UKC

Today the jury at the Hillsborough inquests is expected to reveal its conclusions into how 96 football fans were fatally injured in the 1989 stadium disaster.

The jury has been asked to answer 14 detailed questions about what happened at Hillsborough, including whether the 96 victims were unlawfully killed and whether opportunities were lost to save lives on the day.

To conclude that fans were unlawfully killed, coroner Sir John Goldring told the jury that it had to be sure match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was responsible for their manslaughter.
To answer yes to that question, the jury must agree with four points:
Firstly, that Ch Supt Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96;
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care;
Thirdly, the breach of his duty of care caused the deaths;
Finally, the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence".

Coroner Sir John Goldring reminded the the jury that the inquests were not a criminal trial and they could not find anybody guilty of a criminal offence.

Following the result the families can hopefully find some sense of closure.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

live updates -

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-i...

In reply to toad:

Jury decides victims were unlawfully killed!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-merseyside-36102998

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Thoughts with the families. Desperately sad that some relatives passed away without knowing the full extent of what happened on that day and the subsequent cover-up.


As an aside - David Conn of the Guardian has covered the entirety of the trial. Impeccable journalism.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Everyone to blame except for the fans pushing to get in.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I suspect there will be a few prosecutions

In reply to JMGLondon:


It's an inquest, not a trial.

In reply to winhill:


Reading the individual verdicts as they come through, that's the way it appears to be going.

In reply to winhill:

A crowd behaving like a crowd - the stadium owners and the police had a duty to manage that crowd properly

In reply to winhill:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/hajj-crush-how-crowd-disasters...

In reply to icnoble:


Duckenfield had already put his hand up in evidence, I wonder if his main point of defence is going to be insufficient training/experience/competency and he'll transfer that to his employers?

Or perhaps he'll take it on the chin.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I not surprised by the outcome but not necessarily agree with it I don't think you can take a day like that and pin it all on one person.

People saying it seems to be everyone's fault but the fans pushing may seem harsh but I do kinda hold the opinion that although maybe not the fault of those fans there on that day football fan done on a possibly global scale have to take some blame for the disaster if there hadn't been the culture of football hooliganism then that fence wouldn't have been there between the crowd and the pitch. And although I'm sure a mass like that would still have caused some trampling and injury more people would have escaped.

at least now like its been said it all has some closure and lessons have been learned on how police records ect are dealt with.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I remember that day really well, I lived in Grenoside and was in the garden hearing nothing but sirens and knowing that something awful was unfolding. A terrible day and it feels wrong that it has taken this long for truth to emerge.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Well yes, but if the failure of SWFC to delay kickoff is a contributing factor, what would have happened if they delayed it? Usually that would be conveyed to the crowd outside to reduce their urgency, easing the crush at the turnstiles. In this case though, to be consistent, the jury are saying that news that the kickoff was to be delayed could only relate to the actions of the police, that it would have given police more time to manage the crush.

But if the kickoff was delayed and that news wasn't related to the crowd to reduce the crush, that would also be negligent.

You can't have it both ways, so the purpose of that decision seems to be twofold, one to avoid the unpalatable verdict that crowds push and secondly to increase the liability of the police, (as the coroner said, that the police should reasonably have expected the crowd to act in the manner it did).

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


You can't call it the truth, its a group of people's opinion.

In reply to Fredt:

Whatever you or I choose to call it, it's long overdue.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


Agreed.

In reply to winhill:
What a dick you are. What an utter, utter dick.

Hundreds of witnesses, 2 years of evidence and no foundation to that callous and stupid lie and yet you still want to spout it.

Do you have some evidence that jurors were not party to for the last 2 years.

Dick. Utter trolling halfwitted dick.

In reply to Hannah S:
You really have not paid any attention whatsoever have you.

Firstly it is not being "pinned on one man" though the Police Officer in command has accepted that he was to blame.

The causes are multiple - failures in Policing, the Ambulance Service, Sheffield Wednesday and their Safety Certificate as well as the Stadium Contractors.

Those fans and families have had to put up with 27 years of lies about "oh well it was drunken, ticketless fans pushing in" without any evidence to support it. None whatsoever. Even now as the new inquests find that the fans behaviour was NOT a contributory factor there are people here still spouting it like bots.

Too many people have a quick look online at some ill-founded opinion then come on here and spout incompetent opinions. Try living it for 27 years, truly doing your homework, reading the Independent Panel body of work and then coming back and telling us that "the fans killed themselves."

In reply to winhill:

Delaying the kick-off was merely one option that wasn't taken. The problems started 90 minutes before the game, with a lack of queue management outside the ground and poor flow through the turnstiles. This should have been spotted in the control room, but wasn't.

The opening of the gate, the timing of it and the layout of the ground made what happened inevitable. Such a buildup could have been prevented, the crowd could have been prevented from entering the already overcrowded central pens, and the trigger that caused those at the back to push forward could have been avoided.

In reply to Rampikino:

Seems like most of the topic reply's come from people living or lived in Sheffield with hopefully no axe to grind, yourself living near to Liverpool you might have been influenced by the media close to home.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

So they are not going to blame Thatcher for her part in the cover up, and therefore we don't investigate and learn lessons ?

She wrote: -
“What do we mean by ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report’?
The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police.
Is that for us to welcome? "

In reply to robert-hutton:

I might have been influenced by being a Liverpool fan who lost a friend and schoolmate at Hillsborough.

I might have been influenced by 27 years of being told that it was drunken, ticketless fans who caused the disaster.

I might have been influenced by taking a long time to read all the evidence and accounts I could find on the disaster and realising that the official narrative was a lie.

I might have been influenced by having many friends and colleagues who were there. By having one friend who tried to climb out of the pens and was pushed back in by a Policeman. By having one friend who was on the upper tier trying to get the Police to take action only for them to turn their backs on him.

I might have been influenced. You're damn right I might.


Thankfully 9 people have been influenced by 2 years of evidence and hundreds of witnesses and that influence has returned a conclusion of unlawful killing.

So your point is?

In reply to robert-hutton:

Or perhaps some of us know that South Yorkshire Police are utterly incompetent and dishonest.

In a statement, Elkan Abrahamson and Marcia Stewart, from the law firms representing the HJC and HFSG, said: “The jury’s conclusions completely vindicate the families’ long fight for justice."

The intervening years have brought much greater commonality: the shock and dismay at the way they were treated in the aftermath; anger at the cover-up which started immediately following the disaster; frustration and disbelief at the deficiencies of both the legal and political processes which failed to deliver justice; and, above all, a constant and enduring tenacity and dedication to exposing the truth which has, despite all attempts to derail the process, stood firm over the decades.”

Ian Jones
Ex - Sheffield resident
Regular attendee at Leppings Lane end 1980s
Lifelong Redman

Justice For The 96

In reply to Rampikino:

So your point is?

We know its not nice to have salt rubbed in a raw nerve, we all have a opinion and have rights to express them.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

What has this inquest revealed about the events of the day of the disaster that the Taylor report didn't reveal?

In reply to Rampikino:

Sorry for your loss. perhaps you would have been better steering clear of discussions like this as you might have guessed there would be opinions different from yours and upsetting to you as we are not all in your position.

I never said anything in my other post about drunken ticket less fans. I did point out that it wasn't the people there on that days fault but the general culture and cant you see that cultural influence would colour how the police (right or wrongly) would interpret a situation as trouble not crisis in the beginning.

In reply to Ian Jones:



Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham. I'm sure there are many honest, decent and brave officers within SYP, but it's record is abysmal. I suspect that the attitudes shown at Orgreave - to view the miners as the enemy, as criminals and thugs - were also present at Hillsborough. And turning your back on victims, ignoring them because you don't think they can be trusted...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

.. not to mention refusing to let all but one of 44 (?) ambulances in to attend to the dying and wounded.

Julie Fallon, whose brother, Andrew Sefton, 23, died at Hillsborough.

At the risk of invoking some of the many slurs thrown at both us and the city of Liverpool over the years, I feel I need to say that while it is an unpalatable truth for a portion of the population and one that they would really rather not hear or accept, it is the shameful truth that for the vast majority of the past 27 years, we the families, the survivors and the fans, were systematically and maliciously bullied, intimidated, manipulated, lied to and lied about.

We were used for personal and political gain, marginalised and publicly vilified by those in our country who were placed in positions of power and influence, which were primarily designed to support, protect and administer our fundamental rights.

In reply to Hannah S:


Whatever the general football culture at the time, the police (among others) had a duty of care towards the people who attended that day, and they not only utterly failed in that respect, they also actively sought to shift blame to the fans and the deceased. Then went on lying and obscuring the truth regarding the nature of their failure and culpability for the deaths for 25 years or more.

