A father of a police officer was approached to sue in a situation involving the Hillsborough disaster. The son was not interested in suing at that time and was waiting for a class action or maybe he just did not know if he had a case yet. He was not such a good lawyer but people were waiting impatiently and anxiously about the law suit. Maybe he was a good lawyer after all as a graduate from Bradford. The lady working for the Hillsborough Legal Clinic was really born a boy and wanted him to just sue the town council for whom she worked so she stole his notebook on what happened that day and she insisted that if he did not sue, somebody had to so we could all see her Herodian predicament. She was French also. She contacted the father and insisted that he pursue it on his own with out his son. He started to get excited about the attention he was getting in the wake of his son's standing in court but not his standing as a victim directly. However, due to his insistence, someone suggested that he seek to sue the town for the tort of emotion distress as he witnessed the stadium fall down due to bad misfeasance that day under the management of the of the Town Council who packed too many people in the stadium to try and buy a few Ford Mondeos with the 'E reg' registration ; I don't know. There was no chance of succeeding since he is just not the victim with sufficient locus standi to pursue the case. He had participated in the over crowding by selling seats beyond capacity personally and made complaints about the stadium via complaint box at Town Council the day before. He was a cause of the injury his son may have endured and an instigator. He was liable to pay costs for the action that was filed and he was wise to withdraw the nonsense before it went any further. However, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a right to family and but for the father's direction participation, he could sue for an infringement of his Charter rights. He should spend another dollar on this nonsense.

A father of a police officer was approached to sue in a situation involving the Hillsborough disaster.  The son was not interested in suing  at that time and was waiting for a class action or maybe he just did not know if he had a case yet.  He was not such a good lawyer but people were waiting impatiently and anxiously about the law suit. Maybe he was a good lawyer after all as a graduate from Bradford.  The lady working for the Hillsborough Legal Clinic was really born a boy and wanted him to just sue the town council for whom she worked so she stole his notebook on what happened that day and she insisted that if he did not sue, somebody had to so we could all see her Herodian predicament. She was French also. 
 She contacted the father and insisted that he pursue it on his own with out his son. He started to get excited about the attention he was getting in the wake of his son's standing in court but not his standing as a victim directly. However, due to his insistence, someone suggested that he seek to sue the town for the tort of emotion distress as he witnessed the stadium fall down  due to bad misfeasance that day under the management of the of the Town Council who packed too many people in the stadium to try and buy a few Ford Mondeos with the 'E reg' registration ; I don't know.  There was no chance of succeeding since he is just not the victim with sufficient locus standi to pursue the case.    He had participated in the over crowding by selling seats beyond capacity personally and made complaints about the stadium via  complaint box at Town Council the day before.
He was a cause of the injury his son may have endured and an instigator.   He was liable to pay costs for the action that was filed and he was wise to withdraw the nonsense before it went any further. However, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a right to family and but for the father's direction participation, he could sue for an infringement of his Charter rights. He should spend another dollar on this nonsense.