You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Good to see charges being brought, I especially hope that Bettison rots in jail.
I'm sure we can expect the usual....
[img] 
[/img]
Bettison and trial by (social) media, I doubt you even understand the irony. 😆
one being a criminal offence, the other not. Nothing ironic to giggle about. But you carry on.
the other not
The prosecution seems to disagree.
Former SYP Ch Insp Norman Bettison will be charged over alleged lies in the aftermath
He has not been charged with anything to do with "trial by media" has he? He has been charged with "offences of misconduct in public office". Any media offence would have been a civil one. Contempt of court (by you in social media) on the other hand...definitely criminal.
When the weight of social commentary (of which your post will be part) has become prejudicial and the trial against Bettison falls, you will be happy in yourself that at least you got to tell a bunch of part-time mountain-bikers he should "rot in jail". Would it not be more intelligent to hold-off until the fat lady yodels etc?
Hillsborough has only reached the stage where the ****ing cover up has been exposed and charges being brought because of the continued dialogue of "people", the authorities, media and establishment have constantly sought to pervert justice and like you dissuade discussion which shines a light on the truth.
The weight of social commentary appears to be the main reason this has gone from the fans on the day being blamed completely by the police altering their statements and the press accusing them of stealing from the dead and deserving what they got. I raise my cup of tea in a sad salute to the families who have persisted in their campaign. Crack on MSP.
FFS
my comment is not about the event, the cover-up, or the defendant, but the rule of law. You want a trial, you now have a trial. Dont **** it up by prejudicing it.
I think it's already very prejudiced in people's minds especially anyone with any vague connection to the event. Discussing it here will have no effect on the outcome.
Discussing it here will have no effect on the outcome.
you can convince yourself of that if you like, but your view wont count.
If Bettison's defence team go for it (and they will have a lot of material to work with), it will be up to the court.
Er exactly.
[u]not[/u] exactly.
Every piece of prejudicial comment posted [u]since[/u] Bettison was charged adds to the weight of material that could be used to get the case dumped.
Why on earth would you want to make that easier for his defence for the sake of getting your crowing in early?
**** it. I give up. Fill your boots. I dont have a dog in the race anyway.
What's the odds on them all developing some form of Alzheimers a la Earnest Saunders.
When the former police officers were serving they could rely on support and legal representation from the police federstion and SYP.
This meant that they, effectively, had unlimited representation.
What happens this time around - hopefully this level of support will not be available.
As for Stoner & MSP, I'm with Stoner; read the comments by Sue Hemmings - she was very clear.
SYP were badly led by peter wright & dan crompton; wright was in charge when both orgreave & hillsborough happened and his role has been extensively covered. If he was still alive i have little doubt his name would be on the charge sheet - and rightly so.
Will there be a jury?
Will it be solely comprised of STW forumites?
Will it be solely comprised of STW forumites?
Could save a lot of time and money if it was
When the former police officers were serving they could rely on support and legal representation from the police federstion and SYP.
This meant that they, effectively, had unlimited representation.
What happens this time around - hopefully this level of support will not be available.
so its a good thing that people who work in the public sector with an intent to do public good and are subsequently accused of acting illegally should only have limited legal representation? i guess so that's how witch hunts work
It is debatable that these particular people intended to do public good, especially in relation to this incident.
We have a legal system that largely based on "money talks" these people are in the same boat as anyone else would be.
I don't think that the current legal system, in terms of buying success, serves the public very well, but I don't know what the solution is other than putting a lot more money into a public legal system.
antigee: to clarify - they are no longer serving officers and should not be supported as if they were.
Witch hunt? This one should be left entirely to the courts - with no prior public or social media discussion as this may be prejudicial to a fair trial.
Unless something has been deleted, you're overreacting and being a bit sanctimonious Stoner.
^^^ on STW, surely not.
Isn't this case more about "accountability" ?
Justice?
Isn't this case more about "accountability" ?
Justice?
Both.
[url= https://s24.postimg.org/eevgfz02d/dbed231b32eb2d1aaa6a7237a3f989a0.jp g" target="_blank">
Very mixed views.
I've not followed the evidence from the inquests in detail so my view may be too simplistic. And I share Stoners concern that such a high profile case runs the risk of being unfair - either to the accused or the victims.
The lies and cover up were genuinely shocking and should have been exposed and dealt with years ago.
The manslaughter charges I'm less sure of. Partly because we are looking back and judging the actions and decisions with the benefit of 30 years or hindsight and societal changes, especially around football crowds. People had to make decisions maybe without having all the info we have now, and in a different culture.
From a broader societal perspective, how many people are going to want to take on jobs such as this, intending to keep people safe, if an error of judgement/facts causes a tragedy like this and you face personal and professional ruin in court afterwards?
Not intending to defend anything indefensible, more whataboutery, I want to stress.
And supposing it goes to court and a jury presented with all the facts doesn't find them guilty? Where does that leave the families of the victims who have so much pinned on successful prosecutions?
The manslaughter charge is a test of gross negligence. An assessment of decision making, not measured by the consequences. And it's going to be a very very high hurdle of culpability to test.