That's so far beyond 'interpreting a situation as trouble not crisis', its not even worth discussing.

In reply to Hannah S:


I think this is a key point. The crowd was badly handled but this needs to be seen in the context of the prevailing culture of football hooliganism at the time. The individuals injured and killed may have been blameless but for football as a whole that is hardly the case, and this aspect seems to be missed out, perhaps understandably, by a forensic and narrowly focussed inquest.

In reply to Hannah S:


I can hold my head up and post the truth, angry or otherwise. You would have been better steering clear of discussions like this as you have clearly posted uninformed nonsense. Go do your homework.

What OPINION do you have that is so contrary to the conclusions of the jury today and how do you think you have reached those conclusions in a superior way to the jury that has sat there for 2 years. Let me know how much better you are and how your 'opinions' have any weight at all.

Your original post and response is pompous nonsense.

In reply to MG:

Sorry but I disagree.

The disaster at Hillsborough was foreseeable. Liverpool fans the year before (same ground, same situation) had encountered similar circumstances but the Police had been able to manage it differently. Other semi finals at Hillsborough in the years leading up to 1989 had seen similar problems and other sets of fans had expressed concerns and pointed out the problems.

The Police knew there was an issue but didn't learn from them. In the end they handed off control to someone who was inexperienced and incompetent.

The fear of crowd trouble may have been in the backs of minds for some Police, but their ability to manage a football crowd was simply lacking, but lacking in a criminal sense.

In reply to lummox:


Has that been explained yet ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I haven't seen that yet.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I don't think so, but it was part of Question 14, the last question I believe.

In reply to Rampikino:

I think you need consider why it was almost always football crowds that had problems in this period.

In reply to MG:
The football problem, as it was called back then, had been going on for a very long time. What was apparent was that there was a very aggressive role played by the police when it came to patrolling matches. The powers that be at that time took an overly robust and antagonisitc approach to policing football matches, the efficacy of which is highly questionable.

I think there was an overreacton - that football became the bogeyman and the right wing press and government to an extent fuelled the issue. Plenty of other grounds elected not to install perimeter fencing. Had there been such at Valley Parade then the death toll would have been utterly horrendous and I'd have been orphaned at 14.

What has become apparent is that less is more in terms of sports ground policing, and that stadium design had to evolve from what was little more than dressed up 1920's infrastructure.

In reply to MG:

Tact isn't a strong point of yours is it ?

In reply to MG:


I think you need to stop deflecting the discussion away from the failings of a body of people who had a duty of care.

On that particular day, and in those circumstances, with the documented history of issues at a ground with no safety certificate and a lack of competent people able to deal with a major incident, a preventable disaster happened - and not because of hooliganism but because of systemic and personal failures.

Whatever the prevailing mood within football at the time, this was a disaster that should not have happened, and trying to deflect from that by saying "ahh yeah well football was all about hooliganism back then wasn't it..." is yet another red herring that the friends and families of the 96 Hillsborough victims have had to put up with for 27 years.

Don't play a part in the lie MG.

In reply to MG:


But not a factor in this case given:

"Jury has ruled that the 96 people were unlawfully killed and no supporters' misbehavior contributed to the danger"

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:




I agree.

Post Hillsborough I went off and joined the RAF. I wasn't going to matches very often. However, in 1991 I travelled to Norwich to see Liverpool play. There were still cages back then. I got into the away end very early and it was almost empty. I leaned against a fence reading my programme, minding my own business.

From out of nowhere I was grabbed and hauled to one side by a Policeman who was shouting at me angrily. "You can't f*cking stand there, if you f*cking stand there you f*cking tw*t you're getting thrown out."

Turns out I had been unwittingly standing in one of those yellow-painted walkways.

His attitude to me as a fan/Liverpool fan, was way over the top. He only needed to say. There must have been all of 10 people standing in the away end at the time. But I was tarred with a certain brush.

I didn't go to a Liverpool match for 10 years after that.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

wow, some epic trolling going on on here. People died, a jury has found the fans and victims NOT to be at fault and infact have exonerated their actions.

Give it up at lets give the victims a well deserved break from the speculation of shouldda wouldda couldda.

I just hope something like this never happens again.

In reply to winhill:


I seem to have upset a couple of people by posting this earlier, I assume as I didn't add any commentary, the was purely a mistake due to being busy, I apologise, I meant to.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/hajj-crush-how-crowd-disasters...

My point in posting it was in reply to the above, and relevant to Winhills later comment


As is explained when a crowd gets to a certain density, people cannot make individual decisions. As we do not posses any kind of common thought process, a crowd cannot make decisions either. Crowds have to be managed or these things will happen. There's a long history of these incidents, Hillsborough worse as the fences were up by then.

In reply to MG:

Let me repeat my favourite Thatcher quote, as she ranted at some football club chairmen

MT "What are you going to do about your hooligans on our streets ?"
Chairman "What are YOU going to do about YOUR hooligans in our grounds ?"

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Fair enough Mike. I understand.

It's certainly true. I have been involved in some hair-raising crowds where waves of movement and pushing are both inevitable and unavoidable. They can also be catastrophic.

In reply to JMGLondon:

But it clearly was. For example,if there hadn't been a need for cages to keep people off the pitch, there would have been no problem. Why were they there? Because of the prevailing culture in football.

In reply to MG:

but the point I am making is that hooliganism had been a problem for a long time before Hillsborough. what had happened is that is had morphed into a moral panic.

In the same way around that time the we were all told the countryside was awash with illegal raves and MDMA.

Like the Dangerous Dogs Act, ground policing and design was poorly designed in response to a problem which, whilst something that clearly needed addressing, was blown way out of proportion.

In reply to MG:

can we just cut to the chase ?

Can you please use the term " cycle mafia " and do one ?

In reply to Rampikino:




perhaps the real question should be, why are the police expected to steward the fans at football matches?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


When did it "morph into a moral panic"? The fences were being put up in the 1960s. It was headline news Sunday after Sunday throughout the '60s and 70s.

In reply to timjones:


The police have had the role of crowd control since the mid nineteenth century.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Isn't that the point (in part)? It was not a new phenomenon, and I'd argue not that big an issue, but in the 80's it was seized upon for political gain, to sell newspapers and more and more barriers went up.

In reply to Hannah S:


Or perhaps his voice carries more weight than most and you might do well to listen and learn to understand that your own views might possibly be open to challenge.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

No. The police and everybody else were being blamed for failing to deal with what was a genuine social problem. (I had to walk through Wimbledon station on a daily basis. Chelsea an Fulham match days were characterised by skinheads terrorising the place).
The reaction was (with hindsight maybe wrongly) for the police to crack down harder and more cages to be built.

I'm not whitewashing the South Yorks police. They did a bad job and then tried to hide that fact and deflect the blame on to the fans. I don't understand why they haven't been tried for perverting the course of justice. But their attitude to crowd control has to be seen in context.

In reply to Hannah S:

Read this http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadl...

In reply to Postmanpat:
What was happening in London is not necessarily what was happening around the rest of the country.

I was policing grounds in the late 80's and into the 90's and I saw very little trouble or as a fan around West Yorks and Lancashire before that. A lot of the trouble happened away from the ground, as I can't recall any Ointment or Service Crew or other casuals regularly kicking off in the grounds, nor at the grounds I policed.

Of course, there were more mundane arrests, I nicked one bloke for throwing coins (walked in to the kop to do that, and another for pissing on a car, but nothing that was out of the ordinary.

What I did experience as a police officer then was an aggressive, interventionist approach to what we saw very little off on a direct basis. BTP tended to see more trouble than grounds police.

i agree with the rest of your post - it was a white washed and it was politcally expedient to blame the fans rather than face up to where the failing actually lay.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Nobody has ever blamed the victims as far as I'm aware. They're the ones who arrived in plenty of time & queued in an orderly fashion to get a place at the front.

In reply to lummox:


Does this apply to theatres, concerts and exhibitions as well?

I'd have thought that where there is a charge for admission then the responsibility for stewarding ought to be down to the event organisers.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:




Don't you think it stretches the credibility of the verdict when the only participants found to be beyond reproach are the very people who did the pushing that caused the crush.

They must bear at least some of the responsibility.

In reply to Chris Harris:


aside from the coroner's decision to check for alcohol in the blood of all the victims, including a 10 year old, for instance ?

Or the desperate search for empty alcohol containers around the outside of the ground while people were still lying injured/dead on advertising hoardings inside the ground ?

In reply to timjones:

Yes.


