Saintslass Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Surely, given their roles at the time, investigating Thatcher (PM at the time) and Patnick (very much involved in the media presentation of events) would be essential to digging out information that implicates or exonerates people who are still living. I don't agree but as I said earlier, I'm not going to argue about it. Whatever happens, happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futtocks Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I don't agree but as I said earlier, I'm not going to argue about it. Whatever happens, happens. It's just that I can't imagine any even halfway conscientious investigation team doing what you suggest. They are going to have to look at everything that happened and everyone who made it happen. It would be illogical and counterproductive for them to do otherwise, just to protect the reputation of two people at the heart of it all. Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 It's just that I can't imagine any even halfway conscientious investigation team doing what you suggest. They are going to have to look at everything that happened and everyone who made it happen. It would be illogical and counterproductive for them to do otherwise, just to protect the reputation of two people at the heart of it all. Who said anything about protecting reputations? I know I didn't. I've made it quite clear on this thread that anyone and everyone is up for investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longboard Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 It's just that I can't imagine any even halfway conscientious investigation team doing what you suggest. They are going to have to look at everything that happened and everyone who made it happen. It would be illogical and counterproductive for them to do otherwise, just to protect the reputation of two people at the heart of it all. Given the passage of time, the deaths, or infirmity of some of the people involved, the process of and productivity of looking at everything and everyone will come with pronounced limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futtocks Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Who said anything about protecting reputations? I know I didn't. I've made it quite clear on this thread that anyone and everyone is up for investigation. Hang on, your recent posts seem to indicate that you think the involvement of Thatcher and Patnick shouldn't be looked into too closely. The term "waste of resources" comes into play more than once, for instance. Given that she is now dead I would imagine Thatcher is the very last person in line for investigation. What a waste of resources it would be to investigate someone who is dead. Since along with Thatcher he (Patnick) is no longer here I think any investigation into him would be a waste of resources. I just think to delve into those two would be a waste of resources. Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Though in his case far worse as he was a civil servant and therefore supposed to be politically neutral. Exactly. I may not like Crosby but he was (is) employed by the Tories. Mandelson was a Labour MP and Alistair Campbell was employed by the Labour party Ingham was employed by us. He was not supposed to be partisan, he could hardly have been more so in reality. “Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.” Clement Attlee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Hang on, your recent posts seem to indicate that you think the involvement of Thatcher and Patnick shouldn't be looked into too closely. The term "waste of resources" comes into play more than once, for instance. So how do you get from 'waste of resources' to 'protecting reputations'? I have also said that everyone should be investigated. That is abundantly clear from my posts. I just don't think there is much point in investigating dead people ahead of live ones (bearing in mind that my original post on this topic was in response to someone suggesting that investigations should begin with Thatcher and Patnick). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futtocks Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 So how do you get from 'waste of resources' to 'protecting reputations'? I have also said that everyone should be investigated. That is abundantly clear from my posts. I just don't think there is much point in investigating dead people ahead of live ones (bearing in mind that my original post on this topic was in response to someone suggesting that investigations should begin with Thatcher and Patnick). Surely investigating the people most responsible is priority #1, regardless of their current pulse-rate. Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 So how do you get from 'waste of resources' to 'protecting reputations'? I have also said that everyone should be investigated. That is abundantly clear from my posts. I just don't think there is much point in investigating dead people ahead of live ones (bearing in mind that my original post on this topic was in response to someone suggesting that investigations should begin with Thatcher and Patnick). Investigating what happened should not, IMO, consider whether they are alive or dead. In this case, the official version, which many will accept, is that the police, Government and Sun all came up with the same story spontaneously, despite holes which would have been apparent to all three parties. It might be considered coincidence, or we are seeing it moved to blame the police alone (which does not make sense entirely), but collusion between all three is apparent enough to just require confirmation. I do not think that will happen. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Surely investigating the people most responsible is priority #1, regardless of their current pulse-rate. The families want people to be held accountable. As you said yourself, you can't hold dead people accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Investigating what happened should not, IMO, consider whether they are alive or dead. In this case, the official version, which many will accept, is that the police, Government and Sun all came up with the same story spontaneously, despite holes which would have been apparent to all three parties. It might be considered coincidence, or we are seeing it moved to blame the police alone (which does not make sense entirely), but collusion between all three is apparent enough to just require confirmation. I do not think that will happen. The police, ambulance service, FA, Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield City Council, government, media ... all will have had a part to play. But as I said, you can't hold dead people to account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff9of13 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The families want people to be held accountable. As you said yourself, you can't hold dead people accountable. No there first priority, and I know this because I've spoken to some of them, is to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones and the full extent of how that truth was covered up for 27 years. Accountability of people now dead can still be established; only retribution can not be served. "it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 No there first priority, and I know this because I've spoken to some of them, is to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones and the full extent of how that truth was covered up for 27 years. Accountability of people now dead can still be established; only retribution can not be served. I'm going on what family members have said on TV interviews and I'd rather go with that than what you claim if you don't mind. Indeed the accountability of the dead may be established - there is no certainty of that of course as they can't be questioned - but they can't be brought to account. They cannot be prosecuted. Nor could their names be cleared if indeed they did nothing wrong. I think priority needs to go to investigating the living first, which is what I said originally, it is what I stand by and I'm not going to respond to this point further as it will be just repeating what I have already said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 No there first priority, and I know this because I've spoken to some of them, is to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones and the full extent of how that truth was covered up for 27 years. They will never know the truth as there are too many different versions of it. Too many individuals involved to ever get the complete unmitigated truth. I reckon if you had ten eye witnesses and asked them individually what happened then they would all give different accounts, such was the panic and trauma of the situation. What they actually want is a convenient truth, and that's fine because I would feel the same way too, they can't be criticised for that. On the wider subject of recriminations, I think the issue needs to be sub-divided into the actual events on the day and the subsequent cover up. I find it difficult to see how anyone could be prosecuted for events on the day, yes bad decisions were made but I am sure they were taken for valid reasons at the time and I am also sure nobody took a decision that intended loss of life to occur. It is only hindsight that shows them to be bad decisions though. However, on the cover up that subsequently took place, then anyone and everyone who was party to that process should be brought to account regardless of their status. I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff9of13 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I'm going on what family members have said on TV interviews and I'd rather go with that than what you claim if you don't mind. Are you accusing Hillsborough family members and personal friends of mine of lying? That's a new low, even for you. "it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WearyRhino Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 They will never know the truth as there are too many different versions of it. Too many individuals involved to ever get the complete unmitigated truth. I reckon if you had ten eye witnesses and asked them individually what happened then they would all give different accounts, such was the panic and trauma of the situation. By that reasoning the police would never investigate any major crimes. Are you saying that terrorist attacks should not be investigated because too many people are involved and they're all a bit emotional about it? Deary me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 By that reasoning the police would never investigate any major crimes. Are you saying that terrorist attacks should not be investigated because too many people are involved and they're all a bit emotional about it? Deary me! Of course I am not saying that at all, its just your perverse way of looking at things. In a lot of situations where there are multiple witnesses such as Hillsborough or a terrorist attack you will very rarely get the actual truth. You will get a majority concensus agreement on the overall event but you will not get the complete unmitigated truth as people see things differently. That is human nature. As an example, a few years ago I was involved in a very serious 7 vehicle accident on the M62. There were about 40 witnesses and the various individual witness statements varied widely on quite a few points. However, all but one were in complete agreement about who caused the accident. The driver who caused the accident (not me BTW) was subsequently prosecuted and actually jailed - but only because of the consensus of agreement on the main point. To that extent, the detail in individual eye witness accounts is not always reliable - they are that person's version of the truth. I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 You ask any senior investigating officer in the police and they'll tell you the same thing. Where there are mass eye witness accounts, especially in situations of panic and hysteria, about 90% of the content of each statement can be disregarded as unreliable. What they look for are the common themes, the things that they all agree on. As an analogy, its like 5,000 people screaming blue murder after a high tackle at a SL game, but if you asked them all individually to describe what happened you'd get many different variations of what they saw ranging from "nearly took his head off" to "hardly touched him". I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The families have declared they want people to be held to account. By the very fact that Thatcher and Patnick are dead means they cannot be held to account. I disagree to an extent; certain people whilst dead can still be held to account. Anyone with titles or a reputation can have those degenerated and removed impacting their legacy. Yes you can't punish them as they are dead but you can absolutely change what the record books say about them; Jimmy Saville is a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 You ask any senior investigating officer in the police and they'll tell you the same thing. Where there are mass eye witness accounts, especially in situations of panic and hysteria, about 90% of the content of each statement can be disregarded as unreliable. What they look for are the common themes, the things that they all agree on. As an analogy, its like 5,000 people screaming blue murder after a high tackle at a SL game, but if you asked them all individually to describe what happened you'd get many different variations of what they saw ranging from "nearly took his head off" to "hardly touched him". Absolutely. You don't even need mass eye witness accounts, just a couple of them. I remember I once witnessed a fatal car crash. I gave my witness statement to the police officer and was utterly convinced I saw what I said I saw. As it turned out I had transposed the colours of the vehicles involved and so my testimony was worthless. The police officer told me when he relayed this information to me that it was very common for witness testimony to be inaccurate or conflicting as witnesses were often emotionally under pressure at the time, only got a brief glance or subconsciously filled in gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The police, ambulance service, FA, Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield City Council, government, media ... all will have had a part to play. But as I said, you can't hold dead people to account. It is not a question of holding people to account for me (not entirely), but investigating what happened and how is was allowed to happen. There clearly was collusion at very high levels and this should (though I do not think it is) a major concern. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 We know what happened, and we know why it happened. What we need to know is why there was a cover up, and who was responsible for the cover up. “Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.” Clement Attlee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Tim Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I've had my fair share of warnings over the years on here and I suspect the way this thread is going there's going to be more handed out soon plus bans and this thread could be locked.....which would be a shame as there has been some interesting discussions and I think this is a topic close to many people's hearts. Chill pills and relax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The unreliability of witnesses is not in question. If we were relying on a a few people giving their word against another few, it would be difficult to unpick. When it is several thousand, against another side who have several people come forward and confess to fabrication, conceal evidence that would show what happened, and have had much of their claim refuted, then it is very reasonable to question the motives of someone still eager to drop malicious implications. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 The unreliability of witnesses is not in question. If we were relying on a a few people giving their word against another few, it would be difficult to unpick. When it is several thousand, against another side who have several people come forward and confess to fabrication, conceal evidence that would show what happened, and have had much of their claim refuted, then it is very reasonable to question the motives of someone still eager to drop malicious implications. It would be very difficult to successfully prosecute anyone involved "on the day" due to witness unreliability and the passage of time. The threshold to pass in a criminal court is a lot higher than that in a Coroners court. That isn't saying the people involved aren't guilty, just that it would be extremely difficult to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It matters not what anyone's opinion is of who did what, proving it in a criminal court is different matter altogether. As for the covering up and fabrication/concealment of evidence - well this is the third time I've said it now so I'll put it in capitals so you don't miss it - ANYONE, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEIR STATUS WAS, WHO IS IMPLICATED IN THE COVER UP SHOULD BE FULLY INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED WHERE THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING. I can't put it any plainer than that. I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.