20 years on

[Jarg Armani]

Blunkett mentioned corporate manslaughter/homicide on the Today Programme yesterday, with regards to Hillsborough.

 

I thought it was interesting that he went that far, maybe that is the route most likely?

[FMac]

Whilst it looks the most appropriate direction, and could also be argued (to a lesser extent) against Sheff Wed and the FA, it doesn't look likely...

 

"

Is the reform retrospective?

• No. It is a general principle that criminal law does not apply retrospectively. The offence will only apply to fatalities caused by gross management failings that occur after the new law comes into force on 6 April 2008. Section 27(3) makes this explicit.

"

 

and

 

"

Partial exemptions:

In these circumstances, the new offence does not apply unless the death relates to the organisation’s responsibility as employer (or to others working for the organisation) or as an occupier of premises. These include:

• Policing and law enforcement activities1 (section 5(2)).

"

 

NB I am not a lawyer

[matty]

Blunkett mentioned corporate manslaughter/homicide on the Today Programme yesterday, with regards to Hillsborough.

 

I thought it was interesting that he went that far, maybe that is the route most likely?

The corporate manslaughter legislation only had effect last year, and it's not retrospective, so couldn't be used.

 

I think he was talking about his support for it because he was trying to excuse himself for having done f*ck all when he was Home Sec about the accountability of the police.

[johngibo YPC]

Jesus christ never heard this before

 

"Without a conviction, or at least admission of liability, there could be no closure for the likes of John Glover, who lost his 20-year-old son Ian. He also considered his two other boys to be victims of Hillsborough. After the disaster, both were so traumatised that they were told they were unlikely ever to be able to work again. Joseph Glover, then 22, tried to resuscitate Ian with the kiss of life. For years, he slept on his brother's gravestone. He felt it was wrong that he'd survived and Ian hadn't. Ten years ago, he returned to work. On his first day back, he was crushed to death unloading a wagon. It was beyond irony. No wonder John Glover thought his family was cursed."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ap...ter-anniversary

[Romario]

Jesus christ never heard this before

 

"Without a conviction, or at least admission of liability, there could be no closure for the likes of John Glover, who lost his 20-year-old son Ian. He also considered his two other boys to be victims of Hillsborough. After the disaster, both were so traumatised that they were told they were unlikely ever to be able to work again. Joseph Glover, then 22, tried to resuscitate Ian with the kiss of life. For years, he slept on his brother's gravestone. He felt it was wrong that he'd survived and Ian hadn't. Ten years ago, he returned to work. On his first day back, he was crushed to death unloading a wagon. It was beyond irony. No wonder John Glover thought his family was cursed."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ap...ter-anniversary

How in hells name are some people so unfortunate : (

[Dan]

Jesus christ never heard this before

 

"Without a conviction, or at least admission of liability, there could be no closure for the likes of John Glover, who lost his 20-year-old son Ian. He also considered his two other boys to be victims of Hillsborough. After the disaster, both were so traumatised that they were told they were unlikely ever to be able to work again. Joseph Glover, then 22, tried to resuscitate Ian with the kiss of life. For years, he slept on his brother's gravestone. He felt it was wrong that he'd survived and Ian hadn't. Ten years ago, he returned to work. On his first day back, he was crushed to death unloading a wagon. It was beyond irony. No wonder John Glover thought his family was cursed."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ap...ter-anniversary

 

[Swipe]

That's just horrendous. An entire family completely ruined by one event.

 

So sad.

[Jarg Armani]

The corporate manslaughter legislation only had effect last year, and it's not retrospective, so couldn't be used.

 

I think he was talking about his support for it because he was trying to excuse himself for having done f*ck all when he was Home Sec about the accountability of the police.

 

Suspected that may have been the case. Thanks for confirming.

 

More empty words from Labour men then.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

see the Rag's headline today "96 Tears"

 

There's been a lot more than 96 f***ing tears down to that f***ing rag alone, let alone shed in 20 years. f***ing c****.

 

The Mirror goes with "Justice for the 96" trying to get full disclosure

[Jarg Armani]

The Mirror goes with "Justice for the 96" trying to get full disclosure

 

The Mirror's coverage has been astonishing, largely down to Brian Reade.

[stressederic]

see the Rag's headline today "96 Tears"

 

There's been a lot more than 96 f***ing tears down to that f***ing rag alone, let alone shed in 20 years. f***ing c****.

 

I'm surprised they didn't go with a headline of "No News Today" or something about Jade Goody.

