[kh83]

Town_Fan, on 24 September 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Has anyone actually read what was removed? There's nothing Earth shattering, no smoking gun. Changing statements was wrong but the reality is unaltered they wouldnt have changed anything.

Not enough radios and police officers reporting chaos and a lack of leadership wasnt going to change much (if anything) from the Taylor report. The Police were stupid to try this on and they deserve censure but to suggest anything would be different is just not true.

Are you real????

[h again]

moondog, on 25 September 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

no it's not, most of the civil stuff is heard in chambers, where there is no access to the public nor are such cases reported.


I suggest you take a look at this in relation to the court system re Hillsborough, now revealed as correct

http://www.contrast....tuartsmith.shtm

Your personal agenda against both the police and the legal system in general is becoming more obvious with every post, reaching a magnificent crescendo with the above fantasy.
Unfortunately for you the legal system we have is the only means by which the truth can be esatablished - if it can ever be established at all, because luckily this is England, and no man can be found guilty of a criminal offence without the opportunity to defend himself by cross-examination of witnesses to events. He isn't found guilty by panels of experts, or the state,or by football message boards - he can only be found guilty by a judge in a court of law, after he has had a chance to defend himself.
The private prosecution that was brought was the nearest we've had to this so far. It resulted in the case being thrown out. So the people bringing the action cried 'foul' and alleged their prosecuting Barrister was incompetent. You are now doing the same, and going a bit further by alleging the whole legal system is corrupt.
It isn't. It's slow, expensive, inefficient - and our only refuge against oppression by the state, committees or individuals. I should have a think about that, once the steam stops coming out of your ears.

[moondog]

h again, on 25 September 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Your personal agenda against both the police and the legal system in general is becoming more obvious with every post, reaching a magnificent crescendo with the above fantasy.
Unfortunately for you the legal system we have is the only means by which the truth can be esatablished - if it can ever be established at all, because luckily this is England, and no man can be found guilty of a criminal offence without the opportunity to defend himself by cross-examination of witnesses to events. He isn't found guilty by panels of experts, or the state,or by football message boards - he can only be found guilty by a judge in a court of law, after he has had a chance to defend himself.
The private prosecution that was brought was the nearest we've had to this so far. It resulted in the case being thrown out. So the people bringing the action cried 'foul' and alleged their prosecuting Barrister was incompetent. You are now doing the same, and going a bit further by alleging the whole legal system is corrupt.
It isn't. It's slow, expensive, inefficient - and our only refuge against oppression by the state, committees or individuals. I should have a think about that, once the steam stops coming out of your ears.

it's not fantasy, you clearly haven't got a clue what you are on about. I suggest you go to any County Court and take a look how most cases are heard.

You keep quoting Criminal law when I'm talking about Civil, although I'd like to draw your attention to this

http://www.bbc.co.uk...eyside-19710415

The system has been exposed as being corrupt, Jack Straw indicated to Lord Justice Stuart Smith what outcome they were looking for

http://www.independe...aw-8165990.html

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 25 September 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Your personal agenda against both the police and the legal system in general is becoming more obvious with every post, reaching a magnificent crescendo with the above fantasy.
Unfortunately for you the legal system we have is the only means by which the truth can be esatablished - if it can ever be established at all, because luckily this is England, and no man can be found guilty of a criminal offence without the opportunity to defend himself by cross-examination of witnesses to events. He isn't found guilty by panels of experts, or the state,or by football message boards - he can only be found guilty by a judge in a court of law, after he has had a chance to defend himself.
The private prosecution that was brought was the nearest we've had to this so far. It resulted in the case being thrown out. So the people bringing the action cried 'foul' and alleged their prosecuting Barrister was incompetent. You are now doing the same, and going a bit further by alleging the whole legal system is corrupt.
It isn't. It's slow, expensive, inefficient - and our only refuge against oppression by the state, committees or individuals. I should have a think about that, once the steam stops coming out of your ears.

Come on, 'H', you're just being provocative again.

If you honestly believe everyone is viewed equally in the Courtroom, the State never exert influence by one means or another, or the innocent can always expect a fair hearing, then you're way more naive than i thought you were.

Infact tap me on the shoulder sometime and i'll tell you a personal account of policemen lying through their teeth but their words being believed over those of witnesses. And i'm sure many others can offer similar stories.

[jamie_bolsover]

Moondog, the BBC article summarises the general feeling I get about the whole Hillsborough affair, here we have dukinfield, already a proven liar being granted immunity from a jail sentence prior to the hearing of evidence.

[firedodger]

MDCCCLXVI, on 25 September 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Come on, 'H', you're just being provocative again.

If you honestly believe everyone is viewed equally in the Courtroom, the State never exert influence by one means or another, or the innocent can always expect a fair hearing, then you're way more naive than i thought you were.

Infact tap me on the shoulder sometime and i'll tell you a personal account of policemen lying through their teeth but their words being believed over those of witnesses. And i'm sure many others can offer similar stories.

The courts are murky old waters though chris aren't they? I'm pretty sure for every miscarriage of justice in favour of the state, there is some miscreant getting off on a technicality.
I think h has held his hands up and said the system is far from perfect, but it's what we've got, and we have to trust that sooner or later it'll come good. This whole sorry affair has gone on far too long, and the longer it drags on the more negative emotions come out.
The one thing I can take some comfort from is that my mistrust and dislike of politicians as a whole is completely sound, conservatives behaviour was underhand and appalling in the first place, labour equally underhand and appalling when they had a chance to sort it, dirty cheating bathtubs the lot of them.

[moondog]

jamie_bolsover, on 25 September 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Moondog, the BBC article summarises the general feeling I get about the whole Hillsborough affair, here we have dukinfield, already a proven liar being granted immunity from a jail sentence prior to the hearing of evidence.

Agree, it set the tone for everything that followed, in the event the jury were undecided on Dukenfield, this is likely not to have been the case had the judge been impartial

[jamie_bolsover]

moondog, on 25 September 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Agree, it set the tone for everything that followed, in the event the jury were undecided on Dukenfield, this is likely not to have been the case had the judge been impartial

It's beyond belief isn't it!! Had the whole of Leppings lane end of the ground safety been the responsibility of a private firm you can bet your bottom dollar we would be debating a whole different story here, one that would have been put to bed years ago

[trickytrevsfanclub]

MDCCCLXVI said:

1348586640[/url]' post='787211']
Come on, 'H', you're just being provocative again.

If you honestly believe everyone is viewed equally in the Courtroom, the State never exert influence by one means or another, or the innocent can always expect a fair hearing, then you're way more naive than i thought you were.

Infact tap me on the shoulder sometime and i'll tell you a personal account of policemen lying through their teeth but their words being believed over those of witnesses. And i'm sure many others can offer similar stories.

For every lying Policeman I'll give you 10000 lying criminals. For every miscarriage of justice I'll give you 10000 guilty walking free. The system isn't perfect, it's got many faults but its still amongst the best in the world.

[Town_Fan]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 26 September 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

For every lying Policeman I'll give you 10000 lying criminals. For every miscarriage of justice I'll give you 10000 guilty walking free. The system isn't perfect, it's got many faults but its still amongst the best in the world.

10000 guilty people walking free doesnt sound like the "best in the world" does it?

That's the problem with coppers, they assume everyone is guilty and that if found not guilty they somehow got way with it.

[h again]

Town_Fan, on 26 September 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

10000 guilty people walking free doesnt sound like the "best in the world" does it?

That's the problem with coppers, they assume everyone is guilty and that if found not guilty they somehow got way with it.

"Better 10,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man is found guilty".
No, I don't believe it either, but it's the principle the law works on. The coppers you refer to are so used to seeing people they know to be guilty walk away that there's little wonder they think the other way. And how do they know? - because there's piles of intelligence and evidence that isn't admissible in Court. Starting with the, "Course I did it, now f---ing prove it" , down through the witness who saw it but won't get involved, right down to the string of previous convictions with the same MO that make your man a certainty - but can't be produced in Court. It's amazing to me that the police remain as un-biased as they do in the face of what they know and see.
But I digress. The legal system, in its own bumbling way, despite the blatant lying, fraud and deception inherent on both sides, but 95% with the accused; despite the stupidity of class warriors who think in total ignorance that it's biased against 'the working class'; despite some lawyers who are worse than their clients; despite all this it manages to deliver justice - not perfect justice, which would be impossible - but by comparison with the rest of the world, as good as you can get.
In this case it's the only way of testing the findings of the Hillsborough enquiry. Or not, in the case of some people who accept the findings because it fits their agenda, or because the papers say they're true.

[Wooden Spoon]

"justice" and the legal system aren't always the same thing

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 25 September 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Come on, 'H', you're just being provocative again.

If you honestly believe everyone is viewed equally in the Courtroom, the State never exert influence by one means or another, or the innocent can always expect a fair hearing, then you're way more naive than i thought you were.

Infact tap me on the shoulder sometime and i'll tell you a personal account of policemen lying through their teeth but their words being believed over those of witnesses. And i'm sure many others can offer similar stories.

I don't believe anything of the sort. We're talking about a system run by human beings with all their failings and prejudices and personal feelings are bound to creep in. Which is part of the reason the law goes out of its way to make life as difficult as possible for the prosecution, and why so much evidence is inadmissible and the rest so strictly cross-examined. The end result is a number of the guilty walking free, but it's the price we pay for justice for the innocent.
I'm afraid the naivety is on your side if you can't see that, but prefer to retail the tired old stories of policeman lying, etc. We know a few policemen will lie because it's been proved - see my remarks about human beings above. We also know that thousands upon thousands of guilty people will lie under oath. Somehow the legal system has to keep the balance between these things and many others. I don't want to say our justice is the envy of the world, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you can draw your own conclusions.

[h again]

necronomicon ex mortis, on 26 September 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

"justice" and the legal system aren't always the same thing

No human system can deliver perfect justice. It's simply childish to think it can - what it can do is try to ensure that as many offences as possible result in convictions, whilst ensuring the innocent go free.
How can that ever be done perfectly?

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Probably the best assesment of our justice system ive ever read.

[h again]

moondog, on 25 September 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Agree, it set the tone for everything that followed, in the event the jury were undecided on Dukenfield, this is likely not to have been the case had the judge been impartial

You get better. Why not just write "I hate the law" on a bog wall somewhere?

[moondog]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

You get better. Why not just write "I hate the law" on a bog wall somewhere?

I appreciate laws, I just want them to apply to everybody, sorry you don't get it

[h again]

moondog, on 26 September 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

I appreciate laws, I just want them to apply to everybody, sorry you don't get it

They do apply to everybody, from the Queen down. And with the law goes the opportunity for a man to defend himself - that's the bit YOU don't get.
Trial by Committee, newspaper, BBC, Jimmy McGovern and football message board is not a feature of English law - something for which you'd be very thankful if you were in the dock.

[moondog]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

They do apply to everybody, from the Queen down. And with the law goes the opportunity for a man to defend himself - that's the bit YOU don't get.
Trial by Committee, newspaper, BBC, Jimmy McGovern and football message board is not a feature of English law - something for which you'd be very thankful if you were in the dock.

Of course I get that, where have I said there should be no trial for those seemingly (from the evidence that is now in the public domain) guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ?


and when have you ever heard a trial judge before proceedings start give the defendent's a reassurance that the full extent of the law (a custodial sentence) wouldn't apply to them ?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 26 September 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

For every lying Policeman I'll give you 10000 lying criminals. For every miscarriage of justice I'll give you 10000 guilty walking free. The system isn't perfect, it's got many faults but its still amongst the best in the world.

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

"Better 10,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man is found guilty".
No, I don't believe it either, but it's the principle the law works on. The coppers you refer to are so used to seeing people they know to be guilty walk away that there's little wonder they think the other way. And how do they know? - because there's piles of intelligence and evidence that isn't admissible in Court. Starting with the, "Course I did it, now f---ing prove it" , down through the witness who saw it but won't get involved, right down to the string of previous convictions with the same MO that make your man a certainty - but can't be produced in Court. It's amazing to me that the police remain as un-biased as they do in the face of what they know and see.
But I digress. The legal system, in its own bumbling way, despite the blatant lying, fraud and deception inherent on both sides, but 95% with the accused; despite the stupidity of class warriors who think in total ignorance that it's biased against 'the working class'; despite some lawyers who are worse than their clients; despite all this it manages to deliver justice - not perfect justice, which would be impossible - but by comparison with the rest of the world, as good as you can get.
In this case it's the only way of testing the findings of the Hillsborough enquiry. Or not, in the case of some people who accept the findings because it fits their agenda, or because the papers say they're true.

In general terms we're in agreement, what's more we're all aware of the lengths scum will go to in a bid to avoid being banged up.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

Where do we draw the line; a bobby ripping up a speeding ticket for a mate? Turning a blind eye when pulling up a colleague whilst driving drunk? A blue rinsed, pearl necklace bedecked magistrate accepting the lies of cops over testimony from witnesses simply 'cos they're from a council estate? How about embroidering the facts to ensure the conviction of someone who everyone knows did the crime?

Or maybe conspiring to portray football supporters as responsible for the deaths of their fellow fans to cover up incompetance amongst those with silver on their shoulders.

I've mates who're OB and my visceral reaction is to view the service as a whole in a positive light. Unfortunately they not only have to be whiter than white, but demonstrate it on a daily basis.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 26 September 2012 - 03:28 PM