Hillsborough; 35yrs on...

If a person in public office (like a high ranking police official for example) covers up a crime, then surely they would be liable to be arrested under "Misconduct in Public office" charges.
I just googled it, and it carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

 

Perverting the course of justice already applies to Hillsborough because of the tampering with evidence. The new law could be an additional offence related to them also being total ****s throughout the process, but since perverting the course of justice carries a life sentence I'd be happy with just applying that.



Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:

• Fabricating or disposing of evidence
• Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
• Intimidating or threatening a judge

Also criminal are:

1. conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
2. intending to pervert the course of justice

 

That has obviously happened in the Aftermath of Hillsborough, the hierarchy of the SYP knew who opened the gates on the day but his it and started the deliberate smear campaign.

I just hope the jury and the judge do their duty based on facts not reputations.

 

''South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has refused to pay the legal costs of David Duckenfield who faces charges over the Hillsborough disaster.'' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42100655

 

Good to see but I suspect its not for the reasons we'd like it to be. It'll be more to do with a national lack of money within the Police force

 

Sadly you are probably right.

I fear an anonymous (tory tosser no doubt) will make a donation to cover the ****s fees.

 

Wouldn't SYP have had employers liability insurance back in 1989? Or is there a restriction on time when it comes to claims? Maybe it's already been exhausted with previous charges? I don't know much about this side of things tbh

 

I don't understand the law or the insurance game but considering he's already admitted responsibility for opening the gates and ultimately responsibility for the deaths surely any insurance claim at all?

 

I was talking about SYP as his employer. Not even sure employer liability insurance would have been a thing back then though

 

Don't know whether anybody clicked on the Dr Billings link in the story but in it he lays out all his reasoning for denying the request. While the BBC published the bit about the impact on the force's budget, Dr Billings also said that he took into account the conclusion of the jury in the inquests. "The jury concluded that a breach of duty by the retired officer, which amounted to gross negligence, caused the death of 96 people who died at Hillsborough. I cannot ignore that conclusion."

Whether it was budget that was uppermost in his decision or the verdicts, we can't be certain but it makes no difference - no funding and neither should there be. I'd like to think there is some integrity at play here and that any officers convicted of gross negligence get their requests for financial assistance likewise shunned.

 

Agreed although the only winner at the end of that would be the insurance man when officers start to take out personal cover.

 

Considering austerity and the financial difficulties South Yorkshire is dealing with(like us all)he had to consider what the people of the jurisdiction would have said if after already paying over £7m for his legal fees and considering the verdict and admission they had to fork out more in their council tax.

He's as guilty as sin, should go to court and plead guilty on day one.

 

Spiteful vile Tories fighting over a couple of million to help the Manchester bombing victims shows nothing about them has changed

 

So, Duckenfield is to be given more millions in legal aid despite admitting his guilt, ****ing disgrace.

Hillsborough match commander wins funding to fight manslaughter prosecution bid

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...ht-manslaughter-prosecution-bid-36377725.html

 

Absolutely disgraceful.

BBC also reporting it - "He also wanted financial assistance, "if necessary", for the costs of his "defence on the charges" if they are ultimately brought." Defence on the charges really??? What he did is utterly indefensible.

 

So he's fighting to keep his immunity from double jeopardy (very high cost), and then wants mega bucks to "fight" something he's as guilty as sin of when he fails with the first issue(guaranteed), he took early retirement and a nice golden handshake, he's had his life despite seeing on an almost daily basis the Hillsborough families fighting for justice for their loved ones on charitable donations because they never got the financial help this **** has.

Can honestly see him getting what amounts to a rap over the knuckles at the end of it all.

 

I couldn't predict what the outcome would be. I'm not one for vengeance, it eats away at you but will we see justice - who knows. So hard for the families still having to read all the twists and turns this is taking. Maybe the IPCC refused to finance him as an empty gesture knowing full well it would fall to the taxpayer.

 

It not vengeance, it's payback for the cushy life he didn't deserve and the misery he knowingly bestowed on the victims families, he's enjoyed his kids growing up, seeing his grandkids grow up, taken holidays etc.
He has the deaths of 96 people and the untold amount of injuries that happened to survivors plus the few that took their own lives in the aftermath.

If after admitting he made the decision to open the gates and lying about it for all those years he doesn't face jailtime it's a disgrace, but it's possible the establishment will close ranks or his noted freemason membership will get him a ridiculously light sentence.

 

Knew he'd get support from somewhere. Country is a joke

 

I'm with you mate, the justice campaign is about that .... justice. What would that be in this case - hefty jail terms. Anything less would be a joke.