[h again]

moondog, on 26 September 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

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 ?

Glad you found room for that little word - because that's what everything hangs on. What it 'seems' is about as worthless as evidence as you can get.
And it wasn't a trial judge, who couldn't do anything of the sort. It was a civil hearing, in which the learned judge may give what assurances he likes to either party in the interests of obtaining a correct version of events without prejudicing any criminal procedings that may result.
For such an ardent seeker after justice you behave strangely like a lynch mob.

[moondog]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Glad you found room for that little word - because that's what everything hangs on. What it 'seems' is about as worthless as evidence as you can get.
And it wasn't a trial judge, who couldn't do anything of the sort. It was a civil hearing, in which the learned judge may give what assurances he likes to either party in the interests of obtaining a correct version of events without prejudicing any criminal procedings that may result.
For such an ardent seeker after justice you behave strangely like a lynch mob.

I was being diplomatic, the evidence, that is there for all to see, certainly isn't worthless

It was a Judge presiding over a trial relating to a serious criminal offence, it was brought privately over 10 years after the event because the CPS wouldn't prosecute, guess who was an advisor to the CPS in relation to Hillsborough, Justice Hooper !!!!

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 26 September 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

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.

Can we get away from discussing this in cliches. Your 'blue rinsed, pearl necklace bedecked' magistrate is just as likely to be a male trade union official of very left views, and both will usualy discharge their duties in a responsible manner - if only because the Clerk of the Court is the one who runs things.
I'm not argueing that police wrong-doing should go un-punished, and it should be punished more heavily than normal. My point was that our system of justice has developed, over hundereds of years, a way to tread a more or less even-handed path between the possibilty of false evidence and the certainty that criminals will lie themselves blue in the face. The end result comes down fairly heavily on the side of the offender, as it must to avoid incriminating the innocent.
I'm not interested in the hoary old urban myths about mates being banged up by lying coppers, or five -pound notes in driving licences, or magistrates handing out guilty verdicts because somebody isn't wearing a tie. I'm more interested in the system managing to dispense the best possible justice in the face of people, like you, who talk endlessly about rough justice but are prepared to condemn people without a trial on the basis of what they've read in the papers. There is no justice, rough or otherwise, before a man has a chance to contest evidence against him.

[h again]

moondog, on 26 September 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I was being diplomatic, the evidence, that is there for all to see, certainly isn't worthless

It was a Judge presiding over a trial relating to a serious criminal offence, it was brought privately over 10 years after the event because the CPS wouldn't prosecute, guess who was an advisor to the CPS in relation to Hillsborough, Justice Hooper !!!!

It was a private prosecution, for heaven's sake, not a criminal trial. The judge had to set out the implications if a criminal trial resulted. The CPS wouldn't prosecute, Taylor didn't find any charges, a judicial enquiry didn't find any charges, a Home Secretary acknowledged it was a waste of time to prosecute, and a Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wouldn't touch it. And the private prosecution failed.
Shall I tell you why - because for a criminal charge to stick you have to prove INTENT. It isn't enough for incompetence, panic or stupidity to be proven - you have to INTEND to commit a crime. There was no INTENT to commit a crime at Hillsborough. It was a terible tragedy, but the law doesn't change because so many people died.
The only possible bit of intent you could allege was if some police officers colluded together and fabricated statements after the event, with the INTENTION to pervert the course of justice.
However, since no charges had been laid at that time, or since, the only thing they might have perverted was a Coroner's Inquest, a grey area. And in any case, proving collusion is almost impossible, unless a gang of them produced exactly the same wrong facts in exactly the same way. Conferring is permissible, collusion is not, and where you can possibly draw the line only the devil knows.
You can cry for justice until the cows come home. The fact is that anybody responsible for the administration of justice will run a mile from this, as we've seen. The only people who're going to benefit, as usual, are the lawyers. Personally I hope it does find its way into the Criminal Courts, because it's the only way now to get anywhere near the truth, and probably too late at that, and if wrong-doing is proven on the scale alleged the culprits deserve what's coming to them.
The most likely outcome is that it will drag through the civil courts for years without a result to satisfy either side. Tony Blair, whatever you might think of him, wasn't that daft.

[moondog]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

It was a private prosecution, for heaven's sake, not a criminal trial. The judge had to set out the implications if a criminal trial resulted. The CPS wouldn't prosecute, Taylor didn't find any charges, a judicial enquiry didn't find any charges, a Home Secretary acknowledged it was a waste of time to prosecute, and a Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wouldn't touch it. And the private prosecution failed.
Shall I tell you why - because for a criminal charge to stick you have to prove INTENT. It isn't enough for incompetence, panic or stupidity to be proven - you have to INTEND to commit a crime. There was no INTENT to commit a crime at Hillsborough. It was a terible tragedy, but the law doesn't change because so many people died.
The only possible bit of intent you could allege was if some police officers colluded together and fabricated statements after the event, with the INTENTION to pervert the course of justice.
However, since no charges had been laid at that time, or since, the only thing they might have perverted was a Coroner's Inquest, a grey area. And in any case, proving collusion is almost impossible, unless a gang of them produced exactly the same wrong facts in exactly the same way. Conferring is permissible, collusion is not, and where you can possibly draw the line only the devil knows.
You can cry for justice until the cows come home. The fact is that anybody responsible for the administration of justice will run a mile from this, as we've seen. The only people who're going to benefit, as usual, are the lawyers. Personally I hope it does find its way into the Criminal Courts, because it's the only way now to get anywhere near the truth, and probably too late at that, and if wrong-doing is proven on the scale alleged the culprits deserve what's coming to them.
The most likely outcome is that it will drag through the civil courts for years without a result to satisfy either side. Tony Blair, whatever you might think of him, wasn't that daft.

It was the equivalent (or should have been) of a criminal trial, with a jury etc. A CPS led criminal trial had been ruled out about 10 years before, have the good grace to acknowledge the facts.

You don't prove intent with a charge of manslaughter

I think the state will run with prosecutions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as they will want to restore public confidence in the justice system

[h again]

moondog, on 26 September 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

It was the equivalent (or should have been) of a criminal trial, with a jury etc. A CPS led criminal trial had been ruled out about 10 years before, have the good grace to acknowledge the facts.

You don't prove intent with a charge of manslaughter

I think the state will run with prosecutions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as they will want to restore public confidence in the justice system



.

Only you know what that means. You pointed out one of the major differences yourself when you complained that the judge directed the accused asnd advised him of his rights.
Manslaughter is normally charged when the prosecution are unable to prove INTENT to murder, but can prove an INTENT to injure. It may also be accepted as a compromise between defence and prosecution when neither feel fully confident of a 'not guilty' or a 'murder' verdict.
Has the public lost confidence in the justice system? Most people think it isn't hard enough on offenders, but apart from that are happy with it. One thing's for sure - if the state brings CPCJ charges the resulting cases aren't going to do anything to make the public happier with the system, just the reverse. It'll make a few Barristers even richer though.

[h again]

Dema Reborn, on 26 September 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I see the serial minuser is around again,why don't you find my entire posts and stick a minus on everyone you have missed,that should keep you busy

Justice For DEMA.!!!!! Save the Manchester 1.

I believe we have Intent to Pervert the Thoughts of Dema. Hanging's too good.

[dalekpete]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

It was a private prosecution, for heaven's sake, not a criminal trial.

I have led cases that have resulted in scores of criminal convictions. These included many Crown Court cases and several that resulted in custodial sentences. One was even featured in the Nationals with quotes from me! Except for a handful of joint cases with the police, all my cases up to April were private prosecutions.

This just meant we went into the Magistrates on Wednesday or Thursday with local authority cases and the RSPCA. Now my cases are handled by the CPS like most other criminal cases.

[moondog]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Only you know what that means. You pointed out one of the major differences yourself when you complained that the judge directed the accused asnd advised him of his rights.
Manslaughter is normally charged when the prosecution are unable to prove INTENT to murder, but can prove an INTENT to injure. It may also be accepted as a compromise between defence and prosecution when neither feel fully confident of a 'not guilty' or a 'murder' verdict.
Has the public lost confidence in the justice system? Most people think it isn't hard enough on offenders, but apart from that are happy with it. One thing's for sure - if the state brings CPCJ charges the resulting cases aren't going to do anything to make the public happier with the system, just the reverse. It'll make a few Barristers even richer though.

Pete's explained what I mean, I'm sure most other readers would know too. It was a criminal trial, simply prosecuted privately because the CPS wouldn't touch it, we now all know why.

I never said the Judge directed and advised the accused of his rights, he had simply said in a pre-trial hearing, when the defence were trying to get the case struck out, with reasons such as the two accused (not one as you believe) had suffered enough, that they shouldn't worry too much as they wouldn't face prison.

Manslaughter is not intent to injure. Have you not heard the term Involuntary manslaughter?. This is about the killing of someone without intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

The charge against Dukenfield and Murray revolved around the latter i.e. if they were doing their job correctly they should have foreseen what would happen if they opened the gate without blocking off the tunnel, as the central pens were already overcapacity.

