The honesty of Met chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe called into question

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Met chief: 'I will welcome inquiry into statements on Hillsborough'
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says he was 'confused' when he claimed to have given evidence to the official Taylor inquiry into the 1989 football tragedy
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Bernard Hogan-Howe was in charge of a waiting area for relatives after the Hillsborough disaster. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/AFP/Getty Images
Families of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] victims have accused the head of Scotland Yard of making misleading statements about an inquiry into the tragedy and have called for an investigation. They say that Sir [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the Metropolitan [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] commissioner, failed to tell the truth last year when he claimed to have made a statement to Lord Justice Taylor's 1989 inquiry into how 96 football fans died.

The families want the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to investigate his account and why he appears never to have made an official statement to the inquiry despite having been an inspector in South Yorkshire police at the time of the disaster. They want the IPCC to look into his actions on the day.

Their demands come amid a continuing IPCC investigation into alleged police misconduct during and in the aftermath of Britain's worst sporting disaster.
Hogan-Howe said he had been confused when he said he made a statement to the Taylor inquiry. In fact, the account he referred to is a brief, six-line note of a telephone conversation in May 1990, when Taylor's inquiry was over. He said he wants the IPCC to investigate the account he gave after Hillsborough as part of its current investigation.

The investigation has confirmed that it will examine Hogan-Howe's actions on the day. He was the officer in charge at a Sheffield boys' club in which friends and relatives waited for news. The investigation has confirmed that it will examine Hogan-Howe's actions on the day of the disaster. At 7.20pm a senior police officer, his identity still unknown, read out a list of people confirmed to be "safe and well". The list included Adam Spearritt – who was 14 when he died at Hillsborough. Friends who had gone to the match with Adam and his father, Eddie, telephoned Jan Spearritt, Adam's mother, to reassure her that her son was alive. She says that incorrect identification added to their anguish. The family never complained about that mistake, but have always been particularly unhappy that South Yorkshire police, despite repeated requests, refused to explain how it happened. Sir Norman Bettison, then a chief inspector in South Yorkshire police, was involved in organising the waiting area in the boys club and compiling the missing persons list. Both he and Hogan-Howe later became chief constables of Merseyside police, Bettison from 1998-2005; Hogan-Howe from 2005-2009.

Following last September's Hillsborough Independent Panel report into the disaster, Hogan-Howe was asked about his actions on the day. He replied that he "provided statements to the Taylor report about his role following the tragedy".

Those statements did not, however, appear in the archive of official documents published by the panel. One document, dated 18 May 1990, noted that an Inspector Sawers of West Midlands police (the force appointed to investigate the disaster) had contacted Hogan-Howe, to "ascertain whether Insp [sic] Hogan-Howe, who was at the boys' club, Hammerton Road, arranging the policing, has anything relevant to add to the inquiry".
Hogan-Howe said Sawers had telephoned him after he had given "investigators" his account. "When asked later [by Sawers] if I wanted to add to [my] account, I said I did not," he said.

The Metropolitan police then forwarded the document Hogan-Howe had been referring to as the account he gave to investigators of his role in the disaster. It is not, in fact, a statement provided to the Taylor inquiry; it is a very brief note of a telephone conversation with PC Kenneth Greenway, of the South Yorkshire police. Greenway's six-line account of his conversation with Hogan-Howe includes only this about the boys' club: "Going to the Hillsborough boys' club and had dealing with social services, relatives etc. I finished at 3.30am on Sun 16/04/89."

That is the note Hogan-Howe has described as his "account of my role" given to "investigators" and as "statements to the Taylor report".
It is dated 23 May 1990, long after Taylor had completed his report. It was also five days after Hogan-Howe was contacted by Sawers to see if he had "anything relevant to add to the inquiry". Sawers was not calling him "later," to "add to this account", as Hogan-Howe said. In fact when Sawers called him, Hogan-Howe had not made any statement, and he apparently declined then to make "a comprehensive statement".

Paul Spearritt, Adam's younger brother, said he was shocked by Hogan-Howe's apparently misleading statements about the accounts he had given of his role at Hillsborough, and called on the IPCC to conduct a full investigation. "In all these years we have never had any explanation as to why Adam was in the list as 'alive and well,' no identification of which police officer read it out, no apology from that officer – no admission that it even happened," he said.

Hogan-Howe explained his incorrect statements about the accounts he gave of his actions at Hillsborough, saying his "confusion" was due to recollecting events of more than 20 years ago.

Of the incorrect naming of Adam Spearritt as "alive and well" in the boys club the night of the disaster, Hogan-Howe said: "I only became aware of the complaint or criticism regarding the reading out of a list by an officer earlier this year. If I had been aware, I would have been more than eager to provide what information I could."

Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, to which the Spearritt family is affiliated, said she is "furious" that Hogan-Howe has blamed "confusion" for his misleading statements about the accounts he gave of Hillsborough: "It is incredible that the top police officer in the country has not told the truth about the account he gave when 96 people lost their lives, and it is difficult to believe he was confused. It is also astonishing he has never made a detailed statement about what he did as the senior officer in charge of bereaved people at the boys' club. I am calling on the IPCC to fully investigate."

Great!

So the head of Britain's top police force was at Hillsborough and at least dishonest, if he was not actually lying, about his involvement there...

AND...

The new head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Alison Saunders, refused the grieving Hillsborough families a second Inquest*:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

These are the people in charge of maintaining law, order and justice in this country!

 

(* and she went with another top CPS lawyer to Portugal a year ago on the Madeleine McCann case, on unspecified business. Some on here said it was because criminal charges against one or more persons in connection with Madeleine'e reported disappearance were imminent. That has not proved to have been the case)

Tony are you sure that she went to Potugal one year ago? I thought that she went last April.

bellum wrote:Tony are you sure that she went to Potugal one year ago? I thought that she went last April.

According to articles it was June time of this year...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

bellum wrote:Tony are you sure that she went to Potugal one year ago? I thought that she went last April.

I could well be wrong about the precise date - although IIRC we have not been told the correct date.

Hogan-Howe explained his incorrect statements about the accounts he gave of his actions at Hillsborough, saying his "confusion" was due to recollecting events of more than 20 years ago.
.................................................................................................................

Hogan-Howe explained his account of his actions, about his support for selling balloons to young kids, at £1 a go, to raise money for future arguidos in a case of a missing child.
Saying his 'confusion' was due to his not 'checking' if the parents of the missing child could actually be involved in that child's disappearance.
Further he adds that he cannot recollect events that took place in PDL 10 weeks earllier.

On promotion to being the MET commissioner, he continued with a team of 38 'elite' soley dedicated police officers, with unlimited funding, to 'help' the former aguidos, he raised money for, to be relieved of their 'torture'

Freemasonry in action 

BHH is in a position that is a political appointment. He has people looking over his shoulder too.

If this servant of the public was ' confused', then he should perhaps be 'rested', or put out of his misery and sacked. 

Why does it take so long for people, who are paid out of the public purse, and are shown to be incompetent or bent, to be sacked? If politicians want the public to trust the 'authorities', then perhaps they should do something about those who are a disgrace.

We can't trust the Politicians imo, so they need to root the bad uns out of that system first, before we can have any faith in their "appointees".

unchained melody wrote:Freemasonry in action 

Strangely enough, they are all policemen, maybe more of a link than any supposed Masonic link.

BRODFB wrote:

unchained melody wrote:Freemasonry in action 

Strangely enough, they are all policemen, maybe more of a link than any supposed Masonic link.

When the going gets tough I suppose, in any situation  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ChillyHeat wrote:

BRODFB wrote:

unchained melody wrote:Freemasonry in action 

Strangely enough, they are all policemen, maybe more of a link than any supposed Masonic link.

When the going gets tough I suppose, in any situation  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Usual fuzzy thinking. A policeman who happens to be a Freemason speaking out about a policing issue. If he had been a member of a Golf Club, would the headline have read

Golfers in the police leading the attack on David Cameron's riot response

BRODFB wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

BRODFB wrote:

unchained melody wrote:Freemasonry in action 

Strangely enough, they are all policemen, maybe more of a link than any supposed Masonic link.

When the going gets tough I suppose, in any situation  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Usual fuzzy thinking. A policeman who happens to be a Freemason speaking out about a policing issue. If he had been a member of a Golf Club, would the headline have read

Golfers in the police leading the attack on David Cameron's riot response

The Dukes of Hazard

BRODFB wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

BRODFB wrote:

unchained melody wrote:Freemasonry in action 

Strangely enough, they are all policemen, maybe more of a link than any supposed Masonic link.

When the going gets tough I suppose, in any situation  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Usual fuzzy thinking. A policeman who happens to be a Freemason speaking out about a policing issue. If he had been a member of a Golf Club, would the headline have read

Golfers in the police leading the attack on David Cameron's riot response

Really? Do you genuinely think that we're so stupid that we cannot see the difference between a golf club member and the member of a secretive organisation with strange rituals about which there have been numerous concerns in the past? How many golf clubs require their prospective members to be blind-folded and have a trouser leg rolled up as part of the application process? How many golf clubs have strange handshakes so that members can recognise each other?

The very fact that we haven't seen the headline that you suggest proves that fatuousness of your argument: No-one has concerns about a golf clubs membership but lots of people do have concerns about an organisation that appears to protect its members in defiance of the law and the common good. Why do the concerns persist if there's nothing to be concerned about? Why will the masons not be open if they are honest and above board?

^ Well said AndyB. I knew Brother DFB would jump in to protect the craft after my little dig 

It was thought that after Brother DFB had made 33 posts here, it was time to terminate his membership.

Not that there was anything significant about the number (innocent face) - ADMIN

A grand masterstroke by Admin 

unchained melody wrote:^ Well said AndyB. I knew Brother DFB would jump in to protect the craft after my little dig 

It was thought that after Brother DFB had made 33 posts here, it was time to terminate his membership.

Not that there was anything significant about the number (innocent face) - ADMIN

  

Breaking news, Monday 18/11

IPCC are considering looking at Hogan-Howe over Hillsborough.

This is a man who seems to get 'confused' quite a lot. He didn't know what operation Grange was on the radio 5 interview either, then suddenly was able to recall perfectly.   Very dishonest person it seems.

Well, there are three photos at the top of this page.  One photo shows a loyal, hard working, honest professional.  The two others would pi*s down your back and tell you it is raining.

You don't need €7m and Operation Grange to figure that one out.

 

sami wrote:Well, there are three photos at the top of this page.  One photo shows a loyal, hard working, honest professional.  The two others would pi*s down your back and tell you it is raining.

You don't need €7m and Operation Grange to figure that one out.

 

sami wrote:Well, there are three photos at the top of this page.  One photo shows a loyal, hard working, honest professional.  The two others would pi*s down your back and tell you it is raining.

You don't need €7m and Operation Grange to figure that one out.

Smiles grimly emoticon needed.

Can BHH and SY/Met afford to have, possibly, ANOTHER 'scandalous' "cover-up" exposed to public scrutiny?

(38 full time officers, not available to investigate other serious crimes in London, and expenditure of £7.5 MILLION, and rising, of taxpayers money, and as yet, after 2 years and 9 months of full time 'investigation' not a scintilla of evidence, not a shred of evidence, that an 'abduction' SY/Met were TOLD about by ONLY the parents of the 'missing' child, ever occured)

After 'Sapphire' (rape unit) Mark Duggan (UN-ARMED shooting) and Plebgate (where officers LIED and BHH 'backed them' 100%) and SDS ('spying' on Lawrence family that BHH knew about) Met Police using 'dead' babies ID's (that BHH knew about) Hackgate (that has cost the Met 1 comissioner and assistant commissioner exposed by a serious newspaper, the Guardian)

And that's before BHH has to explain his 'i can't remember' role in the Hillsborough tradegy.

Can the Met really afford for another possible 'cover-up' to be all over the front pages of the 'serious' papers?

jeanmonroe wrote:Can BHH and SY/Met afford to have, possibly, ANOTHER 'scandalous' "cover-up" exposed to public scrutiny?

(38 full time officers, not available to investigate other serious crimes in London, and expenditure of £7.5 MILLION, and rising, of taxpayers money, and as yet, after 2 years and 9 months of full time 'investigation' not a scintilla of evidence, not a shred of evidence, that an 'abduction' SY/Met were TOLD about by ONLY the parents of the 'missing' child, ever occured)

After 'Sapphire' (rape unit) Mark Duggan (UN-ARMED shooting) and Plebgate (where officers LIED and BHH 'backed them' 100%) and SDS ('spying' on Lawrence family that BHH knew about) Met Police using 'dead' babies ID's (that BHH knew about) Hackgate (that has cost the Met 1 comissioner and assistant commissioner exposed by a serious newspaper, the Guardian)

And that's before BHH has to explain his 'i can't remember' role in the Hillsborough tradegy.

Can the Met really afford for another possible 'cover-up' to be all over the front pages of the 'serious' papers?

What do you think yourself, Jeanmonroe? And Petermac?

In my country just one of them would finish off the hapless functionary responsible

What do you think yourself, Jeanmonroe? And Petermac?

In my country just one of them would finish off the hapless functionary responsible
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, myself, the Madeleine 'review/investigation' should have been given to his HONOURABLE Policeman.

Sadly, now 'retired'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ONE of Derbyshire police's most senior policemen has been congratulated following the news he is to receive a prestigious award.
Members of Derbyshire Police Authority heaped praise upon Assistant Chief Constable Steve Cotterill after it was announced that he was to be awarded the Queen's Police Medal.
Mr Cotterill is currently leading the investigation into the deaths of six children in a house fire in Allenton.

"This is a rarely-bestowed honour that is given to a select few and this is a credit to the hard work that he has put in over 29 YEARS OF POLICING.
"Steve is currently leading the investigation into the deaths of six siblings at a house fire in Derby and I believe DURING ALL THAT TIME HE HAS ACTED IN A THROUGHLY PROFESSIONAL MANNER.
"On behalf of the police authority, I offer him our congratulations."

