There is a case for full disclosure by any public body of any document … which would shed light on the disaster and its aftermath.
Andy Burnham was not talking about the disaster in Downing Street, but of the Hillsborough disaster.
Today, instead of sitting on a sofa with her husband watching a movie or two, Jacqui Smith was hard at work, trying to garner some good publicity before being grilled tomorrow in the House of Commons over the bungled investigation into Whitehall leaks, the resignation of anti-terror police chief Bob Quick and the fiasco over student visas.
After 20 years of futile attempts by the families of the 96 who died at Hillsborough, she has finally decided to heed Andy Burnham’s call to waive the 30-year secrecy rule and allow police and public body documents on the tragedy to be published 10 years early.
Watch the main stream media carefully tomorrow.
Some will be filled with emotional claptrap detailing the anguish of 96 Liverpudlian families.
One, or perhaps two, will be detailing the truth of this incompetent government and holding its incompetent Home Secretary to account.
Naturally all the bloggers will be reporting on events in the House of Commons.
I shall be amazed if the BBC even utter Jacqui Smith’s name. If they do it will probably be in connection with her kind hearted action to release these papers.
-
1
April 19, 2009 at 3:56 pm -
the police are now saying that Jacqui Smith has done no such thing
-
2
April 19, 2009 at 4:57 pm -
This couldn’t have been done at a more poignant time! There are now three investigations going on with regard to how the police dealt with members of the public at the G20.
We don’t want to find out in two years time that the police are not fit for the purpose of crowd control. We already know all that …….. and have done so for more than twenty years. Any and all revelations should be considered immediately. The public should be involved at every stage of these inquiries and enquiries from day one. Police officers who insist on wearing political hats should not even be allowed into any meetings.
Since the miners’ strike we have had successive Governments giving the police so much power that they literally do not know what to do with it.
The police were originally formed to protect and serve. They are servants of the public and paid for by the public. Never has one group of public servants created so much mistrust in whole communities apart from politicians! This cannot be allowed to continue.
Sergeants and inspectors are the ones that need to be dealt with first. They are the officers who have to handle the constables who work in the communities, so should therefore be the ones who wield the greatest power. It is down to the sergeants and inspectors to recognise the particular problems of the areas that they police. They should interview constable candidates and have the last say on whether they will even allow a constable to work in their unit and give reasons why they don’t want a particular person to work there. Currently, police officers are not sacked – they are just ‘moved’ to other areas without publicly identifying why.
If a sergeant or inspector cannot control his area and the constables that work in it, they should be sacked without pension. If the laws regarding employment rights need changing ……….. we will just have to change them!
There is no point in having regional and national directives and a one-size fits all policy. It doesn’t work and it has never worked.
-
3
April 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm -
Well Mandy has told the BBC that smeargate is “over”. That’s it then is it.
Is Smith pursuing a desperate attempt to draw attention back to the Tories, given when Hillsborough happened?
-
4
April 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm -
Not only that, Katabasis, but Lordy Mandlyson said it was “tittle-tattle”. Tut! Tut! Tittle-tattle, by jove.
-
5
April 19, 2009 at 5:51 pm -
Katabasis has it right. Why is Smith doing this now? She could have done it at anytime in the last few years. It wasn’t because of anything Burnham said, she’s merely trying to divert attention from ‘Smeargate’.
-
6
April 19, 2009 at 5:52 pm -
7
April 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm -
8
April 19, 2009 at 7:15 pm -
So the pause for reflection is borne out of deflection. Sad.
I would have liked Labour to have done this when they came into power. I suppose it just proves how steeply the police are involved with the Government. Tut. Tut.
How many more decades will it be befire we unravel the mysteries of Dunblane?
Sad. I suppose once again – it just proves how seriously the judiciary is involved. What is it with the UK? Why do we have to wait until everybody is drawing their pension or last breath before we bring them to book?
-
9
April 19, 2009 at 7:17 pm -
Coco: Currently, police officers are not sacked – they are just ‘moved’ to other areas without publicly identifying why.
A bit like paedophile Catholic priests!
-
10
April 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm -
Exactly the same Janes! What a pertinent observation! It makes me feel so much better that I am not alone in my cynicism.
And then of course ………… there are all those naughty Judges and other notables ……….. errrr ………… like Ministers and MPs.
Where do we begin to resolve all these issues with our authority figures?
It looks like we need to check out a bIt of the old anarchy if you ask me! I think there is a lot to be said for it. :grin;
-
11
April 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm -
For more years than I can remember, I have asked why it is that we have to put up with systems and procedures that are designed to keep members of the public hanging around and solicitors and barristers with queues up to their armpits.
I can understand that to win a case we need the best barrister and if s/he is as good as their bumph we simply have to wait until s/he has the time to give his opinion. I understand that to get the best doctor we may have to wait until he comes off his three weeks holiday to Australia paid for by the drugs company.
I can understand queueing up to see a creme de la creme person. But why for Christ’s sake do we have to wait for somebody in a hospital manager’s office or a police station to get off their arse and do a bit of photo-copying? Why?
Is it because – as I have rightly found out on countless occasions – that notes need to be amended, ‘lost’ and doctored etc. – before my client or I may see them? Should we be this suspicious? Time and again ……….. it takes a solicitor to retrieve full and complete information. Even since the FOI act became better known!
What a money-making and jobs-for-the-boys situation this is!
This Hillsborough business cannot be rushed! I want every copper squirming on the end of a hook ………….. But only because I want them to squeal on the people who wanted the hush.
Next ……….. I would like those who were involved in the cover-up to be hanged in a very public place for our pleasure. Not Her Majesty’s!
Notables and dignatories always have a lot to say about lesser mortals being tagged and given lengthy sentences. Let us use the same punitive arguments for all the lizards and parasites out there who purport to want to justice ………….. except for themselves.
Hang ‘em high! Without their trousers!
-
12
July 26, 2009 at 5:44 pm -
I believe that the majority of MPs are still from a legal background.
Witness Tony Blair setting up the Saville enquiry and it has found absolutely nothing but cost a fortune and the beneficiaries of this enquiry?
Sad. I suppose once again – it just proves how seriously the judiciary is involved. 
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }