e-petition: Norman Bettison

Okay so I made that up, sorry about that but here is an opportunity to show your Liverpoolness.

Have you got one minute to sign a petition to help us get that scumbag Norman Bettison of whom was instrumental in the Hillsborough cover up stripped of his knighthood?

Whether your a member, a guest or whatever.

If you can't be arsed reading on then just sign here before you go please: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47770

On the day of a Liverpool v Manchester United game and a day before the 100th birthday of the all time Liverpool legend Bill Shankly I'm hoping the mods will excuse my shameless plug for this but I'm expecting a lot of supporters from all around the world who understand the values of this club will be here on this board and hopefully pop in and take the time (about 1 minute) to sign this petition.

I totally get that people may just by-pass it and think nobody knows if I've signed that or not because I can't be arsed but it really, really does take about 1 minute.

ONE MINUTE!

 Once you done it you will get that little feeling of self gratitude and grin to yourself in the knowledge that you've done your bit and helped and even post that you've done it to show yourself off.

Just want to sign it then go here and you'll be done in one minute:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47770

Want educating?

Read this, shake head in disbelief and then sign:

The Hillsborough files: Just how involved was Norman Bettison?

by David Bartlett, Liverpool EchoSep 26 2012Comments (11) Recommend (6)

He is one of the most vilified men on Merseyside. But what was the true extent of Norman Bettison’s role after the H’boro tragedy? David Bartlett and Paddy Shennan investigate


NORMAN Bettison has always claimed he was a “relatively junior” police officer and was not involved in the cover-up of the Hillsborough disaster.

That claim will be put to the test in the weeks to come as the Independent Police Complaints Commission looks at allegations that Merseyside’s former chief constable was part of the cover-up to blame fans for the tragedy.

That probe will be part of a wider investigation by the IPCC into the findings of the independent panel’s report.

At the time of the disaster Mr Bettison was a chief inspector in South Yorkshire Police, today he is Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.

He is the most senior police officer still in service who was involved with South Yorkshire Police’s discredited Hillsborough operation.

In 1998 Garston MP Maria Eagle used parliamentary privilege to name Mr Bettison as part of a “black propaganda unit” set up to smear fans.

Months later he became Chief Constable of Merseyside amid furious protest from families.

The 55-year-old has defiantly faced down calls for his resignation after the recent release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report.

Mr Bettison’s name appears 24 times in the report and its footnotes, and there are 159 documents in the panel’s archive that include mention of the police chief.

The day after its publication he inflamed families by saying that while police were to blame, fans’ behaviour on the day had not helped the situation.

The following day he then clarified his position and apologised and said he accepted that “police failed to control the situation, which ultimately led to the tragic deaths of 96 entirely innocent people”.

Ms Eagle believes Mr Bettison has an “intimate knowledge” of the aftermath of the disaster and still has questions to answer.

So as he continues to deny any wrongdoing, just what material did the panel find relating to Mr Bettison?

NORMAN George Bettison’s involvement in the Hillsborough disaster started on the day of the tragedy when he attended the match between Liverpool FC and Nottingham Forest as a football fan – he was off-duty at the time.

He put himself on duty, helped with the rescue operation and in the evening set up a reception centre for relatives.

Within days of the disaster on April 15, 1989 South Yorkshire Police (SYP) set up an internal unit to establish their case for the inquiry being led by Lord Justice Taylor.

The panel describes this as an “intensive exercise” and involved five officers, Chief Superintendents Mole and Wain and Chief Inspectors Drabble, Brooke and Bettison.

On April 26 an initial trawl of material was discussed by senior SYP officers and their legal advisers William Woodward QC, Patrick Limb, and solicitor Peter Metcalf.

The meeting lasted approximately five hours and Mr Bettison took notes.

Deputy Chief Constable Peter Hayes informed Mr Woodward that the “main players in this are doing their own accounts”. He asked, “Is that OK or would you rather someone take their statement?”

Mr Woodward replied, “It couldn’t be better. They can put all the things in that they want and we will sort them out”.

This was in contrast to police officers’ training that officers should record events in their pocket books which could have been called in evidence by the inquiry.

The panel said: “ The team of SYP officers led by Ch Supt Wain, under the direction of DCC Hayes and advised by Mr Metcalf, was tasked to gather evidence of the events on the day.

“Chief Inspector Norman Bettison deputised for Ch Supt Wain in the latter’s absence and provided an alternative contact for officers’ queries.”

Mr Metcalf would later go on to play a key role in the “vetting” and amending of police statements that were sent to the inquiry.

Mr Bettison insists he never changed a statement or asked for one to be changed.

As an officer present at the disaster Mr Bettison gave a statement about what he had seen on the day.

In his witness statement he claimed he was “continually asked for ‘spare’ tickets and ‘swaps’ by young male Liverpool supporters” as he made his way to the ground.

He also said he later overheard a steward claiming Liverpool fans had beaten up stewards after the tragedy unfolded.

He said he saw ambulance crews put a dead man in an ambulance, but wanted a police officer to accompany the body.

“A young male constable who spoke with a Merseyside accent, but who I’m sure was wearing the uniform of South Yorkshire Police, said: ‘I’ll go, I know his family’.

“I was amazed at this comment but had not had time to follow it up.”

He included a “postscript” in his statement about a match between Sheffield Wednesday and Manchester City at Hillsborough which he attended in the early 1970s.

“I remember, at one time, being squashed against a barrier to such an extent that I was exerting all my energies to prevent injury and quickly became totally unconcerned about the game.

“I dreaded any goals or near misses as this was followed by a surge of people which caused me to be squashed painfully against the barrier.”

He said he moved to a less crowded area at half time.

His statement concluded: “I wonder now whether the terracing at the Leppings Lane end of Hillsborough is somehow susceptible to retaining the pressure created in crowd build-up.”

Documents show that Mr Metcalf looked at Mr Bettison’s statement and said he had “some doubts about the final sentence of the postscript, as I think this does amount to comment”.

Mr Bettison’s statement was not changed though, and this line remained.

The final work of the unit led by Ch Supt Wain would later become known as the “Wain Report”.

An early version of the report was submitted to the Taylor inquiry on May 12.

The panel said it contained “considerable background material and minimal information about events on the day”.

This was expanded in Ch Supt Wain’s final report less than a month later. The panel said it appeared unlikely that the final version was submitted to the Taylor Inquiry.

Rather, it was intended to inform a written submission by the police’s legal team.

The final Wain Report was “substantial”, supported by 79 appendices of primary evidence.

In the section focusing on the day’s events it placed significant emphasis on ticketless fans, alcohol and crowd behaviour.

The panel said the report stated that initially “all the people entering the ground at this time were honest, decent ... well dressed and well behaved.

“Yet ‘towards the 3.00pm kick-off, the atmosphere changed dramatically’. Sections of the crowd were ‘the worse for drink and unruly’ and ‘evidence from officers’ statements’ established that a ‘large crowd of supporters prepared to converge on the turnstile areas ... in possession of packs of alcohol and this is considered to be a contributory factor as to the reason for their late arrival en masse at the turnstiles”.

A section of the report written by Chief Constable Peter Wright rejected criticism of SYP, saying they had made every “conceivable effort”.

He said: “Many visiting spectators used the good weather ‘as an opportunity to find local public houses and consume alcohol, to the extent that in so doing their arrival at the stadium was seriously delayed”.

“This was “exacerbated by the obvious influx of a large number of Liverpool supporters who did not have a ticket to gain admission, and whose presence seriously aggravated the worsening situation at Leppings Lane”.

This view was not supported by Taylor or the independent panel.

Mr Bettison sat through each day of the Taylor Inquiry, and provided regular briefings to the chief constable and deputy chief constable.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/09/26/the-hillsborough-files-just-how-involved-was-norman-bettison-100252-31907186/

Hillsborough: Norman Bettison investigation day two

by Paddy Shennan, Liverpool EchoSep 27 2012

JUST how closely was Norman Bettison involved with the aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster? David Bartlett and Paddy Shennan present day two of their investigation

WHEN he arrived in Merseyside as chief constable in 1998 and was asked about his role in a post-Hillsborough South Yorkshire police inquiry team, Norman Bettison said he was “only a small part of the jigsaw”.

The second part of our look at Mr Bettison’s 24 appearances in the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report and its footnotes, as well as the 159 documents in the panel’s archive which mention him, begins with the police response to Lord Justice Taylor’s interim report, published in August 1989.

On October 3, 1989, Michael Shersby, the late Tory MP for Uxbridge who represented the Police Federation’s interests in Parliament, met South Yorkshire police federation.

The panel said: “It was a day-long meeting held in two sessions.

“The morning session was attended by representatives of the Police Federation, DCC Hayes (attending on behalf of the chief constable), chief superintendent John Nesbit, chief superintendent Brian Mole, chief inspector Norman Bettison (‘Hillsborough Inquiry Team’), Tony Judge (publicity director, Police Federation and editor of Police, the Federation journal) and two representatives of the federation’s solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker.”

The panel’s report later explained: “CI Bettison introduced the video material.

“He commented on the stadium’s age and its location: ‘Officers were forced to police a ground that today would have greater strictures on how it was built, access roads etc.’

“He noted where the deaths occurred and the collapsed barrier in pen 3. He stated that the pens were estimated, from a headcount on a photograph taken at 3.05pm, to be ‘at least 50% over capacity’ and proposed that overcrowding contributed to the collapsed barrier.

“Fans ‘went in the pen because they came down the tunnel’ and they ‘went down the tunnel because they came through Emergency Gate C’.

“The gates had been opened ‘on the instructions of the police’ but the ‘view of the Police Federation is there was such a crowd of people outside, there was no realistic alternative to opening the gate’.

“The video presented was 29 minutes long, ‘culled’ by CI Bettison from 65 hours of video footage. The minutes of the meeting record what presumably was CI Bettison’s commentary: ‘Perimeter fences were the result of hooliganism – walls demolished, missile attacks on police officers, supporters climbing perimeter fences, pitch invasion.’

“The last was ‘thought to be the case at Hillsborough’.

“What followed was a description of the Hillsborough stadium layout including Gate C, the tunnel and the pens: ‘Signs were a club responsibility.’

“CCTV footage of the 1988 semi-final was contrasted with footage from 1989.

“The comment is made that the ‘normality of the 1988 match influenced the planning of the 1989 semi-final’.

“The video showed the build-up of fans at the turnstiles, estimated at 2.39pm as between 2,000 and 6,000.

“The meeting was informed that the crowd was ‘massively unco-operative’ and the ‘44 officers plus mounted officers (17)’ were ‘reliant on some co-operation on [sic] the 6,000 people around them’.

“It was alleged by C/Supt Nesbit that ticketless fans were trying to ‘barter with the stewards’ to gain entry.

“DCC Hayes stated there had been a steadier flow of fans in 1988 but in 1989 ‘they all came in the last 20 minutes’, most ‘from licensed premises’.

“The video showed the period immediately before Gate C was opened. Its opening did not result in a ‘mad rush or stampede as press referred to’.

“Asked about ‘guidance’ of fans entering through Gate C and communications, CI Bettison stated that no announcements were made. Communications ‘broke down at 14.42’ and ‘remained difficult’.

“DCC Hayes noted that ‘ground control could see all the cameras’.

“CI Bettison stated that as crushing increased in the central pens there ‘was plenty of room in Pen 2’. There were available ‘[m]ore policemen than could do any good’.

“He described C/Supt Nesbit’s organisation of the evacuation of the pens.

“C/Supt Nesbit commented the ‘(collapsed) barrier was rusted and corroded... 63 years old’.

“CI Bettison remarked that a newspaper ‘from the 1940s was found stuffed in one part of the barrier’.

“C/Supt Nesbit stated that the police allowed fans to help to carry the bodies to the gymnasium ‘otherwise they might have turned their frustration on the police’. He reflected that while there had been ‘criticism that the police did not react as quickly as they should... most people thought it was a pitch invasion’.

“The notes of the meeting recorded C/Supt Mole commenting that the ‘(m)en involved in football matches were thoroughly experienced’ but what was different ‘in this instance, what changed was the fans’.

“He claimed that one public house ‘sold 69 barrels of beer’, fans had urinated in private gardens and their behaviour ‘was the worst seen’.

“C/Supt Nesbit considered that Liverpool fans had been determined to ‘get into the stadium’ and officers ‘do not feel this was brought to Lord Justice Taylor’s notice’. He hoped that ‘Michael Shersby can in Parliament redress the balance’.

“C/Supt Mole stated that the Superintendents’ Association considered the ‘report was done in haste’. Mr Judge considered the Taylor Interim Report was ‘over the top’.

“According to the notes of the meeting he stated ‘the idea that a peaceful crowd went into a trap created by the South Yorkshire police should not go down in history’ and evidence ‘not given in the Taylor Report should come out’.

“The afternoon session of the meeting was introduced by Bob Lax, chairman of the South Yorkshire police federation, and was attended by the federation solicitors, CI Bettison, Inspector Gordon Sykes and many unnamed SYP officers.

“Opening the meeting, CI Bettison stated that the morning session had agreed officers on duty at Hillsborough ‘were the most professional experienced men in the service’.

“He quoted Superintendent Roger Greenwood’s comments to the Sheffield Star in which he had stated his ‘greatest admiration’ for the ‘heroics’ of the police on duty at Hillsborough.

“He then referenced the Taylor interim report: ‘Most officers did all they could. Many supporters paid tribute.’ Further: ‘Over many years the South Yorkshire police have given excellent service to the public.’

“The minutes of the meeting record CI Bettison as stating: ‘You have the opportunity to present more balance to the report: fit those paragraphs much more in context. Removal of certain items of evidence that were presented to the Hillsborough Inquiry Team... For example, Liverpool fans ‘they were all animals’ – matters of conjecture and opinion were removed from those statements... Officers who felt aggrieved by this were asked to let me know.’”

Individual police officers, the Panel’s report later went on, “addressed the meeting, often in extreme and emotive terms. Spectators were described as ‘stoned paralytic’ and ‘p****d out of their minds’. There was ‘senseless drinking’, ‘Leppings Lane … was full of idiots with ale’ and ‘you could smell alcohol in the air outside the football ground’.

“Yet in the documents disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence from other sources that drinking before the match was excessive, and the objective evidence suggests alcohol consumption was reasonable and unexceptional for a major sporting event.

“References were made to a ‘sea’ or a ‘tide’ of fans arriving at the stadium at approximately 2.45pm and a police officer stated that a ‘[n]oticeable number ... did not have tickets’.

“Another stated that at ‘2.45pm when the mob arrived, I have never seen anything like it’. He felt ‘ashamed to be English’ and had the police ‘tried to arrest them, I dread to think what would have happened’.

“Another officer considered the Taylor interim report a ‘whitewash’ that had portrayed the police as ‘scapegoats’. He believed that there was a conspiracy among Liverpool fans who ‘were intent on staying away until the last minute and then forcing entry at any cost’.”

But the report then stated: “Documentary evidence considered in Chapter 2 does not confirm a significant number of ticketless fans, and CI Bettison responded to the meetings that ‘Inspector King of Scotland Yard was asked to find out whether there was a conspiratorial effort – he could not find any direct evidence that Liverpool supporters held this conspiratorial view, apart from three isolated statements … in the pub’. Nor is there any evidence in the disclosed documents to confirm that there was a surge of badly behaved late arrivals, with or without tickets.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/09/27/hillsborough-norman-bettison-investigation-day-two-100252-31915372/

Norman Bettison day three: Bettison warned bosses that David Duckenfield incriminated himself during public inquiry

by David Bartlett, Liverpool EchoSep 28 2012

On day three of their investigation into Norman Bettison’s role after Hillsborough David Bartlett and Paddy Shennan reveal how he warned that David Duckenfield had incriminated himself at the Taylor inquiry

CHIEF Superintendant David Duckenfield made himself look guilty at the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster, according to Norman Bettison.

The controversial police chief claimed Duckenfield – the man in charge of the fateful match in 1989 – gave “increasingly incriminating” evidence.

Further analysis of the Hillsborough files released by the independent panel shows that Mr Bettison, a chief inspector with South Yorkshire Police at the time, warned his bosses about the possible criminal liability of his then superior officer.

According to his memo he was ahead of even the police’s lawyers or Taylor in realising that Duckenfield had put himself in the frame.

But despite Duckenfield’s evidence to the Taylor inquiry the Crown Prosecution Service thought there was insufficient evidence to bring charges and it was left to the families to privately prosecute him in 2000.

A jury then failed to reach a verdict on manslaughter charges against Duckenfield.

For the past two days the ECHO has detailed Mr Bettison’s involvement in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster.

He has always maintained that he was a “relatively junior” officer who was only a small part of the jigsaw and was not involved in the cover-up.

Garston and Halewood MP Maria Eagle believes to this day that Mr Bettison was part of a “black propaganda unit” set up to smear fans, and that he still has questions to answer.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is now looking into the allegations against Mr Bettison.

The ECHO can today also reveal that in 1989 he suggested the police force “trade with great care” its footage of the disaster with TV documentary makers in a memo discussing how to secure the most positive coverage.

And in 1997 after he had joined the neighbouring West Yorkshire Police force, he proactively contacted South Yorkshire Police to offer his help with the Stuart Smith review (which has since been massively discredited).

Mr Bettison sat through every day of the Taylor inquiry and briefed the South Yorkshire Chief Constable Peter Wright and Deputy Chief Constable Peter Hayes on a regular basis.

On October 10, 1989 Mr Bettison sent a memo to Mr Wright titled: “Lord Justice Taylor’s opinion re. possibility of manslaughter charges”.

He said in evidence to the inquiry Mr Duckenfield had adopted “an open and helpful attitude” and “did his best to answer each of the questions”.

“It was obvious at this stage, however, that he was embarrassed by certain questions (eg, he perceived a problem with packing on terraces but did not deploy police officers to deal with it)”.

He goes on to reveal that Mr Duckenfield had taken “confidential and personal advice” from Peter Metcalf of Hammond Suddards, Solicitors (who has since been identified as part of the cover-up to amend police officers’ statements).

“I was not aware of what that advice was. I was concerned in case Mr Duckenfield might incriminate himself without legal advice.”

He said it was normal for him to “take lunch with counsel and solicitors at the offices rented by Hammond Suddards on Campo Lane”.

“Over lunch on Thursday 25 May, 1989, I raised the question of Mr Duckenfield’s position in respect of criminal liability and how giving evidence to the Inquiry might affect such liability.

“In particular, I specifically raised the possibility of manslaughter charges against Mr Duckenfield. The response of Mr Woodward QC suggested that he had not contemplated such a possibility.”

Mr Woodward’s junior barrister Patrick Limb was asked to advise.

“Mr Limb discussed the nice distinction between ‘negligence’ and ‘gross negligence’ (as a spectrum which ranged from making an error of professional judgement to ‘sailing out of port with the bow doors open as a matter of policy’)

“Mr Limb’s argument was convincing. However, Mr Woodward promised to raise the same question with Lord Justice Taylor.

“Mr Duckenfield continued to give evidence for three days. The questions and answers were increasingly incriminating.”

Mr Bettison said that during a lunch-time the following week, Mr Woodward told him he had raised the issue of criminal liability with Lord Justice Taylor.

“The message which had come back to Mr Woodward – (he attributed the words to Lord Justice Taylor) – was that “the possibility was so unrealistic that it did not deserve consideration”.

“I did not tell Mr Duckenfield of my concern, nor of the discussions which had taken place on this subject, until after the publication of the Interim Report – which coincided with Mr Duckenfield’s suspension from duty.”

Earlier that year, in the summer, the BBC and Yorkshire TV had contacted the police asking for footage of the disaster to make documentaries.

Mr Bettison wrote to the chief constable to offer his initial thoughts on whether the force should cooperate.

The letter was later found in a box of documents left behind by Mr Bettison when he left the South Yorkshire Police.

“If South Yorkshire Police agree to assist we could find ourselves playing – ‘second fiddle’, however . ..

“If South Yorkshire Police decline the opportunity we may be depicted as the ‘accused’.

“The conclusion, therefore, is that we agree to take part in the production of this documentary on our own terms.

“Those terms might ensure that we are presented as a caring and professional organisation, doggedly pursuing the facts surrounding the disaster...”

He said this could include: “Viewing and reviewing the video evidence to determine when, precisely, barrier 124A failed (possibly before the opening of Gate C)”.

He concluded: “We should not underrate the value of our contemporaneous film material, video and stills (without it the proposed documentary would consist of images of West Midlands detectives knocking on doors),” he wrote. “Perhaps this could be traded with great care.”

Eight years later in 1997 Mr Bettison had risen through the ranks in the police and was assistant chief constable at neighbouring West Yorkshire Police.

Labour had just come to power and announced another “scrutiny” of the disaster – the now discredited Stuart Smith review.

Mr Bettison wrote to South Yorkshire Police offering to help and expressing that he was “sorry” that Home Secretary Jack Straw had “raised expectations by calling for a new inquiry”.

“Nevertheless, I hope that it does, in the words of Jack Straw, ‘settle things once and for all’.

“I know that most of the people that were engaged on the Inquiry within South Yorkshire have now retired.

“If the person who is going to respond to the new inquiry would wish to speak with me about any issue arising from the 1989 investigations, I should be happy to help.”

Assistant chief constable Ian Daines replied to Mr Bettison thanking him for the offer.

A year later Mr Bettison was made chief constable of Merseyside amid a tide of objections from Hillsborough families.

He did not mention links with Hillsborough in his job application, an action he has since defended on the basis that it was not relevant to the core competencies required for the job.

In November that year, after his appointment, he sat down with the police authority in an “informal” meeting to explain his involvement in Hillsborough.

He told the meeting: “It is unfair and unjustifiable for any residual anger to be turned onto me.

“I come to Merseyside with my head held high, with nothing to be ashamed of, I have never tried to hide my links with the Hillsborough tragedy.

“It is a peripheral link almost a decade ago. Attempts to link me with inappropriate behaviour are irresponsible and ultimately will fail.”

Many on Merseyside now await with interest the verdict of the IPCC on whether that is true or not.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/09/28/norman-bettison-day-three-bettison-warned-bosses-that-david-duckenfield-incriminated-himself-during-public-inquiry-100252-31922591/

Sir Norman Bettison resigned after learning he faced possible dismissal over his role in the Hillsborough scandal
 
PAUL PEACHEY   THURSDAY 08 NOVEMBER 2012
 
Ex-police chief Sir Norman Bettison resigned after learning he faced possible dismissal over a last-minute discussion with a senior executive in which he allegedly sought to influence talks about his role in the Hillsborough scandal, documents showed last night.

Sir Norman spoke to the chief executive of West Yorkshire Police authority, Fraser Sampson, “immediately prior” to a meeting at which officials decided to refer him to the police watchdog for alleged misconduct in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Panel’s report into the 1989 disaster.

This conversation would have justified his sacking if it was proved that he had interfered with the “integrity of the complaints handling process”, according to previously unseen minutes of the West Yorkshire police authority obtained by the PoliceOracle.com website.

The police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, announced last month that it was investigating a large number of current and former police officers involved in the Hillsborough tragedy, including Sir Norman, who was chief constable of West Yorkshire Police until his resignation last month.

Sir Norman was accused in the Hillsborough Independent Panel report of having a lead role in deflecting blame from the police after the tragedy. The IPCC announced last month that it was also investigating a second complaint that he had attempted the influence the decision-making process of a West Yorkshire Police Authority committee that investigated disciplinary issues against senior officers.

Sir Norman was not accused of trying to stop the referral to the watchdog but how it would be made, an IPCC spokesman said yesterday, but declined to comment further on the content of the conversation.

At a meeting on September 15, Mr Sampson was invited to detail the conversation to the committee deciding Sir Norman’s future, according to minutes obtained after a freedom of information request. Mr Sampson’s account of the conversation was redacted.

