Hillsborough again!

[Mel Rowing]

The latest episode in this long running saga gats underway. We are told
the herings will last over 12 months. It's difficult to see how anything
that has not already been said about this undisputed tragedy will take
12 moths to deliver.

What amazes me is that we are supposed to be living in straitened times
what's all this to cost? Is it really necessary to provide a purpose
built courtroom to accomodate all the family members who might wish to
attend together with 100+ lawyers.

ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.

I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.

When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

[Bollocky William]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

I don't care about the cost nor am I very interested in the plight of
the relatives. I want to see the procedure used to cover up facts and
mislead so many exposed. That is priceless in today's issue's of
police lying and organising set ups and organised perversion of the
course of justice. Perjury is another issue that needs exposing.

[Mel Rowing]

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing
snip

Post by Mel Rowing
When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

I don't care about the cost nor am I very interested in the plight of
the relatives. I want to see the procedure used to cover up facts and
mislead so many exposed. That is priceless in today's issue's of
police lying and organising set ups and organised perversion of the
course of justice. Perjury is another issue that needs exposing.

Then you should be because it's coming from your pocket and it's not
necessary. You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of an inquest.

It does not assemble in order to apportion blame. It is not a full blown
public enquiry. We have already had two of those. Indeed anyone called
as a witness who feels he might be legally compromised, can tand before
the coroner and refuse to testify upon which is is likely he will be
asked to stand down without further ado.

It will look solely and simply into the circumstances contributing to
the deaths of the deceased. The only concrete thing that will emerge at
the distant end of all this will be a verdict of accidental death or
unlawful killing or possibly but unlikely death by misadventure.

In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

[Bollocky William]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

I am hoping details of corruption will emerge so the general public
will not trust all authority all the time.

[Mel Rowing]

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

I am hoping details of corruption will emerge so the general public
will not trust all authority all the time.

Then you will be disappointed.

There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that these unfortuanate
people died through any reason other than a terrible accident. Why
should corruption be a factor? Who would have gained from the deaths of
96 people?

Nobody set out to kill 96 people that day.

[Bollocky William]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:55:36 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

I am hoping details of corruption will emerge so the general public
will not trust all authority all the time.

Then you will be disappointed.
There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that these unfortuanate
people died through any reason other than a terrible accident. Why
should corruption be a factor? Who would have gained from the deaths of
96 people?
Nobody set out to kill 96 people that day.

The changing of police statements and the story in the Sun maybe
connected don't you think it should be looked into in case it involves
corruption?

[The Todal]

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:55:36 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

I am hoping details of corruption will emerge so the general public
will not trust all authority all the time.

Then you will be disappointed.
There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that these unfortuanate
people died through any reason other than a terrible accident. Why
should corruption be a factor? Who would have gained from the deaths of
96 people?
Nobody set out to kill 96 people that day.

The changing of police statements and the story in the Sun maybe
connected don't you think it should be looked into in case it involves
corruption?

I don't think "corruption" is the right word. That implies bribes. Maybe
you don't mean it that way.

The facts are: Hillsborough involved the deaths of many innocent members
of the public who were merely moving into the terraces as directed, and
did not in any way misbehave.

The cause of the disaster was incompetent planning by the police and the
football club. Many needless deaths occurred because the senior police
officer panicked and failed to carry out remedial measures in time, or
to get ambulances onto the field. It was a totally unfamiliar situation
for which nobody was adequately trained.

The various witness statements prepared for the inquest were fiddled
with by lawyers to exclude criticism of the police, apparently. This was
probably not a cover-up, rather a misguided attempt by foolish lawyers
to stick to what they saw as the relevant facts. Moreover the coroner
made a major mistake by ruling that whatever happened after 3.15pm was
irrelevant because by then all the deaths had occurred - that turns out
to be totally wrong, and further evidence needs to be taken about the
conduct of police and emergency services after that time.

I don't see this inquest as a means to uncover corruption or wrongdoing
but it should be a way of improving safety standards in the future. We
can't just assume that the lessons have all been learned merely because
they were in various reports and news articles.

[Bollocky William]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:50:09 +0100, The Todal <***@beeb.net>
wrote:

snipped

Post by The Todal
I don't see this inquest as a means to uncover corruption or wrongdoing
but it should be a way of improving safety standards in the future. We
can't just assume that the lessons have all been learned merely because
they were in various reports and news articles.

What about avoiding blame so some one else insurance company has to
pay out or even looking after an insurance company in a way relatives
cannot claim negligence and compensation by manipulating the press?

[Mel Rowing]

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:55:36 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Bollocky William
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

snip

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

I am hoping details of corruption will emerge so the general public
will not trust all authority all the time.

Then you will be disappointed.
There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that these unfortuanate
people died through any reason other than a terrible accident. Why
should corruption be a factor? Who would have gained from the deaths of
96 people?
Nobody set out to kill 96 people that day.

