UKC

Good grief - I've just noticed who the government appointed to chair the Hillsborough review panel - Phil Scraton.

Now I haven't followed his career that much since about 1985, but if the government appointed a left-leaning, Liverpudlian, academic lawyer with a long history of publications criticising the role of the police in many areas, I think it's probably fair to conclude that they wanted the result they got. Interesting. I'd somehow imagined the result embarrassed the government, but I guess they wanted it - to give Cameron the chance to look all sincere, maybe.

Funny, after all the moaning the Hillsborough crowd did about LJ Stuart-Smith being appointed before.

I've also now read the section on the police 'doctoring' statements, which as I had expected was utter tripe. The statements weren't 'doctored' at all; they were amended before being signed in precisely the way all solicitors amend draft statements that are going to be used in any proceedings where their clients' interests are concerned. How anyone with any knowledge of the way the world works could possibly have expected anything else is beyond me; it didn't take any kind of review to tell us that. The way the press have reported that part of the report is simply ludicrous; I know by my time of life I should be used to it, but the dishonesty of the press and the gullibility of the public in this sort of matter really never does cease to amaze me.

What does amaze me is that the first drafts still existed. If that's the best our police and their lawyers can do by way of a cover-up they need to give it a lot more practice.

I also note from this section that contrary to the press' spinning of the report to the effect that it effectively canonised the whole Liverpool crowd, plenty of the police officers gave evidence about members of the crowd being drunk and/or abusive.

And again frankly who could ever have expected anything else? It was a football crowd, and anyone who's ever been in one of those knows that they're impatient, unpredictable things, that some people in them have usually had a drink and that they're usually pretty keen to get in and see the game if they're still outside, for whatever reason, just before kick-off. The determination of the Hillsborough industry to establish that this crowd was the one-in-a-billion football crowd composed entirely of saints has always baffled me, for two reasons, first of all because it was so damaging to their case since it made them look like idiots, and secondly because it was entirely irrelevant - crowds are like that; it doesn't mean their members aren't entitled to have their interests and safety properly considered by the authorities.

Anyway, the press seem to be well and truly onside. I haven't seen a single article making any kind of sensible and balanced comment. All this stuff about how shocking it was the ground didn't have a recent safety certificate and how could the FA choose a ground that didn't have one, for instance. I'm quite sure that it wasn't any kind of statutory requirement for the ground to have one, and I'd quite like to know how many of the potential grounds the FA could have chosen. It would be instructive if the answer were (as I suspect), zero (did Anfield, I wonder?!). But the press don't seem very interested in that kind of question.

It will be interesting from a litigator's point of view to see the fallout, if any. I will venture to predict that no successful prosecution or civil case will be brought.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

An interesting post - thank you John. Let's see what transpires. I've not looked at this in any depth, let alone the depth you've delved into, but I too, in a broad-brush way, always questioned the wisdom of claiming that the fans were all angelic and beyond reproach.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm not entirely sure what "new" evidence they have brought to light that wasn't already covered in the previous enquiries - the altered statements and all.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Num Num has some sympathy with your viewpoint on this, but doesn't necessarily agree that those that died conformed with your rather general view of the 1980's football fan. Num Num has always been of the view that the tragedy that unfolded was a direct result of the fencing erected in front of the terraces, again a result of a generalised, but not wholly unfair judgement on the behavior of the football fan of those times. If Num Num were to give an opinion, he would say that culpability lay as much with general crowd behavior of the day as it did with the poor response of the police. Any cover up is as much flim flam as is the suggestion that this or any other crowd were saints. But the real losers, those that lost their lives, may well have been total innocents of any general retrospective viewpoint, and therefore deserve at the very least an acknowledgement that they were disgracefully treated by the authorities and the media of the day.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
"Good grief - I've just noticed who the government appointed to chair the Hillsborough review panel - Phil Scraton"

He was on the panel but I don't think he "chaired " it?

