Hillsborough disaster survivors 'threatened by police'

Given that tax payers fund the police force, surely giving them the bill for the whole thing is exactly the same as the Government giving them a grant for it? Either way its the tax payers cash that is being wasted.

If people want to have an end to this and that requires further inquests then its going to cost more money and someone has to pay for it. Given that it's the government vs the people and the people fund the government, either way either directly or indirectly it costs the tax payer.

 

They're not doing to bad this season, they're in the playoff places ATM but so are their rivals; Derby and Leicester

 

But is there an actual forest at the city ground.

 

Obviously not. There isn't a forest within a fair few miles

 

The words "special grant" show it not to be a straight case of entitlement and therefore the government have the option of saying no or can put restrictions on the amount and what it can be spent on.

If a serving officer is required to give evidence he/she will be given time off and expenses, when pensioned retired officers are required to give evidence why should they be given "legal aid" when other pensioners(hillsborough family members)aren't afforded that same luxury?

 

But who ultimately pays the bill anyway?

 

My point was more that if the special grant isn't given then it'll be paid out of the police forces budget which means other areas of public safety suffer as the money isn't being used on the services the general public would want it used on.

Direcly or indirectly we as tax payers will end up paying for it regardless.

The one point i would agree on is that it's wrong that the funding may be being used for already retired officers as the alternative is that they pay for there own costs meaning the tax payer doesn't have to front that cash.

 

cant it come out the extortionate expenses and wages put aside for mp's

****ing should, ****s!

 

The question of the 2 personas was already such a major issue that it was directly commented upon by the judge at the outset. The defence QC then wheeled in a selection of character witnesses that specifically confused those personas due to their relationships. None of those witnesses could actually provide any specific evidence. As far as I am aware, no character witnesses were called who did not have a connection with Roache and his Barlow persona. Now you can contend that those witnesses were best placed to comment but can you honestly say that the average member of the jury would able to remove from their minds that the witnesses they were looking at was not Dierdre etc. and that they were trying Ken?

If what I am saying has even an inkling of truth (and I don't know [and care less] if he was guilty or not) then a device has been used to gain an advantage. Now that device must have been legal otherwise it would/should have been stopped by the judge. That is why I used it as an example above.

 

Tbh if the South Yorkshire people suffer as a result of their police force paying for their actions and mistakes that got jack **** to do with anyone but themselves and the people of that area should take that problem up with them.

All I care about is justice for the 96 and their families and those painted as criminals by the SY police when in fact they did more to try and save people than the police and ambulance services on the day.

**** the South Yorkshire police.

 

From the perspective of the average juror not having the ability to distinguish between the character and the person given the clever use of character witnesses who have relationships to his on screen character, i can see where your comming from. But, an intelligent capable jury SHOULD be able to distinguish between the two.

 

Can we **** the Bill Roache **** off. This is about Hillsborough

 

So basically your view is - **** whoever else has to suffer, even the innocent people of south yorkshire who have no connection with the police force or events that have effected you so much, as long as you get what you want and the people you deem to be more important get justice. Forget how that effects everyone else and the rest of the country.

I'm all for having justice for those who have been so negatively effected by the Hillsborough disaster, but to be outraged to the point of ignoring sensible thought is just plain daft. Especially when your quite happy for other innocent people to suffer the consequences of you getting what you want for the people you think deserve it. Thats the exactsame attitude of the police covering up the disaster - **** the people getting effected by the way we are dealing with this, we are protecting the people we care about....

 

Whilst i agree on expenses - what a scandal. I have to disagree on wages, considering we expect these people to lead our country, make decisions on our behalf, take responsibility for all the positive and negative effects on the country whether or not they have had a direct influence in it etc.... i believe they should be paid a higher base salary. But we should also expect them to be of a higher calibre. Unfortuntately its the stupidity of the masses that keeps the idiots there.

 

No problem with the argument on here but keep it civil.

 

But only in an appropriate manner

 

This is a criminal trial. The verdict has to be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt. That same ruling should also be applied to the effect of how and by whom 'evidence' is presented. I believe that to litter the court for 2 days with people who have a high public profile and can give no direct evidence, introduces the possibility that any decision based upon it is tainted by the re-attaching of the 2 personas. If that doubt exists then the verdict itself is unsafe.

 

Look, this club along with the families and survivors have had to basically stand alone since 1989 and rely on each other, I don't lived in SY but if I did I wouldn't blame the possible financial implosion in police funds on those fighting for justice I'd lay the blame on the doorstep of The FA, Sheff Wed, SY police, SY ambulance service.

 

If they'd done their job properly in the first place then the families suffering could have been lessened for the last twenty-five (almost) years! They should be made to use their own funds (they all have reserves) rather than tax payers money.

 

but they reward themselves with wage increases (economy!, jobs! war, euro etc etc) even when they **** up or are responsible for things going wrong, they need a deterrent to improve or they will just have the attitude of well makes no dif to our lives so **** it (and i bet there is a few with that attitude the snoby ****s, well most of them)

its ridiculous in this day and age that people responsible for **** ups can be so rewarded for it, ie footie managers, players getting sacked or mps ****e at their jobs.

reward them when they do well i agree, why not, but they never get effected by anyhting and their wages are GUARANTEED to be above inflation, ****s!