into each death. Including a lot of far more minor but still significantly criminal acts like altering statements, perjury etc etc in large volumes.

I'm not wanting to speak for anyone else, but while deliberately making a management choice that would risk life definitely isn't premeditated murder, it is… well, it's something, innit?

I don't feel comfortable with anyone who made those choices getting to continue enjoying the pipe and slippers, just because they managed to obfuscate and interfere with attempts to establish what had happened many years earlier. If it'd be fair to try them in the 90s, why wouldn't it be fair now? Yes, some are now unfit to give evidence or stand trial, that happens, but that's not gonna be as a result of some deliberate choice on anyone's part.

ah right gotcha
yes if they'd made management choices they knew would do what you say then yes that's a deliberate act
However did that come out of the inquiry?
There were decisions made where they didn't realise it would lead to what happened, and there was the misinformation leading to other misinformation.
ok it could all be gone through again to see if anything was serious enough to take to court etc, but wasn't the purpose of the inquiry to cut through all that and let people know what actually happened so they could at last move on with their lives? (probably on all sides of what happened that day - after all no-one actually wanted it to happen - unlike the alluded to other incident)

[saaby93]

desolate said:

Jockman said:

Thing is, the OP article relates primarily to Operation Resolve not the IPCC investigation into Police conduct.

Yes - the OP's position is set out here

"Same as most disasters it was a sequence of failings that led to the dreadful outcome
Why will bringing it all up again help"

It is and part of the article concurs

beeb said:

Lou Brookes, who lost her brother Andrew at Hillsborough, told the Victoria Derbyshire programme earlier she was "absolutely disgusted".

She said: "I have serious concerns for their motives and objectives for pursuing this issue."

However it seems theyre trying to find out what happned at the gate
In the other thread the police said they had opened the gate - they were trying to prevent an incident occurring outside and dint realise the same would happen inside
The tv reporting began to say something like the fans had broken through the gate - which is how it may have appeared as they tried to rush through as the game was about to start.
That soon became 'the fans had broken the gate', yet the police said they knew all along that theyd opened the gate - no-one was reporting that.

Or so it seemed. It looks like they're trying to seek witnesses now to see if anyone knows whether it was opened or broken.
Oh well lets wait and see.

[saaby93]

What the Jury found
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35...
Only one wasnt unanimous