Keep The Hillsborough Jury Ignorant! We Want A Foregone Conclusion!

This has emerged from the darkness...www.gov.uk...

"The potential jury have been warned to put out of their minds anything they've heard or read about Hillsborough & not to research it."

So we're all meant to be ignorant, quiet little mice while the dog and pony show comes to its long prearranged conclusion...

The Jury Finds, Your Honour, That All Coppers Are Bustards. en.wikipedia.org...

How much safer we'd all be in a private police state. Not.

That's what Hillsborough, Orgreave, The Beanfield etc are all about. www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com...
and www.thefarrellreport.net... Listen to the interview with Tony Gosling.

I don't know where to put this except Rant. Turkeys intelligence chief apparently suggested sending four of his traitors into Syrian territory to launch missiles back into Turkey as justification for war. YouTube and other social media was blocked in a pathetic attempt to prevent the recordings of the conversation from being heard. Big fail. I don't see a lot of difference between that and the suggestion that we should "..take care when commenting online.."

I DO TAKE CARE! I TAKE CARE TO CAUSE AS MUCH TROUBLE FOR CRIMINAL MANIPULATORS AS I POSSIBLY CAN!!!

reply to post by Kester


that is the entire point of a formal inquest - the jury makes a judgement based on the evidence presented - not their opinions on an un-verified mish mash they read on the internet

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Exactly. The evidence presented. Who is the verifier? Who decides which evidence is allowable? A real investigation takes in all the evidence available, within reason, not just the approved evidence that leads to the prearranged conclusion.

Hillsborough was an anti-constabulary black operation designed to be used emotively during the attempted introduction of the long-planned private police state.

I confidently predict the Hillsborough inquest will collapse in chaos over the issue of Walter Jacksons mental breakdown in the CCTV control room, the single biggest cause of the fatal lack of police leadership.

They would never make such an effort and risk so much to protect one man. It can only mean the Hillsborough Disaster was a deliberate black operation intended to benefit the criminal vermin who need a private police state to protect them. They will fail.

It sounds like sane advice, they want people to assess the evidence not some half arsed idea they remember from a TV program years ago, they will have to do it as its such a well known event that theres little chance of finding someone who hasn't heard of it and thus they need to remind the jury that its based on the evidence presented not what some nutter down the pub who thinks it was due to aliens throwing dead cows at the fans from a UFO on the advice of Hitler living in Argentina

Maxatoria
...some nutter down the pub who thinks it was due to aliens throwing dead cows at the fans from a UFO on the advice of Hitler living in Argentina

ATS is not an appropriate place for such inanities.

25 years to get to the truth. Its about bloody time. 25 years of police cover ups and doctoring the evidence an then they had the nerve to blame it on the people who were murdered. Lets hope that it will be an honest investigation and that the judge is not any kind of masonic gangster.

The coroner is not prejudging the issue or seeking to place limitations on the evidence presented to the jury, he's simply following standard and correct procedure in a case which has received widespread media attention and aroused strong feelings.

The hope is that what will come out is a true and complete picture of the dreadful events of that day. If anyone - including the OP - has evidence they think should be heard, they can find information here: hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk...

reply to post by SummerLightning


I believe Tony Farrell is following accepted procedure in trying to get the ACC Walter Jackson mental breakdown issue addressed. If this angle is not covered in the inquest then the evidence has been limited to achieve the desired outcome.

reply to post by Kester


On April the 1st in the Mirror we find... "South Yorkshire Assistant Chief Constable Walter Jackson, who was off duty in the director’s box, confronted Duckenfield and demanded to know what had happened."

Correct me if I'm wrong but does 'off duty' and "demanded to know what happened" sound a bit disjointed? A copper is never off duty. They've sworn an oath. Why this need to portray Jackson as just happening to have been there?

Similarly in The Guardian... "...an off-duty assistant chief constable, Walter Jackson, went to ask Duckenfield what was happening. "Duckenfield said that he could not explain," the coroner, Lord Justice Goldring, told the jury."

Here we have another portrayal of Jackson as the hapless football fan who just happened to witness the disaster and stick his oar in afterwards.

Last but not least this has me utterly spooked. Search Walter Jackson and you get this video.

The first three lines are, "We acted like children
Now don't tell me that you're sorry
Darling, I'm as much to blame as anyone"

As much to blame as anyone? It seems to fit. The lack of police leadership and communication was the cause of extended suffering. Radios going down? Madness in the control room that somehow prevented the tannoy from being used? Under the table is hidden from the windows? All the emotive messages in the mainstream media encouraging the natterers to ask, "Can we really trust our police" at this exact time in the intended privatisation of policing? Sounds like a straightforward 80's style anti-constabulary black operation to me.