Hillsborough; 35yrs on...

Absolutely. Faced with the considerable tsunami of evidence unleashed by the HIP report of 2012 that had been supressed for over two decades, then a year long inquest that was forced, against the establishment's wishes, to this time include all the evidence they managed to exclude from Popper's first sham-inquest, they needed to buy time. Time for people to keep on dying - time for people to be leaned on. The real window for justice was in the first five years after the event, and despite all the brilliant efforts of the Hillsborough groups - justice delayed is justice denied.

 

Yeah, I'd guess there are numerous Hillsborough discussions on many football and non football sites, those discussions would only come into play if the SYP lose their cases I'd assume, but there are many bots on this website 24hrs a day and no doubt keeping an eye on the likes of this thread.
We should be okay i'd guess.......gulp!

 

I was reading David Conn's twitter and he said [paraphrasing] - legal firms will employ people to look at social media in the hope of finding enough to halt a trial on the basis of being unable to field a non-prejudiced jury. That's more than a bit sneaky and I don't want to help them out.

I have to say credit to all the families for keeping their dignity as this continues to drag on and on. Psalm 94:15 - “For justice will prevail and all the morally upright will be vindicated.”

 

Should this thread be locked away then?

Edit; or I could ask BRB if we can password protect it?

 

So, two witnesses were persuaded to change their evidence (doubtless after a visit from MI5), and a third died. And Bettison claims this makes him 'Vindicated'; and now some right-wing fruitcack on Sky's Press preview supports his assertion that it was only because Hillsborough was 'politicised' that Bettison was charged at all.

And this is the way the narrative changes again towards the Establishment. As Aarron Banks said, 'We've had enough of Hillsborough'. Pity, as I would have loved to have seen Bernard Ingham dragged in front of court, under oath, to give evidence on what their involvement was.

Justice...

 

There’s an ongoing review by the attorney general into how the law may need to change in relation to potential prejudicial information in the age of social media. Things were easier when it was just TV and newspaper coverage that were people’s main source of information, as reporting restrictions covered both.

These days of course people from everywhere can state their opinions on the net. However, in terms of that potentially equating to prejudicial information, that could only be currently relevant if for example a juror made it known that he was on a particular case and he had preconceived ideas as to what he was going to do, or if it was proved that a juror passed on information to other jurors that he’d read on the net, but wasn’t presented in court, that could potentially prejudice the outcome.

So in short, this discussion is fine, unless someone is going to put up supposed first hand information that they purport to be fact, that isn’t already currently in the public domain, which is then viewed and repeated by a jury member.

 

i was a witness for a mate once as he was accused of something he was actually innocent of which was a rarity for him lol. any ways i was, back when you could smoke in courts, on the steps and this very young fit girl came out from somewhere and was having a cigarette.

i had no idea who she was at the time but when i went into court to be witness, she was on the ruddy jury.

imagine if we had started talking and who knows where the conversation could have gone, would she have had an influence on other jurors from what i told her, not that he needed it as he was innocent, but you get my point.

 

Because I really wasn't sure about whether this forum was 'safe' in terms of what you could say and where you could say it that may be deemed prejudicial, I did some research. I found a tweet from the Chief Correspondent of Channel 4 news: ''5 men face trial over Hillsborough. Any comment on social media deemed prejudicial can be used against you. It’s a serious criminal offence and lawyers are watching. Attorney General issued a warning today. Yes , even if you have 0 followers.''

I looked at the Attorney General's press release which states: ''The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP wishes to draw attention to the requirement not to publish material, including online, which could create a substantial risk that the course of justice in these proceedings may be seriously impeded or prejudiced, thereby jeopardising the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

In particular, the Attorney General draws attention to the requirement not to publish material that asserts or assumes, expressly or implicitly, the guilt of any of those who face trial, whether in relation to the events of the 15th of April 1989 or to subsequent events. That is an issue to be determined solely by the three juries on the evidence that they hear in court........

Editors, publishers and social media users should take legal advice to ensure they are in a position to fully comply with the obligations they are subject to under the Contempt of Court Act.''

All of which basically means that social media users - which includes us on here - should not write anything that asserts or assumes the guilt of any of those on trial. To do so not only risks prejudicing the trials [which could mean postponing or having the trials thrown out altogether] but we each risk prosecution under the Comtempt of Court Act. So please, everyone, be careful what you say on here.

 

Here's the infographic put out by the Attorney General's Office - https://assets.publishing.service.g.../Prejudice_and_social_media_-_infographic.pdf

 

I think it's best if don't comment on this thread anymore. Starting to feel disgusted and ashamed by the system and end up making me very ill!!!

We all know it's a deep rabbit hole, just how deep is obviously what some high up in power don't want revealing for various reasons.

 

There's nothing wrong with ranting about the system, politics involved etc. etc. or expressing feelings about the injustice of the whole thing or calling the CPS idiots, incompetent or whatever. We just can't talk about the guilt or potential guilt of any of those 5 due to go on trial.

 

So Duckenfield has opted to go to trial for gross negligence manslaughter next year rather than man up and repeat his admittance of culpability which he readily admitted at the Warrington inquests.

Let's hope justice is done and not manipulated by the establishment in his favour.

 

Getting to trial stage was a minor miracle. It's up to a judge and jury now.

 

I still have the feeling Duckenfield will be the fall guy for a few others who will get off scot free. I am not saying he is innocent, far from it I think he is guilty due to his negligent actions on the day, but if I remember rightly he had only just taken over the match day commander position and there had been no handover meetings or anything similar. Who should have had responsibility for making sure he was up to the job and actually knew what he was doing.

 

Thing is though GS, Duckenfield has already(under oath)up until the Warrington inquests made false statements, that in itself should be part of the charges against him, your point about his matchday commander is invalid as he(Duckenfield)had the opportunity before the game to inform his matchday commander he wasn't experienced enough to take charge of the game.
Like the Admiralty are hardly likely to give the ships chef control of the ships rudder in a storm.

He admitted it was his decision to open the gates, I truthfully fail to see how he can plead innocent to the charges he faces, but we live in a country where rules are bent to appease the establishment.
Let's hope ALL those guilty face justice(and that includes any of his superiors he cites in court).

JFT96

 

My point was that Duckenfield is guilty, but he will be hit with every possible charge and made the scapegoat for the entire debacle. Whilst others will keep their heads down and escape justice, whether this be for the initial disaster or the cover up.

 

i knew what you meant garlic.

he will take most of the blame for everyone elses **** ups.

 

Maxine Peake to play Hillsborough campaigner Anne Williams in TV drama

please log in to view this image

The four-part mini-series, titled Anne, will depict Mrs Williams's battle to uncover the truth about the death of her 15-year-old son, Kevin.

Kevin was one of 96 Liverpool fans who died in the 1989 football tragedy.

The drama has been written by Kevin Sampson, who was at Hillsborough. He has been assisted by Mrs Williams's daughter, Sara.
"This is something I have thought very carefully about before deciding to go ahead," Sara Williams said.

"Mum's story is such a powerful and inspiring one and we all remember how important she always felt it was to get the message out there and bang the drum for justice."

Mrs Williams spent more than 20 years piecing together Kevin's last moments by finding the people who tried to help him. She died in April 2013.

The drama is being made by World Productions, which is also behind shows including Bodyguard and Line of Duty.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45526845

 

God bless her. Wonderful woman who had huge humility and dignity. RIP.

 

God bless Anne and all those still living who lost family.

I will never forget Margaret Aspinall's recollection of the day. She got a phonecall saying her son was amongst the casualties. She grabbed his coat knowing he'd left for the match without it. When she arrived in Sheffield she was taken into the gym and up to an area with a screen around it. She thought she was going there to get her son to take him home hence grabbing his coat, nobody had told her he'd passed away. With no preparation whatsoever for what she was about to see, the screen was drawn back. She was then told she wasn't allowed to touch him as the incident was now part of an investigation. She was left to go home alone clinging onto her son's jacket.

This should never happen to anybody, not just the tragedy in the stadium but treating a mother - and fathers, brothers and sisters - like that in the aftermath. Knowing her story is partly why I get so incensed when hateful comments are thrown out about Hillsborough.