Inquests - Diana / Hillsborough

[CaptainMarvel]

So, the government will not allow a new inquest into the Hillsborough Disaster that claimed the lives of 96 innocent football fans, even though the original inquest did not take into account vital evidence which has been documented and recognised by respected legal professionals.

 

However the cost of the new inquest into the death of Princess Diana has cost at least £10m of the taxpayer's money. Why? Because Mohammed Al Fayed had ridiculous notions of conspiracy. Even though TWO previous inquests in France had failed to deliver a verdict of unlawful killing. The recent inquest presented no new evidence and sucessfully demonstrated Al Fayed was a fantasist.

 

Why then was this inquest permitted by the governement? Was it because Diana was a former member of the Royal Family? More likely it was because of the pressure Al Fayed forced upon the government due to his wealth, the size of his legal team and his persistent approach. Over £10m of our money spent on an inquest into the deaths of TWO people.

 

What this has proved is that nothing is impossible, regardless of timeframe. We have a collective voice that will not be silenced. But, money talks. We need to combine our passion with the wealth of our owners to unite in the fight for justice. If Tom Hicks, George Gillette or DIC want to show any commitment to the fans of this club this is how they have to do it. Support the cause that matters to all of us. Yes we'd all like a summer of big spending but that's easy spending. Put the money and the effort into the things that we care about most.

 

Justice.

[John am Rhein]

Why then was this inquest permitted by the governement?

 

I think you answered your own question.

 

The government wanted to demonstrate that Al Fayed is a fantasist.

[CaptainMarvel]

I think you answered your own question.

 

The government wanted to demonstrate that Al Fayed is a fantasist.

 

 

True, but nevertheless the government weren't forthwith in granting the inquest, they were pressured into it by Al Fayed's lawyers. If our owners were to set their vast legal teams the same task I'm sure they could get a similar outcome...

Edited April 15, 2008 by CaptainThain

[Bo Benn]

I know this a proper long shot, and I'm no legal expert by any means; Could it be possible to raise this issue (the Hillsborough one) to EU level? This has very much to do with crowd safety, organization and policing at sporting event which is an important issue all over Europe. The troubles around the stadium in Athens last year illustrated that there are still problems that needs to be addressed and that organisers around Europe haven't learned for experiences in other countries. What say the ones with know-how?

[Raj]

I am pretty sure that one of the cases is going to EU court.

[magneto]

Isn't Anne Williams taking her case to the EU courts?

[Bo Benn]

I am pretty sure that one of the cases is going to EU court.

 

But that's for Athens right?

I was thinking since Hillsborough seems to have hit a legal dead end in Britain it would perhaps be possible to convince the EU court to re-open the case with regards to the evidence not being accounted for in the previous inquest.

[Raj]

I've just checked. Its Anne Williams case.

This is Hillsborough related

[Jarg Armani]

What's the difference between a report and an inquest? Serious Q.

[Bo Benn]

I've just checked. Its Anne Williams case.

This is Hillsborough related

 

Ah ok, thanks for clearing up.

 

The way I see it (from here) it is supposed to be a european inquiry over the Hillsborough inquiry, and not a re-opening of the case. Thereby if they find the H. inquiry to be insufficient it might be a breach on human right and violates democratic norms on properly inquiring these sort of events (according to the precedent). However I'm completely lost on this sentence by the end

 

It will be necessary to put in a fresh application to the Attorney General as the Human Rights Act does not apply retrospectively.

 

What do they mean? How does this affect the chances of the attorney re-doing the inquiry? If conduct of the original inquiry is proven to be a breach on human rights then surely that would a mighty good reason to reinquire, no?

[Bo Benn]

What's the difference between a report and an inquest? Serious Q.

 

Inquest is the process in which you investigate a certain event.

A Report is the result of such an inquiry that may have legal implications.

 

(do correct me if that is incorrect or incomplete)