Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
It should not be about responsibility but accountability. As the senior police officer in charge, he was accountable certainly for the Police actions on the day and arguably for the coordination of all the emergency services along with oversight of the stewards too.
So Duckenfield was the sole accountable individual on the day 96 people were unlawfully killed....
For me anything less than a custodial sentence for this self confessed liar is criminal.
To be honest I would have been very surprised if he was found guilty, so am not surprised at the verdict. Personally I just don't think that there is enough proof that he was solely responsible and that his incompetence wasn't caused by a lack of training etc where it could be argued that he ultimately wasn't responsible (or at least that could be argued).
I imagine that a charge of corporate manslaughter against South Yorkshire Police would be successful if one could be brought, but this isn't possible because such a law didn't exist in 1989. The families have to work within this framework, so ultimately I think we are going to be left with the situation where 96 people were unlawfully killed, but no-one will ever be held responsible.
To be honest I would have been very surprised if he was found guilty, so am not surprised at the verdict. Personally I just don't think that there is enough proof that he was solely responsible and that his incompetence wasn't caused by a lack of training etc where it could be argued that he ultimately wasn't responsible (or at least that could be argued).
I imagine that a charge of corporate manslaughter against South Yorkshire Police would be successful if one could be brought, but this isn't possible because such a law didn't exist in 1989. The families have to work within this framework, so ultimately I think we are going to be left with the situation where 96 people were unlawfully killed, but no-one will ever be held responsible.
I heard the judges summing up and his guidance to the jury yesterday and kind of guessed the rest.
Please dont convict my mate who is also a mason etc...
Even before that it was a long shot
Just look what is needed to show a guilty negligence mansalughter it's a very high bar
I didnt fancy a guilty vedict even before it went to trial
I heard the judges summing up and his guidance to the jury yesterday and kind of guessed the rest.
Please dont convict my mate who is also a mason etc...
The verdict is what it is, a jury decision on specific charges. It's tragic that he hasn't been held responsible for his clear failings in any meaningful way, whether manslaughter or not.
I always thought the chances of a manslaughter verdict were slim
Leave a comment: