Forums

Posted: 04-06-2013 08:27 Post subject:

I should add that being tried for manslaughter when you cause an accident is not quite the same as manslaughter as an alternative to murder, which hinges primarily on premeditation.

Where people have been tried for manslaughter as a result of accidents, the burden of proof is usually that they _knowingly_ disobeyed rules that led to the accident, rather than accidentally.

To give a not-entirely-fictional example, passing a stop signal because you were distracted by a fault on the train would be 'not guilty', doing the same because you wanted to get home for your tea would be 'guilty'.

It's not regarded as murder because, while in the 'guilty' case the perp has deliberately broken a rule, it is assumed that he /she expected to get away with it without causing any accident. For it to be murder it would have to be proven that you deliberately set out to cause an accident so serious that it must have been obvious that people would have been at risk of death.

Given the above, I doubt anyone involved on the day at Hillsborough should have been found guilty of manslaughter, unless there were specific written rules - not mere precedent - about gate management or what to do if the pen was overcrowded that were ignored.

However, finding someone guilty of manslaughter in such a case is not the only point of the trial, it is also a mechanism for determining the true facts and responsibilities - much better suited to do so, in my opinion, than an enquiry by politicians.

Clearly there was no proper major incident plan in place at all. If anyone was guilty it would actually be the FA in knowingly assigning the tie to an uncertified stadium. On the other hand many responsible people involved clearly were inadequate for their positions and responsibility and should have been removed accordingly.

Posted: 05-06-2013 11:19 Post subject:

It would be unfair to charge an individual with manslaughter but maybe a corporate manslaughter charge would be more appropriate as the police failed in many areas.

I don't know if such a charge existed back then.

Posted: 07-10-2013 23:42 Post subject:

More murky stuff:

Posted: 08-10-2013 10:13 Post subject:

I'm probably losing my sense of proportion, but it seems that this case is symptomatic of two great schisms in our society, between North and South and between the ruled and the rulers.

I may be naive, but when I was growing up and actively involved in politics,while we may have been aware that corruption could occur and was occurring, systematic - oh , I don't know the right word - irresponsible, immoral? I'm thinking of altering evidence and threatening colleagues to toe the line - was unthinkable? Has it really always gone on like this or was it a phenomenon that has grown out of the Union/Establishment battles of the 70's and 80's?

It certainly makes me look at the actions of the police in the 80's miner's dispute in a much more sinister light - not that I was in favour of their behaviour at the time, mind you, although I still think Scargill is and was a fool to carry on with the strike when he didn't have full support. A good general realises when the enemy has outmanoeuvred him and retires to marshall resources and fight another day.

Posted: 09-10-2013 18:01 Post subject:

I often wonder similar things Cochise, the first time I came across some serious corruption first hand was when I was a civil servant getting on for 17 years back... the more I see though and the more often I see it... I am at a loss as the whether things have got a lot worse during my lifetime or the apple was always was this rotten most of the way through and I just didn't have the life experience to see it before.