[Swipe]

The Mirror's coverage has been astonishing, largely down to Brian Reade.

 

Tony Barrett was on one of the programmes on LFC.TV yesterday and praised Brian Reade and the Mirror for its coverage of Hillsborough over the years.

 

Reade was on himself and spoke well, as always. Said he was proud of the city for it's 20 year boycott of that rag.

[Sion]

Unfortunately the mirrors coverage orignally at the time was nothing short of appalling

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The Mirror's coverage has been astonishing, largely down to Brian Reade.

And also a chance to have a dig at the rag

[Swipe]

Unfortunately the mirrors coverage orignally at the time was nothing short of appalling

 

Why so?

 

Too young to remember it really

[smithdown]

Why so?

 

Too young to remember it really

 

An enlarged photo taken at the fence that spread across both front and back pages was particularly bad, people pressed right up against the fences, close up, taken at the height of people's distress, pleading for help from the cameramen amongst others. They defended it by saying 'it must not happen again' but it was a sickening sight to put in front of people in this city and press photographers were not well loved as a result. When photographers appeared at funerals it threatened to kick off til they agreed to back off.

 

In fact, that edition might even have come out on the monday, the day before the s*n one. They were lucky to escape a boycott themselves at the time.

[Swipe]

Saw a few photos on the Times website yesterday that were very distressing. One in particular.

[Tommok]

Saw a few photos on the Times website yesterday that were very distressing. One in particular.

 

I think The Times had some complaints because they seemed to have toned down the pictures on the website now.

 

I remember the Mirror article at the time it was about 12 pages long. I was absolutely shocked that they got away with being so graphic - there were really close up pictures of people in the pens who had quite clearly passed away. The article in the rag deflected quite a bit of the criticism I guess.

 

Its a very fine line between being shocking enough to convey the severity of the situation and just being unnecessarily graphic and voyeuristic.

 

Some of the printed media on the continent are generally far more graphic in their reporting of disasters though. The French publication Paris Match for example was notorious for printing shocking imagery and often crossed the line of decency.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Unfortunately the mirrors coverage orignally at the time was nothing short of appalling

 

 

And also a chance to have a dig at the rag

agree on both counts

 

An enlarged photo taken at the fence that spread across both front and back pages was particularly bad, people pressed right up against the fences, close up, taken at the height of people's distress, pleading for help from the cameramen amongst others. They defended it by saying 'it must not happen again' but it was a sickening sight to put in front of people in this city and press photographers were not well loved as a result. When photographers appeared at funerals it threatened to kick off til they agreed to back off.

 

In fact, that edition might even have come out on the monday, the day before the s*n one. They were lucky to escape a boycott themselves at the time.

I remember that well - someone had a copy in college & people were poring over it. It was so graphic, i can still remember it vividly & I only saw it for a couple of seconds

 

Saw a few photos on the Times website yesterday that were very distressing. One in particular.

 

There's no real need to show that now. The images are out there if people want to see them, but they're f***ing terrible. They'll dress it up as the Mirror did - this can't happen again - but I don't buy that reasoning

[Sion]

I can't be sure but didn't the mirror print the same sort of stuff as the s*n did? but in not as sensationalist a fashion and apologised for it couple of days later

[stressederic]

I can't be sure but didn't the mirror print the same sort of stuff as the s*n did? but in not as sensationalist a fashion and apologised for it couple of days later

 

That was the Star I believe.

[kop205]

That was the Star I believe.

 

Indeed.

 

 

How far did their apoilogy go? Because I've never quite understood why it isn't part of the boycott. I'd certainly never buy it.

[madaboutlfc]

All these programmes have been so hard to see and Ive broken down so many times this week.. I just cant imagine what the survivors and the relatives of those who lost their lives deal with it everyday.. Im glad though there seems to glimmer of hope but then we have had these too many times in the past..

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Indeed.

How far did their apoilogy go? Because I've never quite understood why it isn't part of the boycott. I'd certainly never buy it.

don't remember, but didn't the Star apologize & that was the end of it? The Rag still hasn't

[Sion]

don't remember, but didn't the Star apologize & that was the end of it? The Rag still hasn't

 

they said something about how it was the biggest mistake they've ever made a few years ago didn't they?

 

but that was blatent, 'we regret that nobody in liverpool buys our paper and so costs us millions a year, if it wasn't that we wouldn't be arsed...we'd do it again if we thought we could get away with it'