Of course whether the court has the same information as those accused at the time, or even if prosecution can be trusted not to try and drop information into court that would not have been known at the time.
Proving gross negligence, beyond a reasonable doubt, purely on the facts available at the time will be a big hurdle, as you say.
Hence my concern for the families if it's not guilty.
I reckon the jury may struggle to reach a verdict and we may get into the realm of a retrial.
Bettison has always been a ****. And nothing will really happen to any of those charged. Certainly no jail time. They've already served their time in the force so they can't lose their jobs.
As a scouser and a Liverpool season ticket holder who lives in Liverpool, I have to confess to having Hillsborough fatigue. I'm not proud of it but it's true.
And supposing it goes to court and a jury presented with all the facts doesn't find them guilty?
Which seems highly likely in Duckenfield's case, since he's already been tried for manslaughter once 17 years ago [1] and AFAIK this latest enquiry didn't identify any relevant evidence that hadn't already been identified in the Taylor enquiry.
[1] http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/trial.shtm
There is always an element of chance with juries, and this case is bound up with so much emotion that I wouldn't be too confident of an acquittal.
Obviously Duckenfield was told there would be no retrial back in 2000 after the jury failed to reach a verdict. Is this a reversal of that decision or a fresh 'double jeopardy' prosecution brought under the rules surrounding 'new and compelling' evidence? Presumably no acquittal means the state can have another go whenever they feel like it.
Obviously Duckenfield was told there would be no retrial back in 2000 after the jury failed to reach a verdict. Is this a reversal of that decision or a fresh 'double jeopardy' prosecution brought under the rules surrounding 'new and compelling' evidence? Presumably no acquittal means the state can have another go whenever they feel like it.
According to the BBC a judge has to decide if a second go is allowed, personally I'd have thought this is exactly the kind of case the double jeopardy laws were there to prevent. (No new evidence, politically motivated prosecution.)
[s]Too late to edit, but I cant find the BBC article and google doesn't really conclusively settle whether the lack of verdict in the previous trial makes a new trial possible without any impediment.[/s]
See next post. 🙂
Nope, I was right first time:
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.An application will be made to the High Court in a matter of weeks and a senior judge will make a ruling in due course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-40419819
This has taken far far too long. I personally welcome the prosecutions, now it is time for the courts to decide.
Topic came up at work today, and a colleague unexpectedly revealed that he'd been in the ground at the time as a young Forest fan - first time I've spoken to someone with such direct knowledge.
His opinion was that while the Liverpool fans were not to blame for what happened, having seen fans pushing to get in he could understand how the wrong decisions could have been made that led to the tragedy, and manslaughter would be hard to prove to a criminal level
There's no crowing Stoner from me or anyone I know or have spoken to. I live 15 minutes from Anfield and had friends at the ground hence the sad salute with my cup of tea.
I saw that earlier but refrained from starting a new thread. I fail to see the point of putting him on trial, he cocked up but he's no longer serving. What is the benefit to anyone of further vilifying the man. All it will do is divert money that could be put to better use.
He will have to live with his actions for the rest of his day's.. I think that is punishment enough
I’m going to try to avoid ranting at that TP, but it’s difficult as this is a very emotive subject.
i’m just going to say I disagree and leave it at that. I’m delighted to see justice catching up with him after all this time. the surviving relatives of the 96 deserve this moment.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">He will have to live with his actions for the rest of his day’s.. I think that is punishment enough</span>
That is only relevant if he accepts he's culpable
I’m going to try to avoid ranting at that TP, but it’s difficult as this is a very emotive subject.
i’m just going to say I disagree and leave it at that. I’m delighted to see justice catching up with him after all this time. the surviving relatives of the 96 deserve this moment.
^^ Fully agree here. For too long, people in public office have managed to avoid justice or being sacked, losing pension etc by "retiring". Hopefully this is the start of significant change.
If found guilty, he should not only be imprisoned but also lose all police pension etc. It's absolutely morally wrong that he should continue to "earn" a generous pension when if there'd not been a cover up and a proper inquiry at the time, he'd have been sacked & lost it as well as face criminal charges at the time.
I say this as someone who has 2 cousins who survived but have faced lifelong struggles with it ever since.
Spot on Andy
Well, who’d have thunk it?
No charges to answer? And so another establishment whitewash begins and once again waves 2 fingers to the 96
A key witness has passed away apparently. But I bet delaying the case for 20 years had nothing to do with that.
Awful. An absolute fit up. They'll have been waiting for the witness to die and so any chance of a conviction.
Part of me hopes that someone gets blinded by low sun glare and doesn't see him. ****ing horrible man whosw got off Scot free and shown not a fraction of remorse or even sadness.
Absolutely gutted
I hope the stress has made his life very difficult these last few months. And there’s not many people I would wish that upon.
His statement afterwards was awful, whether he's guilty or not he made it all about his persecution and suffering and how he knew justice would prevail whilst barely mentioning the 96. Why is he acting like he had just been found innocent? as a ex policeman he should no the difference between innocent and insufficient evidence.
May he eternally be shat on by passing birds