Lest we Forget - The Guilty Men of Hillsborough

[Royal Family]

1. David Duckenfield. The judge at the private prosecution claimed in 2000 he could not be retried because of his poor health. Duckenfield lives quietly on the South Coast today, in perfect health, and on a full police pension which he has claimed since 1991. As far as I know, he has never expressed any regret, remorse or accepted any responsibility for his actions at Hillsborough.

2. SIR Irvine Patnick. Tory MP for Sheffield Hallam at the time, who spread vicious lies about the 96, including drunken fans 'urinating' on the dead and 'thieving' from the pockets of those who lay dying. He made these comments in Parliament (HAnsard removed these comments from the published record) as well as to BBC and other press outlets. Patnick (NOT Pannick as i've often seen him referred to) later became a Government whip and was knighted AND given an OBE after he retired from politics in 1997, following his election defeat. Kelvin McKenzie later claimed that Patnick was one of his main sources for 'The truth' headline. Patnick never apologised and indeed allegedly repeated his thoughts at a civic dinner in 2001. He is still alive, and his family are major business leaders in Sheffield.

Justice for the 96.

[Trumo]

What bugs me, having seen all the various docs this week, is why there was ever a 3:15pm cut off point for events to be recorded as evidence? It is so arbitrary it's unreal.

Secondly, how can the families of the bereaved expect to win when they have to abide by the court of law? These people, regardless of coaching prior to testimony, would and could have only spoken from the heart. This will always come across as over-emotional in the circumstances. If they try to keep it together, they will miss some key points. Juries are advised to disregard the emotion of the occasion when deciding on a verdict.

This plays perfectly into the hands of the police when they themselves are being questioned. They will in a lot of cases be familiar with how to present themselves in court, through past experience, so will always come over as more thoughtful and reasoned.

Basically, it's down to familiarity with procedure. Regardless of whether what you are testifying is reasonable or not, it will always be viewed as reasonable if the delivery is correct, that is, by order of the court.

The very system designed to protect victims just ends up casting them adrift. This is the main beef I have with regards to the families' plight.

[Trumo]

Originally Posted by kopaloadofthis

What bugs me, having seen all the various docs this week, is why there was ever a 3:15pm cut off point for events to be recorded as evidence? It is so arbitrary it's unreal.

Secondly, how can the families of the bereaved expect to win when they have to abide by the court of law? These people, regardless of coaching prior to testimony, would and could have only spoken from the heart. This will always come across as over-emotional in the circumstances. If they try to keep it together, they will miss some key points. Juries are advised to disregard the emotion of the occasion when deciding on a verdict.

This plays perfectly into the hands of the police when they themselves are being questioned. They will in a lot of cases be familiar with how to present themselves in court, through past experience, so will always come over as more thoughtful and reasoned.

Basically, it's down to familiarity with procedure. Regardless of whether what you are testifying is reasonable or not, it will always be viewed as reasonable if the delivery is correct, that is, by order of the court.

The very system designed to protect victims just ends up casting them adrift. This is the main beef I have with regards to the families' plight.

This is one of my very first posts on this forum. On the eve of the 21st anniversary, has any real progress been made? Despite the evidence and files supposedly being made public, has anything new been learned?

[Cath]

Originally Posted by kopaloadofthis

This is one of my very first posts on this forum. On the eve of the 21st anniversary, has any real progress been made? Despite the evidence and files supposedly being made public, has anything new been learned?

Following Anne William's feed on Facebook I'd say there has been and there will be very little progress. She hasn't posted much as her thoughts are on the anniversary this week but she hints that her meetings with panel members and the Home Secretary are not encouraging.

[DimReaper]

"He made these comments in Parliament (HAnsard removed these comments from the published record)"

Surely not? I work for Hansard and its credibility is utmost. Removal of comments from a Hansard report is an immensely illegal thing to do.

I'm not arguing with you, it's just that's the first i've heard of that and, if true, it's yet another huge huge scandal.

[Royal Family]

Originally Posted by DimReaper

"He made these comments in Parliament (HAnsard removed these comments from the published record)"

Surely not? I work for Hansard and its credibility is utmost. Removal of comments from a Hansard report is an immensely illegal thing to do.

I'm not arguing with you, it's just that's the first i've heard of that and, if true, it's yet another huge huge scandal.

Thanks for bumping this - very timely. Both of these two figures are still going strong. Patnick made the comments under parliamentary privilege (i think it was 17 April 1989 but this is a long long time since I researched it when i worked at the Guardian), and there was a huge outcry within the Commons - Hansard amended his comments to something about 'the role of alcohol in contributing to the deaths'.

Kelvin MacKenzie confirmed back in 1993 to a parliamentary committee that Patnick was the source of the Sun's front page story "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP" - and although he later repudiated his apology, of course, he did actually name Patnick.

For years both Patnick and another family member were on the South Yorks Police Authority 'STandards Committee'.

[DimReaper]

Originally Posted by Royal Family

Thanks for bumping this - very timely. Both of these two figures are still going strong. Patnick made the comments under parliamentary privilege (i think it was 17 April 1989 but this is a long long time since I researched it when i worked at the Guardian), and there was a huge outcry within the Commons - Hansard amended his comments to something about 'the role of alcohol in contributing to the deaths'.

Kelvin MacKenzie confirmed back in 1993 to a parliamentary committee that Patnick was the source of the Sun's front page story "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP" - and although he later repudiated his apology, of course, he did actually name Patnick.

For years both Patnick and another family member were on the South Yorks Police Authority 'STandards Committee'.

But the whole point of parliamentary privilege is that you can say what you want without the threat of legal proceedings... Hansard doesn't usually just change things/remove parts of speech to protect individual MPs. That's against the fundamental principle of its role. So, if what you are saying is true, then it's a massive scandal/cover-up.

I just found the ministerial statement from Douglas Hurd that you're talking about (was indeed 17th April 89) and Patnick says:

May I join the hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and Sheffield, Atterliffe (Mr. Duffy) in speaking about the tragedy that occurred in Sheffield? I pay my compliments to the emergency services on the way in which they handled themselves at the weekend and to Sheffield people who volunteered to give accommodation to those from Liverpool who were bereaved. When I visited the 29 temporary morgue that had been set up with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport I was appalled by the tragedy. Only when one sees the bodies laid out can one fully appreciate the extent of the tragedy that happened in Sheffield.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bear in mind that it was apparent to me that there was a lack of a disaster plan for that sports ground, which is one of the major sports grounds in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe said, there are few better grounds than that ground. Nevertheless, shortcomings were apparent.

I congratulate the two radio stations, Radio Hallam and Radio Sheffield, which kept up a non-stop commentary on what help was needed for people in the area and the Sheffield Star on its special edition—a copy of which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—which showed graphically the horror and mayhem.

Will my right hon. Friend examine two questions—first, the apparent lack of a disaster plan and, secondly, the part that alcohol played in the disaster?

[Barnesey]

Whatever Patnick said, he was briefed by the Police. I'm not trying to excuse the lack of an apology if he said what is reported here but let's not get confused about the source.

[Red Nick]

Originally Posted by Cath

Following Anne William's feed on Facebook I'd say there has been and there will be very little progress. She hasn't posted much as her thoughts are on the anniversary this week but she hints that her meetings with panel members and the Home Secretary are not encouraging.

Very sad to hear.

With eveything else that has been going on at the club I hope people can focus tomorrow which will be a very sad day (yet again) for all Liverpool Fans.

I didnt even realise it was the 14th until about an hour ago.

I hope and pray for justice but I dont think I will ever see it.

YNWA
JFT 96

[a stoner]

I have given up on any form of justice for the disaster.
All I do now is spend an hour on the anniversary to quietly remember the 96 we lost and their families.
All it has done is cement the levels of coruption the government in this coutry will go to to protect it's own.

YNWA

[Lucky Pierre]

Nice of Andy Burnham to keep his promise after getting a nice promotion for himself.

[Juan Galonso]

Originally Posted by Lucky Pierre

Nice of Andy Burnham to keep his promise after getting a nice promotion for himself.

I think Andy Burnham is on the level but there is only so much he can do really.

[Lucky Pierre]

Originally Posted by Juan Galonso

I think Andy Burnham is on the level but there is only so much he can do really.

I hope he is, but he seemed to talk once or twice last April/May, and then go silent after his promotion. And the man who got his old job hasn't done anything either.