Re: What we already knew.
well said steve. but this has become, if possible, a lot worse. the admission that senior officers altered statements to suit their own purpose is criminal. if i, as a PC had falsified evidence to secure a conviction, and had been found out, i would have been out of the job and prosecuted. These officers, whatever their position now must be investigated and, is sufficient evidence is found,prosecuted. fresh inquests must be held with more appropriate verdicts given.
Justice for the 96
ivor
Re: What we already knew.
I agree Ivor but cannot see it happening. I would be very suprised if the Police were not "under orders" from their political masters and therefore it could become very sticky. Lets be honest, as soon as MP's are involved, the law seems to hammer out justice with a plastic mallet then leak out something to take the public's mind off the subject. Expense claims springs to mind, still rearing its ugly head and still titled ladies get away with it. These clowns think an apology is JUSTICE.......not even close!
Re: What we already knew.
Off Topic but has anybody else seen the 'amended' version of the Nick Cleggeron apology?
Re: What we already knew.
Re: What we already knew.
I wonder if we get the classic quote, we were just following orders. Now that everybody wants to be seen to be doing the right thing I am sure convictions will follow and may they all burn in hell. Dont buy the Sun , I mean the scum