At large events there will be a police presence, proportionate to the size of the event. The organisers will be expected to pay the bill for this and football clubs do pay for policing in and around the ground.

Obviously, events involving many young energetic people will require more police (dance or rock festivals), as opposed to classical music in the grounds of a country park, but this will be reflected in what the police charge. The police can stop an event if they don't think they can manage it, or the organisers wont pay.

In reply to timjones:



FTFY.

In reply to timjones:


I'm not sure if you've ever been to a football match, but in my experience ( which is from 1977 onwards) there have always been paid stewards at matches. From the old fourth division up to Premiership. You might want to Google what the police role is at matches.

In reply to lummox:


Didn't know that.


That would have been to pin on the fans at the back, not the victims at the front. There would hardly be any way of connecting an empty tin in the street to one of the 96 would there?

In reply to Hannah S:


Yes, never let informed and considered but passionate contributions stand in the way of ill informed speculation, gossip, half truth, innuendo, slur and unsubstantiated hyperbole.

In reply to Chris Harris:

I urge you to read the excellent piece in the Guardian mentioned further up the thread for further information.

In reply to Chris Harris:




Chris, please take some time to read the facts.

In reply to lummox:
Since the late 80's and especially after Hillsborough there has been a real attempt to undertake much more efficient, targeted and intelligent policing.

A Police control room (or broom cupboard, whichever could be spared) in the 80's is a very different place to today, even after allowing for the change in technology.

At the risk of contradicting myself in earlier posts, the police on the ground had very little intel to work with, and the control systems were rudimentary. I recall numerous radio blackspots around the grounds I worked at, a lack of linked control with other services and only limited stewarding.

As you say, there were always stewards, but now the police presence at sports matches has receded there is an increased level of direct stewarding, undertaken on a far more professional and better funded way.

My point, that we do have to be careful when looking at Hillsborough that we don't do it based on modern grounds policing (I was in a police control room last Thursday and they are like mission Control), and that "some" good people made bad choices that day.

but

What we must not forget is that the real fucking travesty is the way the establishment closed ranks, vilified and demonised innocent people and tried to blame the victims.

In reply to timjones:


Football clubs do pay for policing - and have done so long before Hillsborough. In fact the police will tell the club how many officers they think will be needed and will refuse to allow the game to go ahead unless their demands are met.

And when you pay for something, a duty of care exists. The fans at Hillsborough paid for crowd management, they didn't get it

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:







Precisely.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Go on then, let's have your well-founded and incisive conclusion as to what caused Hillsborough. Let's have what a 2 year inquest with hundreds of witnesses and truckloads of documentary evidence missed.

Let's have it.

Oh wait, is it...

"Drunken ticketless fans caused it."

By any chance?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Another momentous day. I hope the families can draw comfort from the unlawful killing verdict although this is by no means finished as the files go to the CPS.

The picture that always sticks in my mind is lines of police officers standing doing absolutely nothing on the pitch as fans race around carrying stretchers and pulling young men out from the crush.

I don't know how they live with that memory or sleep at night.

In reply to Chris Harris:

CID interviewing the families of victims, as they were lying dead in the gymnasium to try and establish if they'd been drinking is another particular highlight.

In reply to winhill:

"Everyone to blame except for the fans pushing to get in."

"People saying it seems to be everyone's fault but the fans pushing may seem harsh but I do kinda hold the opinion that although maybe not the fault of those fans there on that day football fan done on a possibly global scale have to take some blame for the disaster "


I just find views like this mindboggling.

Words fail me.

In reply to Rampikino:

If you read what I wrote, you would see I was agreeing, the police didn't do their job and the victims weren't to blame. The fact remains however that football had serious problems with hooliganism and other forms of misbehaviour at the time, that resulted in measures like cages being necessary and this gets forgotten. There is no lie there.

In reply to MG:

I'm content with my response. You were deflecting.

In reply to MG:

oh look a squirrel!

In reply to Rampikino:

The Hillsborough verdict is as well founded as the Bloody Sunday Inquiry one was....and as big a waste of money...

In reply to KevinD:

Bizarre. You think it's irrelevant?

In reply to Gael Force:

Either a troll or a tool.

Please go away and play with yourself. It'll be more constructive than your contribution to this thread.

In reply to Gael Force:

Perhaps you could make a comprehensible comment with some kind of moderately understandable point..?

In reply to Gael Force:

Why is it a waste of time if the original inquest was factually incorrect and death certificates needed to be amended from accidental death to unlawful killing?

In reply to MG:


i think you are doing your normal concern trolling line.
Read the f*cking report and pay particular attention to question 7.

The fact remains is the police were not only incompetent at the time but then engaged in an extended cover up.
Whilst useful idiots pursued the whatabouttery line.

In reply to KevinD:
You seem to struggle with people whose opinions don't match your own.

I have already said, twice, that the victims were not to blame and the police were. Q7 is ambiguous. If it is referring to the supporters involved, fine. If it is referring to football supporters of the time and recent past collectively, I disagree. (I don't think it is taking this wider view).

In reply to Gael Force:
I agree have a like,

If however we get away from the lets find someone to blame game, and learn lesions from them, Then going forward its not a wast of time or money

It has left the police wanting, sadly the lesion they will take is not to be found wanting next time so a better cover up.

In reply to MG:

Q7 isn't remotely ambiguous:
"7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?"

The use of the word 'the' to describe the football supporters, and the context of the inquest, makes it very clear that it's a question regarding the supporters involved (as opposed to the police, ground staff and any other officials at the scene on the day) and has no reference to any wider context.

In reply to tony:


Well I agree but I was trying to be generous for Kevin's benefit. The inquiry didn't consider the wider context, because that wasn't its job. But that context hooliganism and violence surrounding football at the time is, I think, relevant because of the conditions it produced in football grounds - aggressive measures like cages and heavy-handed policing. Hillsborough was hardly the only place problems occurred - and the culture and safety measures have since changed.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I found the whole thing disturbing especially that the SYP had moved their most experienced officer for these events- Ch Sup Mole- somewhere else and the reasons for that move.

If only.

I remember the day well, we were climbing at Pen Trwyn, heard it on the car radio, and we were all stunned.

In reply to MG:


No I just dislike concern trolls who try to deflect the blame to the victims especially given the history of this particular case.
I note you dont bother pointing at the piss poor history of the SY police across a range of issues. Odd that.

In reply to KevinD:



I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss that. I have close to first-hand experience on it, as it happens

In reply to KevinD:

Well very good. Perhaps you could find someone who has done this, rather than say someone like me who has repeatedly agreed they were blameless.

In reply to MG:


So why did you say Q7 was ambiguous?


No it wasn't, so it has no relevance to the findings of the jury. So why raise it as an issue now?


Not in the context of the jury's findings.

In reply to neilh:


It is one of those days I remember too. I was walking at Chew Reservoir and like you, got back to the car and switched on the radio. Bleak drive home.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Many factors contributed to the tragedy.

However much you try to play smart and piss about with the wording of other peoples posts it still seems incredible that the jury found that the fans bear no responsibilty whatsoever.

In reply to tony:


You'll have to read back a bit to see why.


Because it's relevant to how Hillsborough occurred, and to preventing similar.

In reply to timjones:

Individually it's difficult to see how they might. Have you ever been in a dense crowd - you have surprisingly little control.

In reply to MG:

Let me crudely paraphrase the impression your posts give:

"Yeah, well, THESE fans weren't to blame, but fans ain't blameless are they? Cos there was a lot of hooligans around and so this was just bound to happen wasn't it. I'm not blaming THESE fans, but you know, fans were not good back then..."

It's called deflection MG.

In reply to MG:


Yeah your style is to call someone a prat ( or any other personal insult) when they criticise the police.

In reply to Rampikino:
If you removed the imagined nudge nudging from your summary it is correct. And it is imagined, I assure you. I did at one time blame the fans involved but have been convinced otherwise.

In reply to hikerpike:

If you recall I upgraded you from prat to tw*t. If you keep going you might get another promotion.

In reply to MG:
I have better things to do than actually look back and find the personal insult word you used. You can go and play with your toys MG.You did not like what I had to say so you went into a tantrum.


I'm guessing you're just a grieved ex-cop, an underachiever school-bully and a spoilt and v petulant little boy in the closet underneath really.


Your maturity or mental age really reveals itself I think BTW MG.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/uk-england-36103823/3610...

In reply to MG:

Are you or were you in the Police?

In reply to Rampikino:
I made a suggestion in a previous thread about another case that the police might have held a grudge against one of it's victims.. And this guy MG went mental.Or perhaps this is his normal behaviour going by the....erm (cough) quality ( and level) of his interaction. Or perhaps this is evidence of a deeper malaise running through the police in general and the kind of people of questionable character ( moral and otherwise) they recruit.

In reply to Rampikino:

No

In reply to MG:

But it is obvious you just love them to bits. ( And you don't seem to be alone or in a minority on this forum if that is the case it seems)

Which means you may have friends I am guessing,family members or associates perhaps in the police force.

What bothers me, my own personal bug-bear is out of all the professions out there the police almost seems individually immune from losing their job.Where anyone else in any other profession would be out on their ear if they made a mistake and then tried to cover it up..If you perjure yourself in court again and again, tell porkies, make up statements because you fear prosecution then you should lose your job , before something worse happens.

In reply to MG:

Do you have any professional or personal connection to the Police?

In reply to Rampikino:
Arggh! No! I have no connection to anyone or organisation remotely linked to Hillsborough! I am convinced the police screwed up and tried to hide that. Happy?

In reply to MG:

Ok. Thanks

In reply to MG:

I think you're a troll on this thread.

And that wasn't even the question.

In reply to hikerpike:


There have been much worse on this thread to be fair.

In reply to timjones:


How did you run the farm whilst you spent two years listening to evidence in Birchwood?

In reply to The New NickB:

Quite so.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadl...

Just thought I'd repost this link. It's a very long article, but well worth reading. It does contain info that I wasn't aware of, mainly to with the police. I wasn't aware, for example, that duckenfield had only just taken over the job, and had scant knowledge of the ground. Makes his failings more understandable I guess, he froze and only regained his wits when it came to the cover up

In reply to Rampikino:


Many juries have made decisions based on emotion rather than fact. Its very ease to blame a faceless establishment rather than the fans who's pushing ultimately crushed to death those fans already in the ground. To try and blame the police for not controlling that pushing is a valid point but doesn't excuse the fans who did the pushing.

I'll pin my colours to the mast and say I to find the verdict odd.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I'm glad this is finally settled and the families have the answers they've sought. I find it hard to be too condemnatory of individual operational decisions made on the day, because people make mistakes all the time and sometimes those mistakes have devastating consequences. The subsequent wide scale cover-up and smearing of the victims was outrageous though. The cost of that cover-up to the emotionally to the victims' families, to the trust of the public in our institutions and financially to the taxpayer is mind-boggling.

To Rampikino - sorry about your mate.

In reply to Rampikino:






No of course not. Clearly caused by sober fans with tickets who turned up in plenty of time to get in & who queued in an orderly fashion to wait their turn to get in at the turnstile........

Police may have screwed up, and covered up, but they were not the ones at the back pushing.

In reply to Indy:


Go on, which mast is that? There are only two masts to pin your colours to:

1. The verdicts of today.

2. Drunken, ticketless fans.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Just got round to reading it all after seeing the link earlier. Info I didn't realise about either concerning closing the tunnel and the main guys inexperience. The police clearly made mistakes on the day. I was also unaware most of the smear campaign of the fans came from the police thought that was generally the media. Decision making can be hard in the heat of a moment and hindsight is a wonderful thinng.
As an aside note my brain wonders how the story would have panned out if the crush and deaths had been outside in the street.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Contemptuous nonsense that has already been disgrace.

Your post is worthy only of contempt.

In reply to Rampikino:

Whichever way you want to obfusticate the issue the fact is that those that died were crushed by Liverpool fans pushing to get into the ground. It's neither here nore there if they were drunk or ticketless or pissing on the police if they hadn't been pushing to get in then the fans already in the stadium wouldn't have been crushed...... period.

In reply to Hannah S:
I think you're missing the point.... or an important point

If I belay you and I see a nice looking girl to one side and then you fall and break your neck.Then your dad arrives and I just say well ( it appears or I think) she forgot to clip herself in. That is lieing. We all make mistakes but if we then try and cover it up then that is called covering up your own mistakes.

From the article:-

"He also admitted at the inquests that even as the event was descending into horror and death, he had infamously lied, telling Graham Kelly, then secretary of the Football Association, that Liverpool fans were to blame, for gaining unauthorised entry through a large exit gate. Duckenfield had in fact himself ordered the gate to be opened, to relieve a crush in the bottleneck approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles."

We're all imperfect.We all make mistakes.What's the worse that can happen if you're a police officer- you lose your job ( although frankly this does not happen either)

Negligence (or incompetence/poor handling/ management etc) is hard(er) to prove if everyone is in on it.

In reply to Indy:

The technicalities of cause of death are clear.

The pathetic accusation still libellously being pointed at the fans is that their behaviour was the cause. That was categorically set aside today and yet still some on here, yourself included, want to point the finger of blame back at the fans.

Pathetic.

In reply to Indy:


Shite.

In reply to Indy:

We're they pushing simply walking forward? Was this established clearly?

As above, in a dense crowd it takes no more than an inclination from those at the back to cause real pressure at the front. It's quite alarming if you ever get caught in it.

In reply to MG:

As ever you are asking the wrong questions.

Another deflection.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That's really interesting and well written and made me cry. I'd always had some sympathy for Duckenfield; a human being making a human error. But he was lazy and incompetent, hadn't prepared at all. I'd wondered whether the model for policing these events was by design more about preventing violence than crowd management, but that makes it clear. Mole, the guy that was sidelined, knew exactly how to manage the crowds at Hillsborough but was moved on without a handover. The fact that Duckenfield was a prominent mason leaves a sour taste.

In reply to Chris Harris:

I don't know if crowd dynamics work like that though. I can imagine that if you're aiming for a certain point as part of a large crowd and are moving forward, with people behind you moving forward, you're just part of a big mass with little individual control, and with little idea of what's happening 20, 30 or 100 yards in front of you. That's why events are marshalled with well-designed routes, emergency plans etc.

In reply to Rampikino:

Look, for you it might be as simple as police bad; fans good. Fine

Others see wider issues worth discussing. Perhaps let them, rather than trying to shut everything down - it is a discussion forum.

In reply to MG:

Christ on a bike. You should be sponsored by JCB.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Exactly - if you experience this you will not forget it

In reply to MG:

You've not been paying attention.

Not since 11am and not since 1989 either.

Some of the called "opinions" on this thread are a libellous insult to friends and families that have waited 27 years for these conclusions.

Yet people get to come on here and spout the same lies that have been categorically overturned today.

That's not debate, it's an attempt to deny and deflect.

In reply to MG:



i.e. fans bad; police good.

In reply to MG:


Exactly, if a mass of people at the back of a crowd start to move forwards, it continues through the group so the people following on can't help but move forward too or risk falling over.

Which is why people who run events need to understand about crowd control...

In reply to Rampikino:

Discussing crowd dynamics is not libellous. I was even.supporting your point of view!

In reply to MG:



just been skimming through the Panorama programme on YouTube and to say the Liverpool fans weren't pushing and trying to get into the ground is just plain wrong you can see it on the Police CCTV images.

Didn't Liverpool fans blame the police for the Heysel stadium deaths as well?

In reply to Indy:



More shite.

In reply to Rampikino:




Yes.

The Sun and South Yorkshire Police (and others) have a lot to answer for. It was the deciding of where to direct the fans and the slow response of the medical services (arguably to a lesser degree) which led to 96 deaths.

In reply to Indy:

Classy mate, really classy. What a douche you are.

In reply to Rampikino:

Ignore them. They are not worth it. Revolting and loathsome, but not worth it.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

True enough

In reply to Indy:

They were doing what countless crowds of people have done and will always do, which is surging along in their keenness to get somewhere, which is why crowd control is so important.

It's not the only setting in which people can die when caught up in a crowd and from being crushed, it's happened in night clubs too.


Which has nothing to do with Hillsborough.

If you want to point the finger at the Liverpool fans, prepare to be repeatedly told (robustly by some) that you're wrong, and also have a think why this might be.

Just think about how Cameron and other politicians and current members of South Yorkshire Police have apologised to the relative of the fans who died about the finger of blame being pointed at the Liverpool Football fans. Do you genuinely think all this would have happened just to make them feel better, rather than because them being blamed was the wrong thing to have happened?

(There's the evidence of police being put under pressure to change their statements to fit the official narrative blaming the fans, if you want to start looking into the evidence rather than blaming the fans...)

In reply to Indy:
At Glastonbury 2000 - where there were an estimated 250,000 people vs. 100,000 tickets sold - at one point the surge from behind launched me towards a crowded gate and I'm still amazed no one got seriously hurt. I was going towards that gate, so I must have been pushing.

In reply to Timmd:


I completely agree... the police have to take there fair share of the blame but there are events that attract huge crowds every week and we don't see people dying. If people had queued up and not "surging along in their keenness to get somewhere" then a crush wouldn't have ensued and 96 people wouldn't have died. I'm sorry you don't like the inconvenient truth.

In reply to Indy:

People don't surge. Crowds do.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Yes.

In reply to Indy:



Somewhere back there I thought you were trying to make a nuanced point, instead it turns out you're a tw*t. Ah well.

Now for the nuanced bit: If you open a gate in front of a crowd of football fans, outside a football stadium, at the kick-off of a football match, they will naturally enter the stadium. This is to be expected by those managing the crowds.

Those at the back were only in the stadium, and all in one pen, due to police incompetence. They may have "pushed", but only through a desire to see the match. They did not have, and could not have had, any knowledge of the effect this was having at the front.

Therefore, while it may be factually correct to say that the disaster would not have happened had the fans who'd just entered the stadium not pushed forwards, the fans at the back are nevertheless blameless in the eyes of the law, because they could not possibly have known the consequences. On the other hand, the police's specific role was to control the crowds and prevent disasters like this. That is why, in this inquest's decision, the 96 were unlawfully killed by the police, and not by fans.

In reply to Indy:

Ah. You're an idiot.

In reply to Indy:


Those who entered the stadium late had no idea what was happening at the front, and therefore bear no responsibility. Is that a difficult concept?

In reply to Indy:

Where were you at the inquests? Why didn't you tell them? You could have prevented today's grotesque miscarriage of justice.

In reply to Indy:

You don't think it might be adequate crowd control which means it doesn't more often, then?

In reply to stewieatb:

Indeed, they were just keen to see the game and expecting things would all be okay, probably like the last time they were a part of a crowd at a football match.

In reply to stewieatb:

So pushing is OK?

Secondly, and as I've repeatedly said the police aren't blameless here but if 1000's of fans are leaving it to the last minute to get into the ground and then all decide to push then that's going to create a problem thats going to be pretty hard to solve in a time critical situation.

The infamous gate was opened after a crush at the turnstiles which lead to the crush moving to the fence behind the goal as those let in fans pushed and surged forward. Its hard to see how the police could have done anything.
Maybe you have a suggestion?

In reply to Indy:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, for whatever pitiful reason, you're trolling.

The alternative is very unpalatable.

In reply to Indy:





They could have done what was done on previous occasions by the experienced, competent, diligent police commander.

In reply to Indy:




Why do you think you're 'more right' than the politicians and the police who have said it was wrong to blame the fans?

Putting aside the technicalities of what happened, why do you think you know better than they do, and better than the people who've spent two years looking at all the evidence, too?

I hope it isn't 'Just because'.

In reply to Indy:


Because they're well designed and managed.

In reply to Timmd:

>Just think about how Cameron and other politicians ....... have apologised to the relative of the fans who died about the finger of blame being pointed at the Liverpool Football fans. Do you genuinely think all this would have happened just to make them feel better,

Are you for real?? Making people feel better in order that they vote for you is the essence of democratic politics.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That's a good example of selectively quoting somebody to skew what they've posted.

In reply to stewieatb:


Well it's not so much difficult as wrong, isn't it? No-one's saying the people at the back knew people were dying at the front, but that doesn't mean it's impossible that they acted in ways which caused the disaster.

Question 7 is not so brilliantly worded. Obviously, in some trivial sense the behaviour of the fans caused the disaster - if they hadn't gone to the match it wouldn't have happened. It's difficult therefore to know what question the jury actually answered - did they think responsibility was involved, did they think it was a reference to culpable behaviour and if so how culpable, etc.?

This is particularly true since it's rather difficult to see, as a matter of physics, how a crush arose which the police thought was dangerous in the first place, if no-one was pushing at the back. It's also obvious from the footage we've all seen that the crowd was behaving in a way which certainly isn't usual at any football match I've been to, but was probably a lot more usual at the time, pre-Taylor report and so on. Nothing really turns on it - if unidentified persons were pushing, so what? It doesn't alter the duty of care the authorities owed the dead one iota, but somehow it's become a political trophy to claim that none of the fans ever on the day pushed in any way which they might want to look back on and think maybe they shouldn't have done.

jcm

In reply to Rampikino:

Bang on the mark...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This is the biggest pile of victim blaming bullshit I have ever read.

In reply to stewieatb:


For someone who is demonstrably of below average intelligence? Well, yes, or course.

From other threads Indy appears to be a pretty bigoted piece of work who is also a troll.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Indeed Graeme. To any moron who is trying to argue against the judgment here, remember this, an independent jury looked at the evidence around the event that led to 48 people between the ages of 10 and 19 going to a football match and never coming back.

The fact that these kids never came back was found to be the fault of the police, whose actions could have saved some of them.

David Cameron suggested that those looking for justice should essentially 'do one' in 2011 and is now trying to find political capital by praising them.

He is truly a knob jockey of huge proportions.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Front pages of the Times and the Sun

http://twitter.com/richardmoore73/status/725075879089590275/photo/1

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I think the point being made is more that someone must have been pushing.

jcm

In reply to Rampikino:

Your contribution to this thread has been immense. I hope now that those individuals in the police and any other institutions who bear responsibility for these tragic deaths and the cover up are now prosecuted.

In reply to Tony the Blade:
I must say I find this whole thing very worrying.

The question of responsibility for this tragedy was settled over a decade ago - the families sued; liability was admitted by the relevant bodies in various proportions, and such payments as the law allows for made.

This finding hasn't told us anything we didn't know fifteen years ago, save that in the opinion of seven of this jury, though not the other two, the negligence was really really bad as opposed to just bad.

The continuing legal proceedings have served one legal purpose and one only, and that is to pave the way for someone to get imprisoned for their mistakes on the day. The campaigners have made it perfectly clear that's what they want; we've heard a lot today about how it's time for "accountability". That's why they're so pleased with the verdict of unlawful killing. Apparently the police have already spent £80 million investigating with a view to bringing proceedings.

That's all right and proper - sort of. What worries me is whether, if there are any prosecutions, there's going to be a fair trial.

There have been plenty of signals that the powers that be wanted a certain outcome to this for a long time. The government choosing a panel which was simply hilariously obviously chosen with a particular outcome in mind for its 'independent' review. The decision to spend a fortune on a second inquest. The fact that the inquest was even answering the question about supporters' behaviour suggests to me a political angle - this wasn't in the least necessary as far as reaching a verdict went. The fact that members of both the shadow cabinet and the actual government have leaped forward to comment about how there must now be accountability.

That doesn't sit well with me; everyone deserves a fair trial and once the government starts getting involved experience shows they don't often get one.

Before prosecuting the CPS also have to consider whether it's in the public interest. It goes without saying that if they know what the government wants it's harder to make that decision fairly.

Moreover, it seems to me that there's a grave danger of judging events of 27 years ago by the standards of today. In the 80's people understandably thought of crowd control at football matches in terms of the safety of others rather than the crowd itself. What would, or might, be criminally negligent today wasn't necessarily so then. It's a very hard thing for a jury to do, to travel back 27 years and put itself in the minds of people given the knowledge that existed at the time and the prevailing orthodoxy about what the police ought to be looking out for.

It's also of course very difficult to separate institutional failings from individual ones. And it will be extremely difficult to find a jury who haven't been influenced by the flood of 'justice for the 96' type articles and tweets and whatnot we're about to experience.

In short, conditions are perfect for a miscarriage of justice. No-one will care much except lawyers, but that's rather the point.

jcm

In reply to Tony the Blade:
It also seems to me that this flood of recriminations hasn't really got to the point. There are two things that could usefully come out of this. One is safer football grounds, better crowd control methods, etc. My impression is that great strides have been made in the first direction. I don't think this exact sort of accident is particularly likely to happen again.

The other is some improvement in the culture and procedure that has caused the main problem, the so-called cover-up. I say so-called because nothing in the independent report convinced me that anything much had occurred that doesn't occur in pretty much every contested litigation, a bit more of a PR war than most cases, perhaps, but nothing apart from that.

And that, as I see it, is the at least one big cause of the problem, that the inquest procedure is adversarial. This last inquest has involved pointless rehashing of old sores and all sorts of bitterness, arising out of the police's need (and the other public bodies'), real or perceived, to defend themselves. I don't say I have the solution, and it may be that all sorts of improvements have been made (though it doesn't look like it from the comments I've read on this last outing), but I can't believe that the system we have is the best one. It looks to me as though some sort of inquisitorial system would be worth considering. I'm also not convinced that the prospect of criminal charges hanging over people's heads for 27 years has been fair or has served any useful purpose. If that had been removed, then I think we'd have had a better chance of a more dignified process than what we've seen the last couple of days.

It's instructive of course to compare Aberfan. This might be bad, but that was far worse. If I were in charge I'd make it illegal for anyone to be quoted in the papers about Hillsborough before they'd read at least the wikipedia entry about that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I thought inquests were inquisitorial?

In reply to Chris Harris:



Read the article posted above. Anyone at the back would have been outside the ground on the other side of a tunnel. They could have had no idea what was going on in the pen. If the tunnel door had been closed by the police before the side gate was opened, there would not have been any crush.

In reply to The New NickB:

Can you explain how those who were part of the crowd that did the pushing that crushed fellow supporters are totally free from any blame?

In reply to timjones:


Because they were merely trying to get into a football match. Had the kick off been delayed and announced as such, had the central gate been closed, had the outside gate never have been opened then maybe this wouldn't have happened. The duty of care to everyone in that crowd falls on the crowd management team, in this case the police.

Some of them were trying to get into a football match that they would never return from. I fail to see how you can blame the crowd for doing what a crowd does.

In reply to timjones:

Can you explain why the FA thought it was a good idea for the Liverpool fans to be given the smaller `away' end at Hillsborough rather than the bigger `home' end?

In reply to Ian Jones:


Because Leppings Lane turnstiles provided access to the North and West Stands and to the Leppings Lane terrace they were allocated exclusively to one team (in 1988 and in 1989 to Liverpool fans). Other stands and terraces, and their access points, were allocated to the other team (in both years, Nottingham Forest fans).

From this: http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/main-section/part-2/chapter-3...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm glad that you find it worrying and hilarious. I was going to write a much fuller response but frankly I'm weary and it's not worth the effort.

What is most worrying is that the families of 96 football fans first lost their loved ones to an act of criminal negligence but then have been faced with 27 years of a fight to get even as far as they have - for that criminal negligence to be recognised.

They have been slandered and defamed, they have had the graves of their loved ones spat upon, they have been knocked back time and time again, they have been labelled as a "self-pity city", they have been called liars, whingers and basically told to shut up and move on. They have been treated without respect, given no dignity and had the door slammed in their face time and time again.

Those people have faced a long, institutionalised and systematic campaign to deny them access to justice while those who committed the act of criminal negligence have been allowed to get on with their lives, their careers and to avoid any kind of criminal censure. Many of them have retired on a generous pension and will probably never ever face any kind of proceedings.

I was at Anfield a week ago for the Merseyside Derby. Even there some Everton fans were singing Hillsborough songs. As a football club, as a city, but more importantly as a group of bereaved friends and families, those people have had their faces pushed into the dirt for 27 years, and finally they get to look up with a bit of dignity and recognition.

We should celebrate their tenacity, their determination and their fight for justice as an example of what we, as a people, can do and be at least relieved that our system and our society is not so far gone that justice is out of reach, even after 27 years.

Nobody is pre-judging what comes next. It may be that the CPS is limited in what it is willing to pursue, or what is realistic. As a group of interested parties we have to put our faith in that process and accept it based on the simple fact that at least now a full and frank record of the events of that horrendous day and the shameful cover-up that followed, are now freely available to be used as evidence.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"So called cover-up" - jeez john, what planet are you on? The cover up is now the big issue and it does need to addressed

It's easy to see how Duckenfield froze - he hadn't been promoted beyond his ability, was fresh in the job, hadn't done the prep, wasn't prepared and was completely unable to cope with a rapidly degenerating situation. I'm not convinced that a manslaughter prosecution would achieve anything.

But once he and his colleagues regained their wits, boy did they swing into action. So successfully did they control the narrative that it remains the default for many to this day. The lies started even as people were still lying on the pitch, and continued for many years. Do we know how many testimonies were changed ? What we do know is that it wasn't just the accounts of police officers, but stewards and volunteers as well. And those who stories didn't match the police account were smeared.

It took the independent inquiry, which you rubbished then as you do know, for the police to admit this was the truth. We now know that they used similar tactics after Orgreave. This was not a failure to cope, it was deliberate deception, and for this those responsible must now be held to account.

In reply to timjones:


Because they were acting in a way that is predictable, indeed standard, when a crowd forms without safeguards. If you have never seen it happen then you have led a very sheltered life. 10,000 people were being funnelled through a small number of turnstiles. Even if they had all been stone cold sober and placid it would have required crowd control.

In reply to MG:

Yes I have been in dense crowds. I don't think I've ever believed that being part of a crowd absolves me from responsibility for my actions as a part of that crowd.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I'm intrigued : is it normal for coroners to test the bodies of 10 year old children for alcohol in order to try and assert that the victims were drunk ?

Or for PCs told be told to re-write their accounts of event on plain paper ?

Or for CID to interview victims relatives next to their bodies ?

If so, can you let us have some examples ?

In reply to Ian Jones:

Why do you think that this decision absolves the fans from all responsibility?

In reply to timjones:

have you ever been to a football match ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The fact that something is predictable is not an excuse that can be used to absolve people from responsibility for their actions.

It's predictable that motorists will speed, it's predictable that young men will fight after a few beers. That doesn't absolve them from responsibility for the results of their actions.

In reply to lummox:


Do we accept different standards of behaviour at football matches?

In reply to timjones:

have you ever been in a crowd at a football match ?

In reply to Tony the Blade:



If I'm late for a meeting and cause an accident in my rush to get there. Should I acknowledge my responsibility or blame the organiser of the meeting for not rescheduling it? I would only be doing what people do!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm genuinely baffled by your views.

There are 3 charges that need looking at - manslaughter, perverting the course of justice and perjury.

You seem very averse to the first, but surely even you would agree that the second two appear to have taken place and need investigating to provide confidence in organisations of law and punish offenders IF they are proven?

Its one of the reasons that the whole plebgate scandal spun out of control when police officers were found to have emailed pretending to be a passing member of the public.

In reply to lummox:

Do we accept different standards of behaviour at football matches to other events?

It's clear that the police, football clubs and others made mistakes but at the end of the day the fans did the crushing.

In reply to timjones:

I'm sorry you don't believe in the integrity of the jury.

In reply to timjones:

Once again:

1. What evidence do you have that was not seen at the 2 year inquest?

2. Why haven't you shared that evidence with the inquest?

Or are you just heading back down the "drunken ticketless fans" line yet again.

Why not just come out and say it?

In reply to timjones:

The police perverted the course of justice.

Your weasel words are contemptible.

In reply to timjones:

The police perverted the course of justice.

Your weasel words are contemptible.

In reply to lummox:



Have I in any way defended the actions of the police in the aftermath of the tragedy?

What happens after an event should not absolve people from responsibility for their actions in the run up to the event.

I'm afraid that I think the the finding the the fans were blameless looks really bizarre.

In reply to timjones:

You said " the police made mistakes. "

The only mistake they made was in having some members with the integrity to at least admit they perverted the course of justice.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't believe in the integrity of the jury.

Unless you are trolling, why keep repeating yourself ?

In reply to Rampikino:







Maybe I'm not saying it because that isn't the basis for my thoughts. It's irrelevant whether the fans were drunk or ticketless.

Regardless of what other people have said in the past and the mistakes that were made by the police and the organisers of the match it seems bizarre to be bombarded with news stories proclaiming that the people that did the pushing are blameless. It defies logic and common sense.

In reply to lummox:



A jury can have integrity and make a mistake.

Have you ever done jury service?

Both sides of the case will make highly eloquent presentations to try and influence the decision that the jury reach. Do you honestly believe that even the most honest and upright of juries will always get it right?

In reply to timjones:

I have done jury service. Not for a two year case though.

In the interest of answering direct questions that you've so far avoided. Have you ever been to a football match ?

In reply to lummox:


And do you believe that even the best jury can always get it right?


No, I've never been to a football match. I have been to other large events. Can you explain the relevance of the question? Do you think that we should accept different standards of behaviour from football crowds?

In reply to timjones:
So you have absolutely no frame of reference for this type of situation, even less for the prevailing conditions in grounds at that time ?

See, it wasn't that difficult was it ?

In reply to timjones:

Not being an expert on crowd dynamics or having sat through two years of evidence, not definitively no. However, the article of Haj crushing posted further up this thread gives us a pretty good clue.

Obviously when you say pushing, you mean walking towards the gate that had been opened by the Police to allow them to enter the Stadium.

In reply to timjones:


No but the point is you may not in fact be taking any actions as an individual beyond trying to stand up yet still be pushing the person in front of you. I suspect you haven't actually experienced this if you don't get what I am saying.

In reply to lummox:


I don't believe that there is any situation that can entirely excuse the actions of a crowd that has crushed some of it's members to death. Or that they should be excused for doing so


No it's not difficult to answer a question. It's no more difficult than it is to dismiss someone elses values because they don't match your lazy criteria.

It is beyond belief that a crowd can be excused for killing some of it's members just because they were at a football match.

In reply to timjones:


You do realise there is an area of academic research and also architect design dedicated to looking at crowds, whether football or otherwise, and trying to design the area to safely funnel them?
Any time you have a large crowd looking to get into a venue you have the potential for problems. Whether that is football, religious pilgrims or electronic dance fans.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Surely this has been the real issue ever since the Taylor report made clear that responsibility for the deaths lay with the police and other relevant authorities, not with the fans? What we have learnt since then is the process by which the police created a false narrative, but not much about the events of the day.

I am unclear as to why, on that basis, the conflicting versions of the Taylor report and the police couldn't have led straight to a prosecution for perverting the course of justice of the police without having a two year inquest to confirm the findings of the Taylor report.

In reply to timjones:


Obviously pressure does not build up in a crowd if nobody is "pushing" in the sense that they are applying force to other people and this must be instigated by somebody(s). I am sure that there is a proper theory and science of crowd "fluid dynamics" done by serious researchers and I hope I can presume that they gave evidence. If the conclusion that all members of the crowd are totally blameless is correct, then I assume that the evidence they gave is that apparently harmless and "natural" jostling in one place by the instigators can lead to fatal pressure in another. If in fact the instigators were actually shoving without being shoved themselves then clearly they are not entirely blameless.

In reply to timjones:


Again and again you have lazily ignored the evidence presented to the jury.



You don't believe that the evidence presented was rigorously investigated ?

Why do you find it impossible to believe that a jury has deliberated over tens of thousands of pieces of evidence over a two year period and reached a decision you find unpalatable?

In reply to MG:


Yes I have experienced it, choosing to enter such a crowd and become part of the problem is a personal decision and I don't see why those who made that decision should be exempted from all responsibility.

How many other examples are there where the excuse "I didn't mean to do it" excuses the killing of another person.

Punishment would be pointless in this instance but the excuse that it's OK because they were part of a crowd leaves me feeling really uneasy. What else might a crowd be allowed to get away with?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
You are talking about prosecuting individuals or organisations for negligence or worse still manslaughter.

I think the relatives of the victims, and the public would be hoping, are looking for a modicum of justice( an acknowledgement that mistakes were made that at the very least could have contributed to those 96 deaths or exacerbated it),not perfection but certainly not a travesty as has been laid bare for all to see now.

Ask yourself this:- Has anyone actually lost their job over this?- these 96 lives.

I think you know the answer to that.So all this talk about manslaughter or negligence is meaningless and hot air posturing.The verdict was unlawful killing.

And sounds like you are wrong.It has taken 27 years for this to come out and at least enter the public domain.

I think if the copper turned up at my door and said ' well you know he Was pushing' I would'nt be happy, knowing the wealth of evidence we have now..It was considered there was no evidence the crowds were pushing or that there were ticketless drunk spectators in the crowd..These sound like porkies the police made up in order to deflect the blame away from themselves.They made a mess of it and then they covered it up for 27 years.

Yes of course juries can get it spectacularly wrong, wrong being a pretty subjective thing,But I think they got it bang on and they got it wrong in the past where the jury it was said lacked the courage and bravery to return an unlawful killing verdict.

Now it is 7-2.They are delighted, and so am I.

Should they be prosecuted? Well now you have brought it up- you mean held accountable why yes of course John, just like everyone else..They are not immune or certainly should not be immune..

In reply to KevinD:



That's quite correct and there is some interesting evidence that suggests that this was understood way back in Roman times.

Does that mean that the crowds are blame free and that only those that have the thankless task of trying to control them are accountable for such tragedies?

In reply to timjones:

It's not a question of "I" didn't mean to do it but one of the "the crowd" didn't mean to. Unless you are saying joining a crowd makes you culpable for accidents resulting from the interaction of every member of it, I don't really follow you. Are you really saying those in the crush in Mecca recently were also at fault?

In reply to timjones:
Read this http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/hajj-crush-how-crowd-disasters...

And more importantly look at this http://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2015/10/hajj_risk-zip/giv-3111...

Then take a long hard look in the mirror.

In reply to timjones:



Your moral compass is so bizarrely skewed that, presumably, you think the Herald of Free Enterprise deaths were caused by the panic of people leaving the sinking ship and climbing over one another rather than the corporate manslaughter of P&O ferries (which it was).

Can you not separate normal crowd behaviour from the responsibility of those in charge?

In reply to timjones:

Bad crowd management and crowd husbandry and then a denial of this to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever.

I believe the courts later ruled there was no evidence ( whatsoever) the crowds were pushing at all or that there were drunk ticketless fans, or that fans gave unauthorised access etc or that they were in any way responsible.These were lies made up from somewhere.... and probably the police made them up,going by the fact that their statements were at odds to other witness accounts and with each other.

In reply to timjones:


It depends on the situation doesnt it?
Lets takes a few random scenarios.
Large crowd in an open space being funnelled towards two tunnels each with a lockable gate at the far end.
Situation 1:
Both tunnels are open but then someone right at the back of the crowd sets off some explosives. people panic and crush occurs. Do you blame the crowd as a whole or just the someone at the back?
Situation 2:
Crowd is happily moving along but then both tunnel gates are locked. No notification is given of this and the crowd continues to move towards the entrances. Are the crowd to blame?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Thanks for that. Fascinating and illuminating. I hope timjones has read it.

In reply to timjones:


What a ridiculous comparison. If there were thousands going to the meeting, and you were all heading down a narrow country lane to get there then there would be a duty on the organisers to manage the traffic flow. You having an accident en route has bugger all to do with the meeting.

You really don't get it do you? Are you stating, contrary to the findings in this case following two years of listening to the facts, are you actually saying that they got it wrong and that they should have come to you for your 2pworth? Really?

In reply to The New NickB:



Can you push a person without making physical contact with them?

In reply to timjones:


In what way can you attach blame to people at the back of the tunnel leading into pens 3 and 4, when they would have no knowledge of what the situation was at the front of the pens, some distance away and not in line of sight? The fans at the back were doing what any fans would do - make their way as directed. Given what they knew, what would you have expected to do?

In reply to timjones:


I suspect something like this goes on in crowds.
https://www.insidescience.org/content/dominoes-more-powerful-you-think/924

In reply to MG:


I'm saying that I think a crowd is collectively responsible for it's actions.

Assume that this case results in manslaughter charges. Who in their right mind would accept the risk accepting a role that involved attempting to control crowds if the crowd is exempted from responsibility for it's collective actions but those "in charge" are liable to be charged with manslaughter for any mistakes that they make?

In reply to timjones:

I'm embarrassed for you.

In reply to Babika:


An absurd presumption on your behalf. There is a clear difference between the risk of drowning and the risk of being late for a sporting event.


Why would anyone accept the risk of taking charge of crowd control at events if they risk being charged with manslaughter for any mistakes that they make whilst the crowd is held to be blameless?

In reply to lummox:


Maybe you should be embarassed for yourself if you are so unable to accept other peoples opinions.

In reply to timjones:

Who in their right mind would accept the risk accepting a role that involved attempting to control crowds if the crowd is exempted from responsibility for it's collective actions but those "in charge" are liable to be charged with manslaughter for any mistakes that they make?

You seem to be jumping from this crowd isn't to blame, to no crowd can ever be blamed, which is nonsense.. Assuming those in charge are competent and the facilities appropriate, I don't see why they would not take the job. As above, I do think, the wider football culture of the time (and by extension a lot of fans*) carries a lot of blame. This led to the cages, heavy-handedness, etc, without which the facilities would have "tolerated" mistakes by the police much better.

*for the super-sensitive, no that is not a disguised dig at the victims, or fans on the day.

In reply to Tony the Blade:



No. I'm saying that I think they were probably wrong in just one of many judgements that they made. That a crowd should hold some collective responsibility for it's actions and share some responsibility for the results of those actions.

In reply to timjones:


I am also embarassed for you. Please stop. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are just making yourself look very silly. Read some of the links others have recently posted. But, please, just stop.

In reply to timjones:


Have you ever been in large crowd?

In reply to timjones:
I'm still not sure whether you are just a perverse troll or a contrarian by nature but your refusal to acknowledge the reams of evidence people have tried to present to you means there is absolutely no point in engaging with you any further.

Good luck on that flat earth.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Why? It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with other people's findings. Some at the inquest did, after all. It's also perfectly reasonable to discuss where blame might lie in the behaviour of a crowd. I happen to disagree with him, but there is nothing embarrassing about the comments.

In reply to MG:

As above, I do think, the wider football culture of the time (and by extension a lot of fans*) carries a lot of blame.


What on earth does this mean? What is the relevance? That the police couldn’t reasonably be expected to factor in cages, pens, fences, gates etc when considering their crowd control strategies?
This brings us no more insight than timjones's vacuous blatherings.

In reply to MG:


I disagree.

In reply to mac fae stirling:



It means those things were inherently dangerous and likely to lead to crushes, and in fact had on several previous occasions prior to Hillsborough. That is why they are no longer used. Why were they there? Because of the appalling behaviour of football fans on many occasions from the 1960s onwards.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes.

Can you push a person without making physical contact with them?

In reply to timjones:


And I disagree, we appear to have reached an impasse.

In reply to MG:


Indeed, thus making the gross negligence of those charged with duties of crowd safety and control at Hillsborough on the day all the more glaring.

In reply to timjones:


Have you read any of the articles I linked to?

In reply to timjones:


I'm going to say yes to that. Proximity can be enough to make someone move (think standing on a commuter train, for example). This can propagate in a crowd. The initial "push" might well not involve contact.

In reply to timjones:

In which case, I find your question utterly bizarre.


Have you ever managed to be in a large crowd without making physical contact with other people.

In reply to timjones:



If you nudge the first domino in a line of dominoes, this then falls onto the next one enforcing forward motion onto the next one, enforcing forward motion onto the next one, enforcing forward motion onto the next one, enforcing forward motion onto the next one...

Yes physical contact, fault for pushing? None

In reply to mac fae stirling:


I'm not sure I agree but anyway you now think my comment does give some "insight", in contrast to your earlier post?

In reply to Tony the Blade:


There is nothing wrong with an impasse as long as it is reached politely.

In reply to timjones:


I forgive you for being wrong

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes I have read it.

I'm not sure that it answers my fundamental question of whether it can ever be right to say that a crowd bears no responsibility for it's collective actions?

In reply to Tony the Blade:


I'll forgive you for being wrong.....

or maybe for being right

I just don't think there are any easy answers when things go wrong in crowd situations. I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone punished too harshly for mistakes made whilst tasked with trying to control a crowd.

In reply to timjones:


Talking about a "crowd bearing responsibility" seems nonsensical to me. I think what you should be asking is whether any individual(s) can bear responsibilty for a crowd's collective actions*, and, if so, do any individuals in this case - the jury, having heard the evidence, thought not.

*I think that, clearly, they would if, say, a group charged forward waving machetes, but the article is saying that in almost all these crowd disasters, including Hillsborough, they do not.

In reply to timjones:

Your trying to blame snowflakes for avalanches there pal.

If you've read the links and still think that somehow those at the back were responsible for the deaths and injuries at the front, out of sight, then you're a lost cause and I admit defeat.

In reply to timjones:


You don't understand crowd dynamics do you? They can these days be modelled well by a computer because each individual's behaviour can be reduced to relatively simple rules.

Why can simple rules describe the members of the crowd? Because the physical pressure, the inability to breathe, the fear, all the contributing factors mean that survival instincts inexorably take over. Unfortunately survival instincts are often the worst thing someone could do.

Under those circumstances "I didn't mean to do it" is not correct. It is literally "I had no choice but to do it." I avoid crowds and have never been in a stampede, but I have been in a life/death situation where instinct takes over 100% and it would be an asinine legal system indeed that didn't recognise this aspect of humans.

In reply to timjones:

>. I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone punished too harshly for mistakes made whilst tasked with trying to control a crowd.


How about punishment for perverting the course of justice and perjury? How do you feel about punishment for that?

In reply to timjones:
I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone punished too harshly for mistakes made whilst tasked with trying to control a crowd.

If they had held their hands up rightaway and saved years and millions and not prolonged heartache for relatives, and admitted their mistakes, then I might have had some sympathy with that view .

As it is , I'm for hitting them with every law that they swore to uphold when they joined.

There were of course ordinary PC's ordered to stand there in a line rather than help, I don't blame them, I'm sure many police were gutted to be asked to stand there when they could see that people were dying , and the only people helping were the fans themselves.

In reply to Jim C:

Great, strong statements and determinations from both Teresa May and Andy Burnham in H of C right now.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Why do you feel the need to diminish Hillsborough by comparison to Aberfan? Both terrible disasters that could and should have been prevented, warnings were ignored. And yes Aberfan had the higher death toll (144) and a devastating effect on a smaller community. It happened before I was born, but my parents talked about it, and I was aware of it from an early age. It was a JFK moment for them, just as Hillsborough was for me.

But here's what didn't happen after Aberfan. No one blamed the children or the teachers - after all if they'd stayed at home they wouldn't have died. No one blamed the parents - most of whom would have been miners - if they hadn't dug the coal, they wouldn't be a slag heap. No one invented stories about theft from the bodies or attacks on the police. And there was no Boris Johnson or Bernard Ingham making comments on the whinging welsh. Yes it took time for the NCB to accept it was at fault, but just one year, not 27.

So John, why the comparison ?

In reply to Jim C:

If I am correct, the police chief for SY at the time, Wright died a few years ago( the obvious one for prosecution). Dukinfield ( the match commander)has been unable to work since 1991 due to ptsd and was retired on medical grounds anyway( please correct me if I am wrong).So whether its strong enough to go for a prosecution there I am not sure.

In all honesty I am not sure that there is anybody else they can prosecute.

But other posters will have a better view on this than me.

In reply to Tony the Blade:



Yes. Something that I don't think's been mentioned in this thread is the force of gravity. That is to say, what happens once a crowd loses its balance in pens that are gently inclined.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Not that it detracts from your point, but re. the 2004 article from the Spectator that has been doing the rounds, I gather that although Johnson was Editor of the Spectator at the time, the Editorial article was written by Simon Heffer (another sh1tebag of the highest order).

In reply to neilh:

There was a private prosecution against DD for manslaughter, the jury failed to reach a decision so he could be subject to a retrial. Not sure whether there is new evidence but the real question is whether it would be in the public interest.

However there is the question of perversion of justice - a much stronger case I believe, and one which I think would be more in the public interest. We know crowd management has improved significantly, as has stadium design, but have attitudes within the police changed ? And how many involved in the cover-up are still employed, or receiving their nice pensions ?

In reply to timjones:

I remember reading up and being very interested in the initial research into crowd movement after the events above.

My take on this is if I designed a wide footbridge (wider than needed) and say there was a fireworks display or similar and people filled the bridge to watch which caused it to collapse would you blame the crowd, or is the duty of care with the bridge designer or the person who allowed people to fill the bridge and watch the display when the bridge was not designed for this sort of load?

I was on Oxford Street the weekend before Christmas once (~300,000 people on the streets apparently, never again) , I found myself wedged in a crowd and went on a mystery tour round a few shops and streets before escaping into a subway. There was no pushing just shoulder to shoulder shuffling in the only direction possible.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to timjones:




For on the spot decisions.. No. For the lies? Yes.

In reply to Toby_W:

In the surge at Glastonbury I mentioned up thread, my feet left the ground at one point and I just floated this way and that, bracing my across my chest to allow myself to breathe. The only feeling I can really equate it to is like being picked up by a wave - you have absolutely no say in where you're going. Really scary.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

As per the recommendations of the Final Taylor report (1989 I think), I believe that the removal of standing and the introduction of all seater stadiums was introduced as a result of this tragedy, which clearly helps in preventing this uncontrolled "crowd " movement .

In reply to timjones:
.
.
.

Ok then, why do you find it incredible that the fans bear no responsibility? I find it quite startling that after all this there are some who, in the face of overwhelming and convincing evidence to the contrary, still play the it was the crowd's fault, albeit in part in your case.

Are you privy to information the inquiry(ies) did not have?

It seems upon reading the inquest details that the Leppings Lane stand was overcrowded, that fans were channeled into a section of the ground that was wholly inadequate and that the combination of the late kick off, the police control procedures and the physical layout of the ground and Leppings tunnel contributed to the tragedy.

Add to that how crowds work and flow, which is a pretty well researched phenomenon, and a crowd which was unaware of what was transpiring in the ground.

I work with stadium design teams regularly and speak to the architects and engineers and it's fascinating how even the most benign, slow moving crowd can become a single flowing entity, with no ill intent or malice aforethought. Their job is to apply the flow dynamics to the design, and remove any external factors such as choke points, removing kiosks that create blockage areas etc in order to avoid exactly what happened at Hillsborough.