Duckenfield FFS

[Geoff Parkstone]

So its confirmed that he is going to be prosecuted for negligence manslaughter over the 95 Hillsborough deaths. As have 4 others I believe on different charges.

Ridiculous waste of time and money, the guy was simply doing his job, perhaps badly I accept. He is 73, long retired - what is the point, other than to pander to the families of the victims?

But it sets a very dangerous precedent. All people doing their day to day jobs who make errors of judgement will now fear fines or jail sentences. Why should people step up to the plate in the future and bother taking on responsible positions. Sure if you make a mistake then you should take your licks in the workplace, perhaps losing your job, but this is just a step to far.

Its just wrong; nothing can bring the victims back. The families have had their assertions proved in the enquiries after their long fight for "justice". But this is not "justice" in my book, its just vindictiveness.

[Ram59]

The main reason for the deaths was the decision to open the gates which let in a flood of fans. Had he not have made that decision, would we now be discussing how fans were crushed to death at the turnstiles because the police didn't open the gates to relieve the pressure?

I think it was an unfortunate set of circumstances which led to those deaths.

However, all those guilty of the cynical cover up that followed, should be punished.

[Romanis]

I concur in theory but you're forgetting1 crucial thing. It's been alleged (with some evidence) that he lied or covered up during investigations into the matter.
It's1 thing to make errors of judgment done in good faith quite another for a police officer to lie and a senior officer at that.
The passage of time cannot be justification for this fundamental lack of honesty which is expected in law enforcement officials.

[MadAmster]

.... a huge parallel with UK soldiers being charged with murder during the troubles while there is no repoening of cases against IRA/UDF etc murderers....

[Geoff Parkstone]

I concur in theory but you're forgetting1 crucial thing. It's been alleged (with some evidence) that he lied or covered up during investigations into the matter.
It's1 thing to make errors of judgment done in good faith quite another for a police officer to lie and a senior officer at that.
The passage of time cannot be justification for this fundamental lack of honesty which is expected in law enforcement officials.

So charge him with perverting the course of justice if that is the case and he was involved in the cover up. Not manslaughter

[ramAnag]

Have to agree entirely with Ram59 and, unusually of late, Romanis.
The guy wasn’t ‘simply doing his job’ Parky...he was well rewarded for doing his job very badly and then spent years trying to cover up his incompetence which cost the lives of many to whom he tried to attach blame.
No sympathy whatsoever and I don’t think it ‘sets a dangerous precedent’ at all. Quite the reverse in fact.
The only ‘ridiculous’ thing is that it has taken almost thirty years for something like this to happen.

[Ram59]

So charge him with perverting the course of justice if that is the case and he was involved in the cover up. Not manslaughter

I tend to agree that this would be the correct action to take. The cover up was premeditated and calculated and those involved should face the consequences. However, I think his actions on the day with his (lack of) experience and the circumstances he faced, it would be difficult to prove manslaughter.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think you would have a better, and more justifiable, case to make if prosecuting those in charge of Grenfell Tower with negligent manslaughter / corporate manslaughter. The authorities there seem to have more culpability in cost cutting etc at the cost of public safety. Duckenfield was faced with a scenario beyond his experience and skill levels, had to make decisions on the hoof and ballsed it up. Unfortunate though that is (and I wont go anywhere near the question of contributory negligence by the fans) it is very different from a structured decision making process regarding Grenfell

[Romanis]

But Senor Roger, you're still forgetting a few more things in regards to the Chief Superintendent.

1 - You usually prefer the highest charges. This enables some leg-room should the defense decide to take a certain course, where a lesser charge could be substituted.

2 - Be that as it may, he's entitled to a robust defense and if the charge is wrong, his lawyers will pick it to pieces.

3 - He's still innocent until 12 men or women decide otherwise. A prosecution does not mean conviction. If he can prove as you suggest that he acted in good faith but made unforseen errors, then I'm sure a jury of his peers will acquit him.

The prosecution should go forward and be tested before the courts. This is the only way to put the matter to its conclusion.

[ramAnag]

I think you would have a better, and more justifiable, case to make if prosecuting those in charge of Grenfell Tower with negligent manslaughter / corporate manslaughter. The authorities there seem to have more culpability in cost cutting etc at the cost of public safety. Duckenfield was faced with a scenario beyond his experience and skill levels, had to make decisions on the hoof and ballsed it up. Unfortunate though that is (and I wont go anywhere near the question of contributory negligence by the fans) it is very different from a structured decision making process regarding Grenfell

Totally agree with you about Grenfell...maybe by 2046 the authorities will have been held to account!

Perhaps my attitude towards Duckenfield has been hardened by his years of attempting to abdicate responsibility, shift the blame to others and generally conspire to conceal the truth at whatever cost to the families involved.
Not sure if you object to what you perceive as a possible waste of public money or to the fact that you think he’s being hard done to.
I have more time for the former but they are two very different arguments and I have no idea what the facts that he is a long retired 73 year old has to do with anything.
Are you suggesting some sort of time limit on culpability and guilt?