Minutes of a second meeting of the committee held in private on October 3 showed that the conversation could amount to “gross misconduct” and dismissal if proved and the committee agreed to make a further referral to the IPCC.

Sir Norman resigned three weeks later on October 24, when the committee was due to meet again. and it is thought that he could have been suspended.

Pressure had mounted on Sir Norman, who has led West Yorkshire police since 2006, following the publication of the independent panel’s damning report about the police response and subsequent tampering of police accounts into the incidents that resulted in the deaths of 96 people.

Sir Norman was accused by the Labour MP Maria Eagle of being part of a “black ops” unit designed to cover up the police role in the disaster, allegations which he denied.

In the aftermath of the report, he said that he planned to step down as chief constable of West Yorkshire in March next year. He said that some members of the police authority and candidates for the police and crime commissioners job wanted him to go earlier.

He said that he left “not because of any allegations about the past, but because I share the view that this has become a distraction to policing in West Yorkshire now and in the future.”

His resignation meant that he would not face any misconduct charges. Sir Norman could not be contacted last night for comment, but has said previously that he would cooperate with the IPCC inquiry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-norman-bettison-resigned-after-learning-he-faced-possible-dismissal-over-his-role-in-the-hillsborough-scandal-8294683.html

Sir Norman Bettison in probe over Stephen Lawrence family claims

Ex-police chief Sir Norman Bettison has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission over fears officers tried to discredit the family of Stephen Lawrence.

The police watchdog has been asked to investigate concerns he tried to influence the way a key witness gave evidence to the Macpherson Inquiry.

The referral was made by West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson.

He said he had "significant concerns".

"I have become aware of three documents following a thorough search requested by West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Mark Gilmore," he said.

"These documents raise significant concerns over the role of Sir Norman Bettison at the time he was Assistant Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in 1998 in commissioning a report to be prepared in the respect of a key witness appearing before the Macpherson Inquiry.

"This may suggest an attempt to intervene in the course of a public inquiry and influence the manner in which the testimony of a witness, who was due to present evidence before it, was received.

"I have today referred this to the Independent Police Complaints Commission."

Mr Burns-Williamson said the matter needed to be "thoroughly investigated" and, if wrongdoing was found, "those responsible must face the consequences".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23171119

Just a few reasons for you to sign.

The link again: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47770

JUSTICE FOR THE 96

YNWA

Done.

Couldn't be assed reading the post though.

Signed it ages ago.

Had me there though, you b***ard 

Already done

I'd sign again if I could

 Done and dusted mate,you can imagine what I called Luis Suarez when I read the thread headline=Bast*rd

Done.

Couldn't be assed reading the post though.

Worth the post then mate even if you are only one who signs as a result of it.

Done and dusted mate,you can imagine what I called Luis Suarez when I read the thread headline=Bast*rd

Signed before but forwarded it anyway.

Signed it ages ago.

Had me there though, you b***ard 

Better than my by last blag post in the Arkles a few months ago. Scarred a few with that.

Already had done mate - forwarded to all my mates now though regardless of who they support.

Truly the filth.

Good lads!

If I've signed again will it count?
Burn the f**ker.

Signed.

The thread title got me.... well played!

Signed.

Signed ,swore a few times till I clicked the mouse ,ya wee devil ye

Signed 

Already done mate but too idea.

First thread I clicked on this morning!

I wish i could, but it says that you have to be from UK or live there to sign or create petitions

Signed this ages ago mate and already forwarded to family and friends. 

Any chance somebody who's a member on redcafe could get it on there, I'm sure we'll pick up a few more signatures.  Think Daz is on there so maybe drop him a pm so he get's it soon as he logs in.

I've forwarded it to other clubs forums I'm a member on for them to post up mate.

Any idea what number we're up to yet, I know they've been pushing it on RAWK for a while and the response generally has been quite poor considering.

You f**ker had me going that.signed:-)

You got me there WAHS, already signed

Ya wee dobber WAHS, I had a explosion of expletives which didn't go down to well with the in laws,

But nice one for posting the link,

Done

YNWA

Done, nice one.