The changing of police statements and the story in the Sun maybe
connected don't you think it should be looked into in case it involves
corruption?

Not in an inquest I don't. Where the only focus of interest is why the
deceased died, how they died and whether anything could have been done
differently to prevent their dying. Lord Justice Taylor looked at these
matters iin his inquiry with the net result that we had a Sports Grounds
Act (rev) of 1990 and a multitude of new or modified, safe all seated
stadia. This is the best memorial to those who died. Scapegoating will
serve nobody.

[Bollocky William]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:55:36 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing
Then you will be disappointed.
There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that these unfortuanate
people died through any reason other than a terrible accident. Why
should corruption be a factor? Who would have gained from the deaths of
96 people?
Nobody set out to kill 96 people that day.

I don't think anyone has suggested that! However 96 people died there
and if negligence is proved and has been covered up in the immediate
panic of being blamed that is corruption.

[Bollocky William]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:15:49 +0100, Mel Rowing
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

snipped

Post by Mel Rowing
In addition the coroner might deem it appropriate to make
recommendations to certain authorities to avoid any recurrence. Such
recommendations are likely to have been made redundant by the subsequent
widespread implement ation of the Taylor Report which was a much more
important exercise.

There are many issues that need looking into and that is what I am
looking forward to anything that looks iffy being looked into
correctly.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mel Rowing
ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.
I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.

Perhaps there is a slim possibility that such public/concert halls
are not actually completely free of bookings for the next year.

[Mel Rowing]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mel Rowing
ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.
I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.

Perhaps there is a slim possibility that such public/concert halls
are not actually completely free of bookings for the next year.

That is almost certainly the case. However, such venues are usually
limited to evening use. They are empty during the day.

What would be needed to make them suitable?

A desk and chairs for the coroner and his assistants. A further
desk/table and chairs for the jurors. The first two rows of the
auditorium reserved for lawyers and their clerks auditorium lights being
kept on throughout procedings. It's not a public performance.

Procedings will stop at or before 4 p.m. the court will not sit on
public holidays or at weekends.

The whole lot could be cleared and the hall prepared for its evening use
and vice versa inside 2 hours.

We have had long running enquiries involving a high level of public
interest before.

[Cassandra]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:27 +0100, Mel Rowing

Post by Mel Rowing
The latest episode in this long running saga gats underway. We are told
the herings will last over 12 months. It's difficult to see how anything
that has not already been said about this undisputed tragedy will take
12 moths to deliver.
What amazes me is that we are supposed to be living in straitened times
what's all this to cost? Is it really necessary to provide a purpose
built courtroom to accomodate all the family members who might wish to
attend together with 100+ lawyers.
ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.
I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.
When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

You have to allow enough space for drunken scousers to try and
gatecrash the event


-----
Please help me dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin:15t5vy9tRzFcoN9mMeosPuegxbtd94JBk4
Litecoin:LKJyrn8K1SCDZFGnGzSj4cbQEF4xrE9WjS

[Feral Underclass]

Post by Mel Rowing
The latest episode in this long running saga gats underway. We are told
the herings will last over 12 months. It's difficult to see how anything
that has not already been said about this undisputed tragedy will take
12 moths to deliver.
What amazes me is that we are supposed to be living in straitened times
what's all this to cost? Is it really necessary to provide a purpose
built courtroom to accomodate all the family members who might wish to
attend together with 100+ lawyers.
ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.
I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.
When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

Like I said, austerity is a con. All the cuts are to services the poor
rely on. Meanwhile everything else goes on as normal, and the rich get
tax cuts.

I don't see the point of this one either. Everyone knows the police in
the 80s were institutionally corrupt. If for some reason that needs to
be proved again they should look at Orgreave instead.

[JNugent]

Post by Mel Rowing
The latest episode in this long running saga gats underway. We are told
the herings will last over 12 months. It's difficult to see how anything
that has not already been said about this undisputed tragedy will take
12 moths to deliver.
What amazes me is that we are supposed to be living in straitened times
what's all this to cost? Is it really necessary to provide a purpose
built courtroom to accomodate all the family members who might wish to
attend together with 100+ lawyers.
ne can undrstand that the matter has generated a great deal of interest
but the last time I attended an inquest it was held in a magstrates'
court. In earlier days I remember inquests being held in village halls
and even rooms set aside in a pub.
I appreciate that such facilities would be woefully inadequate on this
occasion. However, I refuse to believe that the town of Warrington does
not possess a public/concert hall of sufficient size to accomodate an
assembly of 3-400 souls that could be easily arranged to provide an
appropriate setting.

In fact, Warrington possesses several such venues, but not necessarily
any which can be taken out of their normal use for a whole year or more.

Post by Mel Rowing
When will the next time be that such a facility will be needed in
Warrington?

It isn't quite as "purpose built" as the press are suggesting. It's a
commercial unit which has been "shopfitted".