Another Step On The Road To Justice For The Ninety-Six

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Eddie The Owl says:

    The point of the 3.15 pm cut off at the inquest was that by that time the injuries from which they died had been sustained by those who died. The families’ solicitor had suggested an earlier cut-off point of, I think, 3.06 pm.

    Even if a new jury finds that the verdict should be one of unlawful killing, then what next? Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and Superintendent Murray of the South Yorkshire Police have been prosecuted in 2000, with the latter being acquitted and the former being told, after the jury failed to agree, that he would not face a retrial. Murray has died, I cannot see any circumstances in which Duckenfield could be tried again.

    The Taylor interim report clearly laid the blame at the door of the loss of police control for the cause of the disaster. Taylor specifically said that the match could have been held safely if it had been properly policed.

    The only winners here will be the members of the huge battalion of lawyers called in at public expense.

    If anyone wants the truth about Hillsborough I suggest that they read the Taylor interim report which has been available since the summer of 1989.

  2. Nathan says:

    almost a century?

  3. Nathan says:

    Eddie, “The point of the 3.15 pm cut off at the inquest was that by that time the injuries from which they died had been sustained by those who died.”

    Please don’t repeat that ambiguous rubbish.

    It’s possible to sustain potentially mortal injuries and recover, but it takes rapid and professional medical attention, something notably lacking at Hillsborough.

  4. Eddie The Owl says:

    I think that the coroner’s reasoning was that the purpose of the inquest was to determine how the deceased came to their deaths and to that end he would concentrate on events prior to 3.15 as by that time fatal injuries had been sustained.

    That some might have been saved with more prompt medical attention should not affect the verdict of accidental death or unlawful killing.

    I do not think that the coroner decided that those who died were incapable of being saved by any action taken after 3.15 pm as is suggested in the article above. The coroner thought that the response of the emergency services was irrelevant to the issue as to cause of death. This view was shared by the solicitor for the families who had suggested an earlier cut-off time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>