Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The Public Office (Accountability) Bill (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33713514)

Paul 16-09-2025 00:33

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Often tagged as the "Hillsborough Law" - its set to be introduced to Parliament tomorrow - to begin its journey into becoming law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrpvrrrmj2o

Quote:

The government said the new legislation would "end the culture of cover-ups" and learn lessons from wider disasters including the Grenfell Tower fire and the Post Office Horizon and infected blood scandals.
How much of that will actually become true remains to be seen, but it seems a good idea in principle.

joglynne 16-09-2025 11:31

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
To add my pennies worth.
As you say " seems a good idea in principle." I know this is a sign of my naivety but should we really need it.

Surely if, cases are investigated in a more thorough manner to begin with, these issues should already have been subject to a proper investigation in the normal process of justice.

For example the Post Office had knowledge that the Horizon software had bugs when rolled out, prosecution witnesses changed their statements when prompted by the Post Office, and lawyers hid evidence during trials of subpostmasters because it would have made their prosecutions unsafe. (contempt of court?)

So, when these cover ups are identified, why do they need a new law to bring the guilty parties to justice. or is failure to speak the truth, disclose a material fact during a police investigation or prosecution proceedings accepted as a legal option.

TheDaddy 17-09-2025 09:18

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36202814)
To add my pennies worth.
As you say " seems a good idea in principle." I know this is a sign of my naivety but should we really need it.

Surely if, cases are investigated in a more thorough manner to begin with, these issues should already have been subject to a proper investigation in the normal process of justice.

For example the Post Office had knowledge that the Horizon software had bugs when rolled out, prosecution witnesses changed their statements when prompted by the Post Office, and lawyers hid evidence during trials of subpostmasters because it would have made their prosecutions unsafe. (contempt of court?)

So, when these cover ups are identified, why do they need a new law to bring the guilty parties to justice. or is failure to speak the truth, disclose a material fact during a police investigation or prosecution proceedings accepted as a legal option.

At Hillsborough, as I understand it higher ranking police officers changed the statements of lower ranking officers and they got away with it as there was no law to stop them, I may have misunderstood things, wouldn't be the first time

Damien 17-09-2025 09:39

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
I think it is just a lot of cases where people can lie to frustrate investigations without consequence. Obviously, it's criminal to lie in court, but there appeared to be nothing illegal about South Yorkshire Police just lying about what happened to stop any justice being done.

I can't remember about the Post Office as I did think some of the cover-up there is criminal. The management seemed to know the system was faulty, but still went after the postmasters for compensation. At the very least, it's fraud.

Mr K 17-09-2025 09:51

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Wish they'd introduce a Politician Accountability Bill. Suspect none of them would pass. Accountability is only for others in the public sector.

Itshim 17-09-2025 15:20

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36202842)
Wish they'd introduce a Politician Accountability Bill. Suspect none of them would pass. Accountability is only for others in the public sector.

Love it:D

joglynne 17-09-2025 15:24

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36202840)
At Hillsborough, as I understand it higher ranking police officers changed the statements of lower ranking officers and they got away with it as there was no law to stop them, I may have misunderstood things, wouldn't be the first time

From memory and as far as I'm aware this would, if proven, be an Obstruction/Perverting the course of Justice case and there is no time limit for prosecuting such serious criminal offences. It just needs someone with balls to take action.

TheDaddy 17-09-2025 16:34

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36202856)
From memory and as far as I'm aware this would, if proven, be an Obstruction/Perverting the course of Justice case and there is no time limit for prosecuting such serious criminal offences. It just needs someone with balls to take action.

Well they've not been charged with anything and they're not going to be, I'd have thought if it were possible to scapegoat someone they would have

joglynne 17-09-2025 22:39

Re: The Public Office (Accountability) Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36202862)
Well they've not been charged with anything and they're not going to be, I'd have thought if it were possible to scapegoat someone they would have

Some were charged and brought to trial but no one was ultimately convicted.

If it does become law, I just hope I'm wrong, and that it works, in that it also leads sorting any legal issues such as the investigation/evidence process that was used in the Government Hillsborough Judicial Taylor Inquiry.

For example. In the case of Donald Denton and Alan Foster: Two retired SYP officers, along with force solicitor Peter Metcalf who were charged with perverting the course of justice for altering police statements.
The trial based on the Judicial Inquiries findings/statements ended when the Judge ruled that as the Taylor Inquiry was not a court of law the trial was based on inadmissible evidence and that there was no case to answer.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum