Cover up : Noun
1. an attempt to
prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or
crime.
There can be no denying there is a
cover-up in place to hide the truth about the Shoreham air-show
crash.
Its not a conspiracy theory, it's
happened.
High Court ruling: Police refused
access to pilot statements over Shoreham Airshow crash.
An attempt to prevent Sussex Police
discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime on the 22
August 2015, at the Shoreham air-show, has been made after The High
Court refused Sussex Police access to records held by the Air
Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB), about what happened on that
fateful day.
Specifically; Sussex Police are being
prevented to know exactly what the pilot, Andrew Hill said in the
moments after the crash, and what the data from the flight recorder
revealed. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Giles York has been
granted a copy of the cockpit footage, which former AAIB investigator
Phil Giles says will provide the police with enough information
to conclude their investigation.
With the public left scratching their
heads as to why the AAIB are keeping crucial evidence secret, Sussex
Police appear to totally understand. Detective Chief Inspector Paul
Rymarz said, "We accept the reasons why our request has not
been granted in full."
But the public are none the wiser
A spokesman for AAIB said, “The
AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation
records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their
release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film
footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.”
As the comments from the public point
out:
- "Eleven people died in this awful event. This is a further insult to them and their families. No doubt legal arguments have been devoid of all common sense."
While some members of the public are
left guessing as to why Andrew Hill's comments immediately after the
crash are not being used in evidence:
- "I'm guessing that these statements were taken without a caution being given. The pilot has rights, as does any other defendant in a potential criminal investigation."
- "Your right. But "Unsolicited" comments made outside of caution can also be used too! Especially if there is admission of guilt or innocence."
The general consensus from the public
is:
- "What a shame that the ultimate truth cannot be heard."
- "Surprised the High Court haven't allowed a viewing of the material to check it as it is relevant to the case(s) being investigated."
- "Awful decision...... any evidence withheld could effect the outcome of an inquest , or criminal trial. the police should have authority to gain any evidence required to get the truth of what happened in shoreham. the grieving families deserve to know the truth..."
Even Andy McDonald, the Shadow
Secretary for Transport, said:
- "It is deeply concerning investigating police officers should be hindered in this way. They should have access to any materials necessary to bring justice to the families of those who tragically lost their lives. Far too often families find themselves in an uphill struggle to establish the facts of what happened to their loved ones."
Andrew Hill - The Miracle Man
Mystery has surrounded the Shoreham
air-show crash from the very out-set. Just how Andrew Hill
miraculously survived the immense fire-ball without a cut or a
graze is a miracle.
At the time the AAIB report said the
aircraft broke into four main pieces which came to rest close
together approximately 243m from the initial ground contact, in a
shallow overgrown depression to the south of the A27.
The report goes on to say that
investigators are not sure whether Mr Hill attempted to eject
from the craft or was forcibly removed due to the significant
impact. Investigators wrote: ‘During the initial part of
the impact sequence the jettisonable aircraft canopy was released,
landing in a tree close to the main aircraft wreckage. During the
latter part of the impact sequence, both the pilot and his seat were
thrown clear from the cockpit.'
Andrew Hill has been at the centre of
the police investigation into the Shoreham Air-show disaster which
claimed the lives of 11 men one year ago.
He spent weeks in an induced coma
but miraculously survived and has since made a full recovery.
He was first spotted on his feet again
last October when he was pictured walking in jeans and denim shirt,
carrying a water bottle.
Police interviewed him under caution
last December. He was not arrested. Then five months after the August
22 tragedy, images emerged of him driving a £40,000 Porsche Boxster.
 |
| Andrew Hill |
Having already uncovered a cover-up
involving Sussex Police, it comes as no surprise that they find
themselves embroiled in another.
Camber Sands Tragedy - A Cover-up?
- A Special Report by Matt Taylor
The country's leading conspiracy
researcher Chris Spivey has been vocal in his belief that the
Shoreham air-show crash was a false flag event in the same league as
the 7/7 London bombing, the Woolwich murder and the Paris attacks.
He said in his article "The
Shoreham Plane Crash Part 1" dated 09
September 2015
 |
| Chris Spivey |
"The Shoreham plane crash is
without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I
have investigated to date.
Indeed, it would seem that the
more ambitious the hoaxes get, the more the script writers have to
try and shore the old fanny up with the usual tell tale signs that
point to a fraud having been committed – which is a bit of a Catch
22 situation for them really.
Mind
you, it is no exaggeration to say that the Shoreham Flight Shite
needed a lot of shoring up and as such every single indicator of a
government hoax had to be brought into play… Or at least it did in
their minds.
But all the same, having said
that I also have to say that the hoax was a mighty ambitious project
by anyones standards – especially going on their past Am-Dram
efforts – and indeed, it must doubtlessly have taken an awful lot
of planning as well as having been a logistical nightmare to set up."
In light of Chris Spivey's allegations
that not everything is what it seems, I asked Sussex Police to
comment on his allegations and this is how they responded:
Dear Matthew,
I write in connection with your
request for information relating to Shoreham Air Show.
I can confirm your request has
now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information
you have requested.
Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide
such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you
the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in
question; and
(c) states (if that would not
otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemptions applicable to the
information refused are;
Section 30 - Investigations and
proceedings conducted by the Public authority.
Section 30 is a class based
qualified exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public
interest to ensure neither confirming or denying information is held
is appropriate.
Overall Harm in Confirming or
Denying that Information is held
Modern-day policing is intelligence led which is particularly pertinent with regard to any current investigation. The National Intelligence Model is adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales. It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem. It is dependant on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving approach to law enforcement crime prevention techniques. To confirm whether or not Sussex Police has carried out a specific investigation would undermine the ongoing operation..