As I've said previously for me the far bigger crime was the cover up.

The majority of the public are like you believing generally all is well with the justice system here. Now they can see this is not the case, the establishment will act to try and show this to be an isolated case, they will be less defensive than normal, interesting times ahead....

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Can we get away from discussing this in cliches. Your 'blue rinsed, pearl necklace bedecked' magistrate is just as likely to be a male trade union official of very left views, and both will usualy discharge their duties in a responsible manner - if only because the Clerk of the Court is the one who runs things.
I'm not argueing that police wrong-doing should go un-punished, and it should be punished more heavily than normal. My point was that our system of justice has developed, over hundereds of years, a way to tread a more or less even-handed path between the possibilty of false evidence and the certainty that criminals will lie themselves blue in the face. The end result comes down fairly heavily on the side of the offender, as it must to avoid incriminating the innocent.
I'm not interested in the hoary old urban myths about mates being banged up by lying coppers, or five -pound notes in driving licences, or magistrates handing out guilty verdicts because somebody isn't wearing a tie. I'm more interested in the system managing to dispense the best possible justice in the face of people, like you, who talk endlessly about rough justice but are prepared to condemn people without a trial on the basis of what they've read in the papers. There is no justice, rough or otherwise, before a man has a chance to contest evidence against him.

As i said, 'h', you're welcome to tap me on the shoulder at any point and i'll be happy to pad out what you dismiss as cliches and stories with personally experienced facts.

[trickytrevsfanclub]

MDCCCLXVI, on 26 September 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

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.

I totally agree with you. You are basically saying the same as me when you read into it. However the drunk driving and speeding ticket examples would get any cop the sack nowadays, who would risk their livelihood for something like that. If you did you'd be stupid and deserve everything you get. Sadly the human being is fallible and people of all walks of life do the stupidest things.

This post has been edited by trickytrevsfanclub: 27 September 2012 - 02:52 PM

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on 26 September 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

blue rinsed, pearl necklace bedecked magistrate ...

...blimey mate, those days are long gone, and they'd be the last to pass the stringent diversity test questions.
In fact, you could do a lot worse than have a go yourself. I suspect you'd be brill at it. It's just a pity you can't do the blue rinse.

[moondog]

Jimmy McGovern's Hillsborough. an accurate representation of what happened on the day and after now on ITV1

[claycross spireite]

moondog, on 30 September 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Jimmy McGovern's Hillsborough. an accurate representation of what happened on the day and after now on ITV1

cant watch it again, found it too upsetting first time.

but hey being caring and sensitive on this message board means youre not in with the cool kids.

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on 26 September 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

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?

It is often the case where the legal system becomes a like game of chess between lawyers using the complexities of legislation, competing for a win. It has moved far beyond the simple "justice", "innocent" and "guilty" concept.

[firedodger]

claycross spireite, on 30 September 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

cant watch it again, found it too upsetting first time.

but hey being caring and sensitive on this message board means youre not in with the cool kids.

I genuinely don't have a clue what you are talking about, is that meant in the context of the thread?

[moondog]

Bettison to retire...


http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-19836760

[moondog]

moondog, on 04 October 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Bettison to retire...


http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-19836760

and so won't face disciplinary action

http://www.policeora...tion_56171.html

[dim view]

dim view, on 15 September 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

But not quite as big an element as Straw or Blair, who were in power when the truth started to come out.

I agree that she would have dismissed the truth with disdain, but who would have told her the truth in the immediate aftermath?.

I just want to get summat off my chest.
Jack Straw is a conniving, lilly livered, underperforming, pseudo-interlectual, disgrace of a politician who, if he ever sits near me at the Proact, will be told so in no uncertain terms.


BBC News
19 December 2013 Last updated at 12:32

UK 'was inappropriately involved in rendition'

Live coverage of House of Commons: Clarke statement due at 11:15 GMT

There is evidence Britain was inappropriately involved in the rendition and ill-treatment of terror suspects, an inquiry has revealed.

Ken Clarke is briefing MPs on the findings of an inquiry into allegation of wrongdoing in MI5 and MI6 in the wake of 9/11.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary during the period covered by the report, welcomed Mr Clarke's announcement of a further investigation by a committee of MPs and peers, at which he and other witnesses will be able to give evidence.

But he stressed that he never condoned the ill-treatment of terror suspects during his time in office.

"I was never in any way complicit in the unlawful rendition or detention of individuals by the United States or any other states," he told MPs.