Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
MrBarry123 said:
Given the ongoing investigation, I find it quite repulsive that the BBC have chosen to track David Duckenfield to the U.S. and ask him for comment; even though he [Duckenfield] has declined to comment on the situation numerous times.
I failed to see why that was necessary or of any benefit to anyone. V8 Fettler said:
It is you who has descended to dissecting sentences, not I. Unfortunately, your failure to see the bigger picture and consider possible scenarios is endemic in insular organisations where senior management are in the command bunker.
Whether I quote everything you've written or those two sentences, it doesn't change the meaning of this no matter how much you try to distract, divert and focus upon anything to avoid what you actually said. You started expanding and making up as you went along after this: 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:
GMP could have ensured that any likely actions by Buttress would not have undermined the SYP / SYP PCC merely by flagging the risk to the SYP / SYP PCC at the earliest opportunity, thereby controlling risk in the event of damage limitation.
Again, you assume there was anything to flag and that the PCC / SYP were not aware of all the information. You do like to make unfounded assumptions i.e. make it up as you go along.
Do you understand what "knowns" and "unknowns" are?
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you appear to be attempting to control the content of my posts on PH, do you find that your desire for control becomes particularly overwhelming at times?
Distracting and diverting once more. V8 Fettler said:
Best information in whose opinion? Am I happy with the BBC? Not for many years, but I will continue to post links as I see fit (within PH rules of course), even though - heaven forbid - the content of the links might contradict your view. Hope that's OK with you.
Distracting and diverting again because you tried to discredit the same source you were happy to use when it didn't say what you wanted. saaby93 said:
Anyone have a summary of what Laliga and V8 fetler are arguing about?
Basically, V8 likes to preach about who should have done what and what did and didn't happen when he has a snippet of information. Then when he gets caught out like when he didn't do basic research on something (PCC knowing or not knowing something) he'll do anything to try and worm out of it even if it means having blatant double standards. Most people save such worthless speculation for the pub / their mates. That's if they realise it's speculation in the first place, naturally.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
It is you who has descended to dissecting sentences, not I. Unfortunately, your failure to see the bigger picture and consider possible scenarios is endemic in insular organisations where senior management are in the command bunker.
Whether I quote everything you've written or those two sentences, it doesn't change the meaning of this no matter how much you try to distract, divert and focus upon anything to avoid what you actually said. You started expanding and making up as you went along after this: 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:
GMP could have ensured that any likely actions by Buttress would not have undermined the SYP / SYP PCC merely by flagging the risk to the SYP / SYP PCC at the earliest opportunity, thereby controlling risk in the event of damage limitation.
Again, you assume there was anything to flag and that the PCC / SYP were not aware of all the information. You do like to make unfounded assumptions i.e. make it up as you go along.
Do you understand what "knowns" and "unknowns" are?
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you appear to be attempting to control the content of my posts on PH, do you find that your desire for control becomes particularly overwhelming at times?
Distracting and diverting once more. V8 Fettler said:
Best information in whose opinion? Am I happy with the BBC? Not for many years, but I will continue to post links as I see fit (within PH rules of course), even though - heaven forbid - the content of the links might contradict your view. Hope that's OK with you.
Distracting and diverting again because you tried to discredit the same source you were happy to use when it didn't say what you wanted. Copley's evident unsuitability for the CC position should have been flagged at the earliest opportunity. Her failure to remain in the CC position for more than 24 hours demonstrates that this didn't occur. If the SYP PCC was aware of all the relevant information surrounding the Copley investigation then he wouldn't have appointed Copley to the CC position, only for her to step down after one day. The risks were demonstrably too high.
Is "distracting and diverting" your new "bingo" phrase when you've run out of reasoned arguements? Again, my view differs from yours; you need to accept that's what happens on internet forums, which can be difficult if you expect to be in control.
Command bunker mentality at a senior level within the police was one of the primary drivers leading to the Hillsborough fatalities, it concerns me that the command bunker mentality still clearly prevails with some.
V8 Fettler said:
If the SYP PCC was aware of all the relevant information surrounding the Copley investigation then he wouldn't have appointed Copley to the CC position, only for her to step down after one day. The risks were demonstrably too high.
Wouldn't he? How do you know? You don't. You have no idea. You've once again made it up.
Do you not find it embarrassing you don’t recognise this?
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
If the SYP PCC was aware of all the relevant information surrounding the Copley investigation then he wouldn't have appointed Copley to the CC position, only for her to step down after one day. The risks were demonstrably too high.
Wouldn't he? How do you know?You don't. You have no idea. You've once again made it up.
Do you not find it embarrassing you don’t recognise this?
So how does that mean you know he wasn't in possession of all the facts at the time of appointment in which he later made his decisions upon? How do you know what he would and wouldn't have done in specific circumstances?
The answer is you don't, you just make it up as you go along.
I don't think you understand the difference between knowns and unknowns.
The answer is you don't, you just make it up as you go along.
I don't think you understand the difference between knowns and unknowns.
La Liga said:
So how does that mean you know he wasn't in possession of all the facts at the time of appointment in which he later made his decisions upon? How do you know what he would and wouldn't have done in specific circumstances?
The answer is you don't, you just make it up as you go along.
I don't think you understand the difference between knowns and unknowns.
You're moving the goalposts. Are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the inquiry into Copley immediately preceding her appointment, or are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the status of that inquiry immediately preceding his decision to suspend Crompton?The answer is you don't, you just make it up as you go along.
I don't think you understand the difference between knowns and unknowns.
I'll not be drawn into a slanging match by replying to your last two sentences.
V8 Fettler said:
You're moving the goalposts. Are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the inquiry into Copley immediately preceding her appointment, or are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the status of that inquiry immediately preceding his decision to suspend Crompton?
It makes no difference, you have no idea what information was known at what stages and if any information changed between any of the stages. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're moving the goalposts. Are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the inquiry into Copley immediately preceding her appointment, or are you referring to the SYP PCC's awareness of the status of that inquiry immediately preceding his decision to suspend Crompton?
It makes no difference, you have no idea what information was known at what stages and if any information changed between any of the stages. I don't know how this will "help the process" ...
Bettison has already given his evidence at the inquests
All proceeds go to charity. Apparently.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
Bettison has already given his evidence at the inquests
All proceeds go to charity. Apparently.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 7th October 00:03
Red 4 said:
I don't know how this will "help the process" ...
Bettison has already given his evidence at the inquests
All proceeds go to charity. Apparently.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
No doubt it will be advertised in 'The S*n'.Bettison has already given his evidence at the inquests
All proceeds go to charity. Apparently.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 7th October 00:03
Massive error in judgement from him, but not surprising given some of the police's complete lack of morals in the eighties.
"A decision on whether individuals and organisations will face criminal charges over the Hillsborough disaster will be announced later."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...
Ayahuasca said:
Hopefully there will be no charges. Not sure if any good could possibly come out of them.
Charges for incompetence would serve no purpose.Charges for lies/corruption/cover-ups (if guilt established) would serve to persuade future generations to tell the truth.
Ayahuasca said:
If there are charges, expect the civil suits shortly afterwards...
If there are convictions, certainly.David Duckenfield charged with 95 counts of manslaughter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-40...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-40...
gooner1 said:
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must apply to the High Court to lift an order imposed after he was prosecuted privately in 1999, which must be removed before he can be charged.
How likely, or not is the above to succeed?
Dunno - but this explains some of the issues. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr...How likely, or not is the above to succeed?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff