Hillsborough; 35yrs on...

Makes a mockery of justice if thats the case.

 

they will say they are too old.

as log as they are found guilty i suppose.

"too old and infirm" to stand trial... or go to jail or whatever.

 

Questions regarding Duckenfield and the manslaughter charge...

1) why only 95 rather than 96? I know the 96th didn't die on the day bit that's besides the point

2) why not 'attempted manslaughter' for the hundreds of others that were at risk but manage to avoid dying? Some were physically injured, most mentally.


PS...yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, there is such a thing as attempted manslaughter!

 

That would be attempted murder
manslaughter means you did not intend to kill them

 

Tony Bland was that long in a coma (four years?) that,under the law as it was in '89, it is deemed (or was) that you cannot prove the ultimate death was due to the actions of Duckenfield. If he's guilty for 95 though, he's guilty of 96 - morally.

 

As far as I know, attempted manslaughter only applies for voluntary manslaughter, in which case DD would have wanted in that moment to kill them. I assume he's up for involuntary manslaughter, don't think you can have attempted manslaughter then.

But I'm not a lawyer and am not certain.

 

IF found guilty as charged I hope the 5 council's that make up the Merseyside area manage to get the pension we pay Bettison stopped, breaks my ****ing heart that I(although it's only a miniscule part of it)contribute to his bastard pension from Merseyside Police.

 

Can I remind everyone that we have to be careful about what we say/write as we don't want to cause a mistrial by saying things prejudicial to a fair trial?

 

That's what I thought but it's not the case

 

One thing that did ****ing irritate me though - The Mail and some other establishment rags reported the families as 'Celebrating'. I saw one fellow punch the air. They're playing to their Alf Garnett readership on that one: after the inquest last year and the relieved families' rendition of YNWA they tried to play it as uncouth Scousers treating it like a football win. Now they're trying for the witchhunt/mob lynching card.

Subtle as a brick.

 

Ignore the wording, don't want to debate whether 'attempted manslaughter' is legitimate or not. You know what I was asking

 

At the time the (alleged) offence was committed then the law was that somebody had to die within one year and one day of an action for that death to be attributed to the action.

Whatever happens with these trials the sad thing is that only a small proportion of those involved in a cover up and perverting the course of justice will ever have to answer for their actions. This went all the way to the top and she they are dead now without ever having to answer for anything.

 

Cheers for the serious response. And totally agree about Theresa May's role model!!!

 

It was all part of the culture back then. The establishment was never wrong. I'm not kidding myself that it has completely changed. Even now they only acknowledge wrongdoing when overwhelming evidence slips out into the public domain. They had a history of hiding wrongdoing from the public. Hillsborough was the highest profile case, but that particular force has form for hiding the truth. Just look at what is still going on with the events at Orgreave. They weren't the only ones though. It was rife everywhere when it came to protecting their own.

I may be wrong, but I think any sentences (should they be found guilty) will not be massive either. They have to apply the sentences that would have applied at the time of any offence. Back then the authorities were a lot less harsh on things like negligence. Its the same reason that some of the high profile sex offence cases have attracted what seem like very lenient sentences compared to the actions they were convicted for. Back in the day it was not seen as such a big deal just because nobody ever talked about it, and the sentences reflected that.

 

I just hope now that those being charged, will squeal like little pigs and start pointing fingers at others in the Establishment, it's just a shame the bitch herself is not alive to see this day.

 

I was trying to provide an answer to your question?

I think you (ironically) need intent for attempted manslaughter, although having looked into it, I'm not sure you get attempted manslaughter in the UK. I guess you'd be looking at GBH.

As to why he's not been charged with anything in those cases, I don't know. Maybe they'll be busy enough with the other charges and don't want the extra time/effort/cost, especially if it slows up the other trial?

 

I was only 8yrs old at the time so wouldn't now about the law changes but I know how much they've changed in the last 10-15yrs so I can imagine.


RE; sex offences... modern day offenders get ****all. Someone not too far from here got found (and pleaded) guilty to grooming three girls between the ages of 13 & 15 a couple of months back. He got 100hrs community service. I know lads that got 120hrs community service for being drunk ffs!

 

I suspect it's that.


PS... I argued before at work that attempted manslaughter is impossible for the same reason you are giving but I was proved wrong. People have been convicted with this charge in the past.

 

that's it, in a nutshell. BUT, for reasons of legacy and history it was still worth the near thirty year struggle of the families, and Aspinall is not overstating things when she says it will change British society forever. Look at Grenfell - the families already know and are mobilised for an establishment cover-up, and it'll be opposed at every step.

 

For attempted manslaughter you still need to be deliberately doing something that could lead to a death, but not actively intending to kill someone. For example losing your head in the heat of the moment and getting into a fight. You could give someone such a severe beating that sometimes GBH might not be enough of a charge. For example, if you had to be pulled off by others and would have kept going if you hadn't been. Left alone to your own devices you would probably have killed someone if others hadn't intervened.

For negligence cases I don't think there can be attempted manslaughter. Those offences would probably be covered by health and safety laws under the heading of endangering people.