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built. The Police Service has a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those than plan to commit crime. By confirming whether or not a specific line of enquiry has been used could directly influence the stages of that process, jeopardise current investigations, HM Coroner’s investigation, prejudice future law enforcement, the judicial process and any subsequent civil proceedings.
In order to fully investigate incidents it is vital that the police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who have committed offences.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led which is particularly pertinent with regard to any current investigation. The National Intelligence Model is adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales. It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem. It is dependant on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving approach to law enforcement crime prevention techniques. To confirm whether or not Sussex Police has carried out a specific investigation would undermine the ongoing operation..
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built. The Police Service has a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those than plan to commit crime. By confirming whether or not a specific line of enquiry has been used could directly influence the stages of that process, jeopardise current investigations, HM Coroner’s investigation, prejudice future law enforcement, the judicial process and any subsequent civil proceedings.
In order to fully investigate incidents it is vital that the police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who have committed offences.
Section 30
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of the investigatory process and may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and reduce crime which could assist with the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, as all police investigations are publicly funded, confirmation that information is held would provide transparency with regard to the allocation of force budgets.
This in turn would highlight where police resources are being targeted and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent, particularly in the current economic climate.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held
Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing details of investigative activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect Sussex Police law enforcement capabilities. Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations. To disclose where these investigations are being undertaken to the world would seriously undermine the prevention or detection of crime and the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
Balancing Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various tactical tools may be used to gather information relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any investigative activity and specifically current and ongoing investigations could weaken that process.
In addition any disclosure by Sussex Police that places an investigation at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in us. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information exists.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or isn’t held.
Yours sincerely
Roger Brace
FOI Officer
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of the investigatory process and may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and reduce crime which could assist with the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, as all police investigations are publicly funded, confirmation that information is held would provide transparency with regard to the allocation of force budgets.
This in turn would highlight where police resources are being targeted and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent, particularly in the current economic climate.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held
Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing details of investigative activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect Sussex Police law enforcement capabilities. Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations. To disclose where these investigations are being undertaken to the world would seriously undermine the prevention or detection of crime and the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
Balancing Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various tactical tools may be used to gather information relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any investigative activity and specifically current and ongoing investigations could weaken that process.
In addition any disclosure by Sussex Police that places an investigation at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in us. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information exists.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or isn’t held.
Yours sincerely
Roger Brace
FOI Officer
Or in other words; its none of your
business and we wouldn't tell you anyway!
"The Shoreham plane crash is
without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I
have investigated to date."
While Chris Spivey contends that the
people who died that day were MI5 constructs and that the whole event
was a staged event for reasons not yet fully understood; others like
leading ufologist Richard Lennie and astrophotographer John Walson,
pointed the blame to a UFO collision.
Read more: UFO causes Shoreham
Air-Show Crash
Sussex Police were quick to reply to
the UFO crash theory by saying how "very grateful"
they were for the information, but not so forthcoming when accused of
being involved in a cover-up. (of which it appears they are becoming
quite adapt in doing so.)
Make no mistakes, a cover-up is in
full swing and everyone knows it.
Even local MP's are calling for
changes to the law after hearing that Sussex police were refused
access to potentially crucial information about the cause of the
Shoreham Airshow crash.
Brighton Pavilion MP and joint Leader
of the Green Party Caroline Lucas said: "This
judgment appears to hinder a crucial police investigation into this
tragic incident, and it could set a worrying precedent. We need an
open justice system that best learns from the past and prevents
tragedies like this occurring."
While Portslade and Hove Labour MP,
Peter Kyle said "We are testing the boundaries of
this law but that shouldn’t prohibit giving the families of victims
the justice they need. If they can’t sort this out then maybe the
law needs to be re-examined."
Unrelenting in his goal of
covering up what actually happened that day, Justice Singh said
allowing police access to the statements made by Andy Hill would
cause a “serious and obvious chilling effect which would
tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the
candour which is necessary. This would seriously hamper future
accident investigations and protection of public safety by the
learning of lessons which may help prevent similar accidents.”
He also denied access to details of
experiments and tests because the reports were likely to be made
public in the AAIB’s final findings and because there was “no
reason why the police could not themselves investigate”.
James Healy-Pratt, the head of aviation
at Stewarts Law lawyer who is representing six victims' families,
welcomed the judgment as a "significant
development" which he hoped would speed up the
investigation.
He added: "There are no
real surprises here and this is the expected result."
Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz
from Sussex Police said the ruling would allow his team to progress
the investigation, adding: "We understand legally
this case is without precedent in England and Wales and we accept the
reasons why our request has not been granted in full."
"As we have said before,
this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain
committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those
who died."
The very fact the AAIB have with-held
information which Sussex Police went to the High Court to release,
tells us the power struggle which is going on behind the scenes. As
the Queen herself once alluded to; there are dark forces at work in
this country of which the public have little or no knowledge about.
In much the same way that six
healthy fit young men do not drown in rip-tides off Camber Sands, so
too, doesn't a pilot survive unscathed from an infernal fire ball
which disintegrates his plane and kills 11 men on the ground.
The AAIB know the truth but they
aren't telling us.
Be it a UFO collision or a false flag
event; there is a cover-up in full swing regarding the Shoreham
air-show crash and that's a fact!
Further Reading:
Camber Sands Tragedy - A Cover-up?
- A Special Report by Matt Taylor
Read more: UFO causes Shoreham
Air-Show Crash
The Shoreham Plane Crash: Part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment