That reads like it is all about you. And anyone who doesn't pat you on the head and say well done is a very nasty man.

This was also caused by the police's ineptitude. I have already explained in detail just a few pages back how and why it occurred. Certainly not going to write it all out again. Especially when you know full well what happened in reality. I know your posts on this topic of old. And the Taylor report you have been so full of praise for made it clear as well that it was due to police failings.

I have some sympathy but it is limited.

Keeping quiet out of fear is still colluding in the cover-up. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a force of bent cops or a force of cowardly ones.

But its not all of the force, its only a tiny minority of officers.

Now i hear calls for the whole force to be disbanded.

If the majority were judged on the actions of the minority, where would we be?

The 'tiny minority' required to build a false story.

The other few who briefed press and politicians.

The others who agreed to change their statements.

The many others who agreed to stay silent.

I'm sure the average bobby was unaware but there were enough people who were either openly lying or colluding in the lies to make it more than a 'tiny minority'.

I don't know what disbanding the force would do - South Yorkshire has got to have a police force so it seems a stupid suggestion.

I would prefer the second part of Leveson to go ahead (the part which will deal with relationship between police, press and politicians) and for Hillsborough to be a part of that.

Some of the officers who submitted statements didn't even know they had been changed, so will have thought their evidence was part of a broader context. Someone like Debra Martin I do have a lot of sympathy for, she was a young special constable apparently put under enormous pressure to change her statement. When she did speak out she was, even in court, by the polices QC, accused of being a 'fantasist'.

Oddly enough, some aspects of animal welfare were part of my job as well as safety at sports grounds. My old boss used to say that before Hillsborough, cattle in transit and at markets had better legal protection than people in football grounds.

This a great video for anyone wanting to get a sense of how dangerous the Leppings Lane terrace was:

http://hillsborough.independent.gov....a/VID0001.html

Even down to why on earth you would effectively cut the exit from the back of the stands in to two halves, thus making it, in itself, a bottle neck. Crazy.

It was up to the majority to expose and discredit the minority. By definition the majority outnumbers the minority so the task should not be terribly difficult.

My opinion is that every single police force in the UK is every bit as bad as the next. Those officers who are not corrupt are unwilling to do anything about those who are. I think that point has been well proven on these forums hence the disappearance of a well known ex- cop from this thread.

The problem with Hillsborough (and even Duckenfield admitted this on the stand) is that it was clear ON THE DAY that the police story was lies. The whole thing was bloody on camera FFS! And yet so convinced were the police that they were above the law or even any kind of accountability that they felt they could get away with constructing a wholly false narrative. And let's face it - they did for a quarter of a century.

They then fabricated and searched for 'evidence' to back up their story - even going so far as to test dead children for alcohol. The move to obfuscate, cover up and disseminate falsehoods was so slick and professional, it is naive at best (collaboration at worst) to claim it was a few 'bad apples'. This was an industrial process. Not only that but done with such finesse that I'm afraid, you can only look on it as 'consistent'. The way they used politicians and the media wasn't a case of 'wrong', it was so well done, it would have impressed Goebbels. (there's my Godwin reference).

I had no idea that the Police observation/viewing box was so near to where it all happened. What on earth was Duckenfield doing? Surely once it became clear what was going on he should have ordered that the 'cages' be taken down. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but ................jeeeez what on earth was the man doing?

You ask a very good question Penny. One version of an answer that I have seen is that he "froze" incapable of thought or action at the horrors that were unfolding in front of his eyes. That is a possibility but then you have to ask why when he did respond it was to send in the dogs instead of the ambulances.

I guess that is one of your regular personal insults towards me.

As far as I'm concerned, Duckenfields evidence ensured the verdict that was given, and I have no problem with it.

What do you want me to continue saying here? It's all out there.

Why I'm not saying much is because there is little point in arguing that the entire police force of the country are not corrupt criminals, as you, and others seem to be having a free hand in saying.

What happened in this case was a terrible thing, and those in charge messed up like never before.

I could discuss how things work for those at ground level, but no one wants to hear that, because this is simply a putting the boot in exercise, and that is fine for those who deserve that treatment, but it's been extended to everyone who has ever been a Police Officer, and anyone who comes into the thread and tries to ask any questions.

There are all manner of reasons why this happened, and some have tried to discuss this, and been hammered.

You stick to what you want to say, but dont try baiting me, and trying to drag me into becoming a punchbag.

I have condemned what was done wrong, but dont expect me to join in with the usual rubbish you spout.

Asking someone to back up their opinions is not "vilifying" them.
Saying "surely" and "I can't believe..." is not an argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

And the burden of proof is on those making the claim

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I guess his mind was 100% fixated on 'the hooligan element' - I expect he'd played out certain scenarios in his head and worked out strategies for dealing with it and was then totally unable to register what was going on in front of his very eyes. Even the TV cameras were conmmentating on this tragedy as it happened and he just wasn't dealing with it in any way shape or form. Was/is he a very intimidating/forceful man? If he was unable to see what was happening - what about those in the box with him?

As I just said - hindsight is wonderful but it's not like it all happened in the blink of an eye - it was an ongoing situation that got worse and worse - if those cages had been taken down the crush would have been relieved in an instant. Who had the keys to the cage? Was there not a strategy in place? What if there'd been a fire?

How on earth did this absolutely 'rubbish' made up story carry on unquestioned for all those years?

My first point is that if, as you say the bad apples are in a very small minority then they would by now have been outed and dealt with by the great and good majority.

My second point is that time and time again you have come on here to denigrate p[eople for suggesting that a judge and jury have "got it wrong". The policeman at the centre of the Plebgate affair, the policeman accused in the death of Ian Tomlinson etc, again and again you tell us that due legal process has taken place and we should not question any aspect of the findings. However when an inquest finds that Liverpool fans were not at all responsible for the death of the 96 you feel quite at liberty to do just that.

Only he can say for sure what he was thinking but when asked why he sent in the dogs, his response was that he had no idea. This is a weak and deceitful coward who will take his true feelings and thoughts to his grave.
Can't quire recall who had the keys, can't find the detail right now, have a feeling it was one of the stewards but that may be wrong.

Well. Please show me where I have questioned the juries verdict here. I never defended the officer that killed Tomlinson, so, again, a retraction of these accusations would be appropriate.

I said very little about the Plebgate affair. The whole thing was an embarrassing episode for all involved.

As for juries, particularly in criminal trials, my opinion is that I think they can be a lottery, and I'd rather have three Judges decide.

I've not problem with what the jury came up with here, but I reverse your accusation, because the number of people here saying nothing can be questioned, because the jury have decided is quite contrary to what has been said on threads relating to Duggan, DeMenezies etc, when the juries decision was hammered by a great many people with certain views.

I can talk about what things are like in the police, because I experienced it for over 30 years. Stereotypical insults from the likes are you are meaningless, and borne out of prejudice.

I've encountered the good, bad, and everything in between with relations to Officers, and that is because they are people from general society, with the same attitudes, and opinions, and make up. I've never known any Officer joining up to do bad things. Everyone starts from a position of wanting to do good, but events can change people, and no one can predict what some may do in the future.

Prosecutions against police are always problematic because the CPS is not independent of the police. Take Harwood as an example. 'Bad character' evidence that would almost certainly have been admissible in the trial of a non police officer (evidence which showed a clear tendency towards aggression and past problems with members of the public) was not shown to the jury.

The police in the Guildford Four case were even allowed to address the jury prior to the trial starting in an astonishing break with court process. The most damning evidence in that case was kept from the jury.

And I'm not even going to start with the ridiculous attempt to call the Cardiff Three police to account (essentially allowing them in my view to hide evidence which led to the collapse of the trial).

Prosecutions of police officers in my view shouldn't be carried out by the CPS. They should be carried out by independent barristers who are working to ensure convictions (at times it seems the CPS are working to ensure acquittals) and the state should make damn sure those lawyers get whatever financial resources they need. Certainly equal to the state's defence.

It's a shame that we are getting to the usual old cases being dragged up yet again. They have all been done to death, and that is another reason why I have tried not to get too involved here.

As for prosecuting police officers, plenty have been prosecuted, and convicted. Those cases get ignored, because of a few where they are not convicted, and that has to be down to corruption of some kind for some people.

In general, huge numbers of people from all walks of life are investigated, but not prosecuted. Is that down to dodgy practices, or just the rules of evidence?

Sure you can talk about your police experiences but bear in mind that a lot of people who have never worn a police uniform have their own experiences of dealings with the police.
Mostly my dealings with police have been positive and helpful but I have also been assaulted by cops and arrested three times but never charged. All the arrests and the assault happened during the miners strike. I was fitted at the time and my "crime" which saw me arrested was walking home from school with my friends. Nowhere near a picket line but good enough for cops to pile out of a van, knock us about a bit and then get bundled into the van arrested for unlawful assembly and resisting arrest.
We never saw the inside of a police station but we're driven a few miles out of the village, given a whack or two and left to walk home. Three times this happened and I still have problems with my shoulder which assaulted the end of a police baton.
Bad apples everywhere and the police are just the same as any other group in that respect.

I'm actually talking about the ones who were prosecuted - and making the observation that the CPS should not be handling the prosecutions.

I could understand Sulla thinking the Taylor report is very important so I pointed out the evidence given to Taylor was provided by SYP +WMP. , hundreds of Statements now shown to be false, this is the same evidence David Cameron spoke of when he apologized for the double injustice. Sullas reply was to tell me am wrong its very comprehensive and I should read it, I read it many years ago. the faults are well known.
The reason he wanted people to read it was in his first post, Taylor is critical of Liverpool fans that day but he saw through the lies and he believed they did not cause the disaster.
So Taylor himself believed some of the lies and it was only through luck and knowing the SYP facts didn't add up that he got to the truth.
People still have an agenda to throw dirt.

I've never said otherwise.

I worked all over the country during the miners strike, and can say we never did anything like what happened to you, nor never witnessed it.

Most of the strike was carried out with no trouble, and relations between us and pickets at many places were cordial, but we never hear of any of that.

I can remember a European final being played one evening when we were at a picket line, and we had a radio in our van, and the match was on. As the game progressed, nearly of us, police, and pickets, were stood round the van, listening to the game.

We only ever hear bad things, and that's the same in every walk of life.

The CPS prosecute all those who are convicted. Who should prosecute then?

Whoever does the job will have to work with the police in order to gather the evidence. Police Officers accused of things know the procedures, and use the system to give them the best chance of getting off (if they are guilty in the first place), same as many others who know the best way of avoiding conviction.