THE VERY SAME Assistant Chief Constable Steve Cotterill, of Derbyshire police WHO SUCCESSFULLY WENT ON TO NAIL THE CHILD KILLING PHILPOTTS.

Stating outside Court that:

.......his officers soon realised after the fire that things "weren't adding up"

And

'JUSTICE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED FOR THE PHILPOTT CHILDREN'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's what i think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 7 2008 Mrs Justice Hogg gave judgement in the Family Division of the High Court regarding the attempt by Kate & Gerry McCann to gain access to all the Leicester Police documents regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The judgement was by agreement between the parties and was made in open court.
M/S Kate McCann in her book Madeleine has now provided an excerpt from the official submission of Leicester Police to the court regarding the matter and outlining the reasons why they could not agree to provide the documents. Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:

“While one or both of them (the McCanns) may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about that, DCI Redwood?

And would you care to pass a comment on that, on the record, 'statement'?

A one word 'reply will do.

You can select one from the following, if you like.

LUDICROUS
HURTFUL
RIDICULOUS
UNHELPFUL
DISGUSTING
DISPICABLE
BALONY
BULLS*IT
PATHETIC
DEVASTATING (perhaps not)

jeanmonroe wrote:Can BHH and SY/Met afford to have, possibly, ANOTHER 'scandalous' "cover-up" exposed to public scrutiny?

(38 full time officers, not available to investigate other serious crimes in London, and expenditure of £7.5 MILLION, and rising, of taxpayers money, and as yet, after 2 years and 9 months of full time 'investigation' not a scintilla of evidence, not a shred of evidence, that an 'abduction' SY/Met were TOLD about by ONLY the parents of the 'missing' child, ever occured)

After 'Sapphire' (rape unit) Mark Duggan (UN-ARMED shooting) and Plebgate (where officers LIED and BHH 'backed them' 100%) and SDS ('spying' on Lawrence family that BHH knew about) Met Police using 'dead' babies ID's (that BHH knew about) Hackgate (that has cost the Met 1 comissioner and assistant commissioner exposed by a serious newspaper, the Guardian)

And that's before BHH has to explain his 'i can't remember' role in the Hillsborough tradegy.

Can the Met really afford for another possible 'cover-up' to be all over the front pages of the 'serious' papers?

I honestly don't think they give a stuff Jean, about how they are seen. I don't have HH down as a team player concerned about SY's image after his unprofessional pronouncements on the BBC. Or his refusal to resign after blind support of a police officer over a minister of the crown before an investigation into the incident had even begun. The list you made should have galvanised any Home Secretary into advising him on his position. But no, a deafening silence in that quarter, as usual.

What we really have to get our heads round is that the ruling elite have no ability to feel shame. They are intent on survival. There are examples of this all the time. The few that are advised to step down until things quieten down usually manage to re-invent themselves and make a comeback like Mandelson. The Profumo example is lost on these people. Even as the Immigration Minister was stepping down, a mate was opining "he'll be back soon". Does Blair feel shame? Does he hell. What was that I heard this week about a Hutton style enquiry? Says it all. Ways and means for yanking people out of difficult holes.

And is shame from the trio who enabled paedophilia on a reported "industrial scale" forthcoming this week? Where are they? Writing a mea culpa to the public? Or looking at their future options for re-inventing themselves?

Does Maria Miller feel shame over her reported £90k claims on a house her parents were said to be living in? Does that DJ, Moyle - paid an eye-watering salary of £700k pa by the BBC on our behalf - feel shame about not stumping up his due tax? Does Margaret Hodge feel shame about writing to a programme maker with smears about Demitiou Panton's mental health, an Islington Children's Home Victim abused on her watch?

Having heard HH live on air I am now convinced beyond a scintilla of doubt that it would require a simultaneous Damascene Conversion on the part of probably hundreds who are caught up in various webs of deceit around this case. They all have some dirt to dish on the person next to them. That is what oils their particular wheels - not shame.

The detectives working on the case is something I wonder about for sure. I cannot answer for them at all. They don't speak to us on a personal level so I cannot guess what their attitude is to the official silence on the dogs' evidence for instance. Or the inconsistent statements and blatant lies. That is for them to decide.

What I do know is that it has taken nigh on forty years for the truth about PIE and its supporters to filter out. Just think how many people through a whole range of services and committees must have known what was going on in those children's homes and they never spoke up for all those children.

So do I think a little local difficulty like shame is going to deter the juggernaut? Frankly, no.  And in due course the presses will be set up ready for some bad news burial.  



I

.

Mirage

THAT IS A WELL PROPER  .

SUMS UP THE 'SHAMELESS' ADMIRABLY