ChatterBank1 min ago
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -wales- mid-wal es-3613 0437
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-36128 693
All revealed at 11:00 Tuesday....batten down the hatches...its going to be a bumpy ride.
All revealed at 11:00 Tuesday....batten down the hatches...its going to be a bumpy ride.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Whilst it's right and proper that such tragedies are investigated(a colleague of mine was there that fateful day) I will be glad when it reaches its final conclusion. I always temper the outpouring of grief and action against that of the Heysel Disaster, where nowhere near as much fuss was made and is often overlooked.
Harsh as it may sound, that's just my take on it.
Harsh as it may sound, that's just my take on it.
As a matter of interest. Apart from the young children who tragically died has there been any reports on the blood/alcohol readings taken post mortem of the adults. It has already been established and admitted by the police commander i/c the policing of this match that he was inexperienced at Public Order management.
To use Mikey's time worn expression, Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant is like"trying to herd sheep". The Police made errors but having seen many times the behaviour of Chelsea fans at "the shed" many times in the past I don't swallow the Liverpool fans were compliant,paragons of virtue.
Sorry in advance if that offends but sometimes the truth hurts and it so easy to find scape goats.
To use Mikey's time worn expression, Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant is like"trying to herd sheep". The Police made errors but having seen many times the behaviour of Chelsea fans at "the shed" many times in the past I don't swallow the Liverpool fans were compliant,paragons of virtue.
Sorry in advance if that offends but sometimes the truth hurts and it so easy to find scape goats.
From an article in 2014.....
//Christina Lambert QC, counsel to the new inquest, said earlier that alcohol levels in the victims' blood, which were measured after their deaths on the order of the first coroner and found not to be significant, were "not relevant to the disaster or cause of death". She called on lawyers at the inquest to state whether they intended to suggest that drinking was a contributory cause.//
Source...
http:// www.the guardia n.com/f ootball /2014/f eb/05/h illsbor ough-po lice-ch ief-fan s-drink ing-inq uest
//Christina Lambert QC, counsel to the new inquest, said earlier that alcohol levels in the victims' blood, which were measured after their deaths on the order of the first coroner and found not to be significant, were "not relevant to the disaster or cause of death". She called on lawyers at the inquest to state whether they intended to suggest that drinking was a contributory cause.//
Source...
http://
@douglas9401
//and no effect whatsoever on pensions //
What workplace error (that you *have*, historically, committed and cannot, retroactively, put right) would you concede justifies the nuking of your entire pension?
Why is this always the favourite sanction of we tut-tutters? What do you suppose a retired officer (with senior rank lifestyle costs) is supposed to live off, after a (prosecution-related) sanction?
Pensions are deferred salary, so you have to extract a penalty in such a way as to not interfere with payments related to the 99.999% of their career which was not connected to the incident in question.
// or subsequent career progessions gained since. //
Tautology aside, you do have a point there. Final salary schemes are rare beasts, these days but promotions do lift the entire value of their pot, even though they may have only achieved their most senior grade for their last handful of years' service. Contributory scheme or not, this kind of late boost is - sort of - unfunded.
//and no effect whatsoever on pensions //
What workplace error (that you *have*, historically, committed and cannot, retroactively, put right) would you concede justifies the nuking of your entire pension?
Why is this always the favourite sanction of we tut-tutters? What do you suppose a retired officer (with senior rank lifestyle costs) is supposed to live off, after a (prosecution-related) sanction?
Pensions are deferred salary, so you have to extract a penalty in such a way as to not interfere with payments related to the 99.999% of their career which was not connected to the incident in question.
// or subsequent career progessions gained since. //
Tautology aside, you do have a point there. Final salary schemes are rare beasts, these days but promotions do lift the entire value of their pot, even though they may have only achieved their most senior grade for their last handful of years' service. Contributory scheme or not, this kind of late boost is - sort of - unfunded.