The Truth Has Finally Prevailed

[Kryten]

But he's hd a life. If he had have had a conscience he would have come years ago and admitted he'd lied.

I think given all that has happened and the time it has taken to get to where we are, the words of Margaret Aspinall best sum it up.

"The question I'd like to ask all of you and people within the system is who put 96 people in their graves, who is accountable?"

And I dont think that after all this time we will ever be truly able to apportion blame to an individual, a set of individuals or to a set of circumstances. Which I think is a travesty.

 

[Oldstacker]

How is charging him for manslaughter an injustice. The police the ippc and the CPS must have decided that there was enough evidence to charge him, are you telling me that they are guilty of an injustice against him. This from CPS

Sue Hemming, the Crown Prosecution Service head of special crime and counter-terrorism, said the CPS would allege that Duckenfield’s failure to take personal responsibility on the day was “extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives”

Obviously you are more if an expert than this lady.

That takes the biscuit. He wouldn't even go to court on his retrisl citing PTSD. At least he's lived his life. Excuse me if I have no sympathy for the man, he's beyond contempt.

There's no doubt his behaviour after the event was contemptible, but alleging an offence and bringing charges is not proof that offences were committed. One of the tests for a prosecution is whether there is more chance than not of a conviction, it is for the jury to decide whether or not guilt is proved. The extent to which the CPS (who make all the decisions on whether criminal charges are to be brought, the police are only responsible for compiling the evidence - both for and against) had vocal public opinion and years of media pressure on their mind when deciding whether or not it was in the public interest (another of the tests that the CPS must apply in their decision making) to prosecute is open to question.

 

[justintime129]

There's no doubt his behaviour after the event was contemptible, but alleging an offence and bringing charges is not proof that offences were committed. One of the tests for a prosecution is whether there is more chance than not of a conviction, it is for the jury to decide whether or not guilt is proved. The extent to which the CPS (who make all the decisions on whether criminal charges are to be brought, the police are only responsible for compiling the evidence - both for and against) had vocal public opinion and years of media pressure on their mind when deciding whether or not it was in the public interest (another of the tests that the CPS must apply in their decision making) to prosecute is open to question.

So you are saying it was wrong to prosecute him. The Taylor report and the 2nd inquest say otherwise.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...system-victims-hillsborough-david-duckenfield

Duckenfield hides behind his lies

Let's see what you think if anybody gets prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter for Grenfell.

 

[Kryten]

So you are saying it was wrong to prosecute him. The Taylor report and the 2nd inquest say otherwise.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...system-victims-hillsborough-david-duckenfield

Duckenfield hides behind his lies

Let's see what you think if anybody gets prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter for Grenfell.

I think therein lies the problem. Remember Piper Alpha? When the public enquiry led by Lord Cullen finally summed up in November 1990, he stated that there was clear and absolute evidence of negligence. Many expected Occidental, the owners of the platform, to be prosecuted, but three years after the disaster Lord Fraser, Lord Advocate for Scotland, announced just a few hours before the summer recess - the quietest time in politics - that he could not find enough evidence for a conviction. As Lord Advocate for Scotland, his analysis could not be questioned.

No one faced prosecution after the Kings Cross fire. Herald of Free Enterprise? Seven people involved in Townsend Thoreson were charged with gross negligence manslaughter, and the operating company, P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd, was charged with corporate manslaughter, but the case collapsed after Mr Justice Turner directed the jury to acquit the company and the five most senior individual defendants.

When it comes to it and we are faced with a human tragedy on this scale, we seem to excel in this country spending thousands of pounds on enquiries and inquests, then failing to satisfactorily prosecute those who occupied positions of responsibility and failed.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

Just because the judge directs the jury in a certain way, those 12 good men can bring in a different verdict. After all, they've heard the evidence.

 

[busby1971]

Just because the judge directs the jury in a certain way, those 12 good men can bring in a different verdict. After all, they've heard the evidence.

They can, but on appeal it would more likely than not be overturned.

 

[justintime129]

Because of the length of time between Hillsborough and the trial was there ever going to be a fair trial. You would have struggled to find 12 jurors who didn't have an opinion on Hillsborough and an opinion on Duckenfield both for and against.

Witnesses had either passed away or their recollection was clouded by the length of time.

I still believe Duckenfield should be prosecuted for lying in a public office and also his pension should be taken away.