In reply to Padraig:

I thought it was the Bishop of Liverpool. Was it not?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The recent independent panel report quotes the Taylor Interim Report, August 1989

2.12.139 He 'was satisfied on the evidence, however, that the great majority were not drunk or even the worse for drink'. It was his view that 'some officers, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, over-estimated the drunken element in the crowd'.

Was Taylor also a leftie too?

A one-in-a-billion crowd of saints is equally unlikely as the one-in-a-billion crowd of sinners of some portrayals.

In reply to Padraig:

Yes, sorry, you're right. I was misled by the tone of some publicity material for his present lecture tour boasting about the result.

jcm

In reply to elsewhere:

>Was Taylor also a leftie too?

As it happens he was, certainly, by the standards of judges, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing.

>A one-in-a-billion crowd of saints is equally unlikely as the one-in-a-billion crowd of sinners of some portrayals.

Oh, I quite agree. My point really was that, as you and off-duty both suggest, this report doesn't tell us anything on that front that hasn't been well-known for some years for anyone with ears to hear, and which wasn't anyway overwhelmingly likely. What we're presently seeing is the media coming up with a different narrative to have fun with (and one equally removed from the truth as their '89 version), rather than any kind of revelation of the Truth. And what was interesting me, really, was that the government had constructed and led that narrative to a certain extent just as it did in 1989 ff. I was wondering what was in it for Cameron et al. Maybe it was just new-boy enthusiasm, I guess.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It has been heavily reported in the press that 164 statements were changed (see 'Judges rule's')
These include 33 statements removing criticism of the Liverpool fans.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you saying that the choice of the panel members was deliberate in attempting to steer the outcome?

In reply to dissonance:

Well, yes, of course. You surely don't imagine these choices are random, do you, or, even worse, based on some relevant qualifications?!

Maybe you're too young to have seen Yes Minister, that well-known documentary about the civil service.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
All food for thought, John. Thanks for this.

Sx

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

At the risk of being accused of tinfoil hatted conspiracy, the Govt are currently involved in a backdoor reform of the police and a change to their pay, pensions and conditions. The dispute is bubbling along and likely to escalate.

Every opportunity to put the boot in to police practices or behaviour will assist Cameron and the Govt in that dispute.
I can't see how the Bishop of Liverpool was ever likely to place any blame on the people of Liverpool for anything, ever.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I haven't got much time for Dave but you can't blame him for the make-up of the panel. They were appointed by Gordo and his boys.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Were they? That explains a lot. Kind of a timebomb.

I thought that might have been the explanation, actually, but I couldn't be bothered to do more than thirty seconds googling. Thanks.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>I can't see how the Bishop of Liverpool was ever likely to place any blame on the people of Liverpool for anything, ever.

Yes, that is rather a comical appointment, isn't it? Hardly taking much trouble to conceal what whoever appointed the panel was after.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I could be wrong but I thought the panel was actually set up to manage the release of all the undisclosed material rather than directed to come to any conclusions about anything.

In reply to off-duty:

"He was the first on the list when the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went about establishing the nine-strong Hillsborough Independent Panel - for which the Labour MP Andy Burnham paved the way in 2009. A professor of criminology and criminal justice at Queen’s University, Belfast , he was reluctant to lead the Panel and the Bishop of Liverpool James Jones’ role became the necessary figurehead. But Scraton was the force behind the 398-page report published last week, unanimously agreed by the others."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-book-that-foretold-truth...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

johncoxmysteriously: You haven't got a clue what you're talking about and you should show a bit of respect for the 96 innocent victims of this disaster as well as their friends and loved ones.

Anybody who went to football matches and stood on the terraces in the 80's will tell you that Hillsborough had been coming for years. It happened as a direct result of the way football supporters were treated by the government and the police. At that time football fans were very much the enemy within as far as the authorities were concerned and we were constantly opressed, intimidated and brutalised by the police just for going to games.

Just to answer two points in your posting:

"All this stuff about how shocking it was the ground didn't have a recent safety certificate and how could the FA choose a ground that didn't have one, for instance. I'm quite sure that it wasn't any kind of statutory requirement for the ground to have one"

It obvously wasn't a requirement that the venues for FA Cup semi finals should have a safety certificate. However it was a specific FA requirement that any such venue had a perimeter fence. How many lives could have been saved I wonder had there been no fence at Hillsborough?

"It was a football crowd, and anyone who's ever been in one of those knows that they're impatient, unpredictable things, that some people in them have usually had a drink and that they're usually pretty keen to get in and see the game if they're still outside, for whatever reason, just before kick-off"

If there was a build up of fans outside the ground just before the kick off, why did the police not simply delay the kick off? This is what they did only two years previously at the very same ground before the Leeds v Coventry semi final when there was a build up of Leeds fans at the same end of the ground where the disaster happened.

It's about time we had the truth about Hillsborough. At the time there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts and blame the innocent victims of the disaster. This cover up was orchestrated at the highest level by the right wing media, the police and the Tory regime who at the time, let's not forget, owed a huge debt of gratitude to the South Yorkshire Police.

In reply to off-duty:

you can't see how or understand quite a few things, no wonder the force has lost a lot of respect from politiciansand civilians.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy: Oh come on! Why were there fences etc. Due to fans' behaviour previously. Trying to paint football and fans at the time as innocent doesn't work.

In reply to gd303uk:

Perhaps you could actually present an argument?
Failing that the only thing your post suggests is that you don't like me for unspecified reason, and because you don't like me you don't like any police officers.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy: 'you should show a bit of respect for the 96 innocent victims of this disaster as well as their friends and loved ones.'

IIRC quite a lot of people - including Brian Clough et al - have always had the greatest respect for the victims, not least because the victims were innocent, they were first in the ground and therefore closest to the barricades. That doesn't exclude the probability that the fans arriving late - many having drink taken - were the cause of the crush. Yes the FA shouldn't have allowed the match, yes the police should have handled it better, but no it wasn't the police or the FA who crushed the fans against the barricades.

In reply to Kipper:

Yes. A fine example of the sort of dishonest drivel I'm talking about. Scraton must surely know how witness statements get produced (he's never been in practice, I don't think, but even an academic lawyer must have some idea), and yet he allows this sort of article to appear.

I hadn't realised he'd actually already published a book called 'Hillsborough; The Truth' long before this report. Wonderful that the panel called itself the Hillsborough Independent Panel, isn't it?!

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Shocking. Ignorant. Shameful.
I guess you don't joke when you describe yourself as a "traditionalist bigot".

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

>You haven't got a clue what you're talking about

Oh, but I do. Modesty aside, I suspect I have as good an idea of what I'm principally talking about, (that is how witness statements are invariably produced in civil litigation and what 'doctoring' them would and would not imply) as anyone else on this forum, or indeed the panel. And I can assure you that when I walk into court on Monday there will be ten or so trials taking place in the building, in every one there will be witness statements before the court, and in every case there will have existed previous drafts which put the case of the party making them in a less favourable light, just as there were in this case. That's the game.

As to your other points, it's easy to see why the FA were concerned with preventing pitch invasions rather than an unimaginable and unprecedented disaster which no-one was thinking about, and it's also easy to see why the police don't lightly delay the kick-off of games. It may be that both of those decisions were mistakes, but they certainly aren't going to found any kind of corporate manslaughter charges, as Charlie Falconer was laughably calling for the other day (have the families really engaged him?! A tell tale sign if so, he having long since passed over from the practice of law into that of public relations). As I said, I rather doubt if they're even going to found negligence cases, especially since I should have thought the limitation period expired really quite some years ago.

I haven't read the relevant part of the report (sorry, only so much virtuous righteousness I can take) - is there any evidence presented in it of a cover-up 'orchestrated by the Tory regime'?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Num Num is beginning to wonder if there is some kind of agenda in the skill in which you are trying to steer the outcome of your thread. It is a well known fact that all politicians do sincerity in the wake of grave judgements and is something not just special to Cameron and his circle, sincerity not dissimilar to the tears cried on the streets for Kim Jong Il.
Is this the only point you are trying to make? If so, it seems to Num Num to be an unnecessarily trivial one.

In reply to birdie num num:

Well, I was mainly interested in how Dave came to appoint a panel whose makeup made the result of whose deliberations so inevitable and, on the face of it, not helpful to him. It seems that the obvious answer is the correct one - viz, on the contrary it was a little gift left behind for him by the outgoing Labour administration.

As to the rest, I'm not sure about an agenda. There are various other points which interest me mainly from a professional point of view. And I'm also always interested in the incredible dishonesty of the media, and the way that once they have decided that the story is such-and-such, all facts which don't point to such-and-such are totally ignored (and indeed 'facts' which would point to such-and-such simply ruthlessly invented).

In its way, indeed, what we are seeing now in the press is exactly the same, albeit in the opposite direction, as in 1989 ff. It's not so much dishonesty, even, as amorality - the notion that it might be nice to report the actual truth simply doesn't occur to these people.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Num Num is aware of your interest and has read your previous threads on the subject. Perhaps the latest panel was chosen for it's guarantee to mollify the victim's families thirst for redress and in an attempt to get some closure on the affair. As for the truth, well, there are probably a collection of truths that added up to a complicated mix that resulted in tragedy. One is plain to see however, the spectacle of folk being crushed against a fence while others look on and no real urgency to get cutting equipment to relieve the pressure.

In reply to birdie num num:

>and no real urgency to get cutting equipment to relieve the pressure.

Is that what happened in the end? I'm surprised it was either possible to get such equipment quickly enough or necessary. I thought there was in the end some kind of gate that could be opened to let people out, and that was what was eventually belatedly done. Not that I've paid much attention to that sort of aspect.

jcm

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

>you should show a bit of respect for the 96 innocent victims of this disaster as well as their friends and loved ones.

Ach, c'mon. The Hillsborough industry hasn't been about respect for the dead for a long time. It was only really ever about the living - it was the living who were said to have arrived late and ticketless, pushed drunkenly, robbed the dead, etc. And for a long time now it's been about the politics as much as anything - wicked police, wicked Thatcher, wicked Murdoch, etc. Fashions have changed to permit that view to become the orthodoxy, that's all. As NumNum says, the truth of what happened is complex and at the same time fairly simple - the simple version being that mistakes were made by a number of people out of ignorance rather than malice, none of which would have been very important by themselves, the crowd did what crowds do, what happened happened, and the authorities reacted in the way insured public bodies threatened with litigation and adverse publicity always do. There's plenty of lessons to be learned in the detail, but really that's it.

A true show of respect for the dead would be for the relatives to say, 'OK, that's enough. What happened was a horrible accident and no seeking for retribution will change that. The inappropriate public comment after the accident has been long since discredited and apologised for, and the best memorial to our loved ones is the fact that lessons were learned and that grounds are much safer now.' Not to instruct Charlie F to stand up and spout bollocks to the press about corporate manslaughter charges.

But then, it's long since gone beyond the relatives, and it's true that the likes of Messrs Doncaster and Postlethwaite are pretty tiresome, to say nothing of the woman who sent me hate mail after I started a thread suggesting that Andy Burnham was a little OTT in declaring Hillsborough the greatest injustice of a century which also contained among other things the Holocaust. Never was there a truer jibe than BJ's famous 'wallowing in victimhood' (it wasn't even his, actually, but still) - no wonder he had to go up there and apologise for it.

It's funny; Liverpool have always been my second favourite club after my own, I'm a Labour supporter who disliked Thatcher plenty enough at the time, and no-one could despise the Sun more than me. And I would say I'm quite a stickler for correct behaviour as a rule - yet still, if I were a Manchester United supporter tomorrow I'd be very tempted to give 'Where's your famous Munich song?' an airing, if only for the pleasure of seeing Gary Lineker looking solemn on MOTD2 (actually I suppose it'll be Colin Murray, but anyway).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Am sure a civil case will be brought eventually, the points you have raised about the crowd being drunk and or abusive are totally irrlevant, what would you gage as a reaction to the 'feeling' of being crushed?

Anyone who attended football matches in the 1980s will tell you, when a goal was scored you were pushed forward with the surge of the crowd. I look back and think how lucky am I? I was fourteen when I attended Goodison Park, am an Everton supporter my brother was a Liverpool fan.

The ambulances were held back by the authorites from doing their job, they were outside trying to get in. The crowd were on the terraces trying to get on the pitch, as more fans were trying to get in. The safety of the fans should of been paramount from the beginning, that certainly is a poor decision on behalf of the Football Association on deciding the venue for such a tie, that poor decision was ill fated.

Speaking as a Liverpudlian who speaks with an accent exceedingly rare, am sure that whatever barrier holds us back so to speak, we will eventually break through to a conclusive decision.

In reply to halo:

Civil cases have already been brought and payouts made.

The issue about ambulances being held off the pitch was addressed and found not to be true.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Out of curiosity John who is your 'favourite' club, Labour?

In reply to off-duty: What about the statement from the still living ambulance driver?

In reply to off-duty:

Yes, that's true of course; I should have said 'new' cases.

Here's the relevant bit of the report:

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/main-section/part-2/chapter-4...

I haven't been able to find where the media's figure of 41 lives which might have been saved comes from - this page would rather suggest that the panel didn't care to put a number on it.

jcm

In reply to halo:

Para 2.4.124 explains the circumstances why only one ambulance went on the pitch.

In reply to halo:

>the points you have raised about the crowd being drunk and or abusive are totally irrlevant,

Oh, indeed. I was just pointing out that there was plenty of evidence that the crowd was behaving pretty much exactly as you'd expect a crowd to behave, rather than the sanctified picture presented by the (present) media.

>I look back and think how lucky am I?

Yes, well quite. That's why I feel demonising the people involved in the 1989 disaster is unfair; it could have happened anywhere.

>we will eventually break through to a conclusive decision.

Well, that's one of the things that puzzles me - what would a 'conclusive decision' look like? It's clear that virtually everyone involved - the police, the ambulance service, SWFC, the FA - was not prepared for the sort of thing that occurred and was thinking in terms of crowd disorder rather than crowd safety. What are you hoping to achieve - hounding people out of their jobs 23 years on?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The bit of the report just before I linked to, by the way, has some interesting stuff about ambulance staff giving evidence about how they were punched by fans. The panel felt, however, that that only occurred because fans were frustrated. Still, you wouldn't think to read the present media that such a thing could have happened.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Do you ever sleep?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The interesting thing for me is how in events like this things swing from one view to the other with the truth being somewhere in the middle. The points you raise in your original post are quite interesting and suggest, as one would expect, that the situation was more complex than the simplified version we get fed by the press. I don't hold with Gerrald's view that you shouldn't raise these points out of respect, that would be as bad as covering up evidence as has been claimed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I refrained from replying to this but for christs sake, in starting this thread and then carrying on with the arguments that you make you are a complete and utter dickhead.

The families should just give up............ you really are an untold cock.

Woud you give up if you had lost a teenage son or daughter? then got told it was their own fault? and then read in the papers that their fellow fans had picked their pockets?

Its people EXACTLY LIKE YOU that mean this was seen as the truth for 23 years.

If you are so brave sat behind a keyboard why not go and 'discuss' your points with Steven Gerrard, who as you will know lost a cousin at Hillsborough.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes eventually sections of the fence were cut. Bolt cutters could have been brought quite rapidly. I don't remember seeing any fire service attending. Tragically I believe that it just wasn't appreciated until too late just what the effect of the press of the crowd was doing in the terraces, and then the response was inadequate. When faced with a scene in front of you as in the attached photograph, the need for urgency and the solution seems obvious, http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01380/HillsboroughDisast_138079...

In reply to birdie num num: Jesus (((

In reply to off-duty:

Para 2.4.13

•Ambulance control room transcripts show that Ambulance Service officers, present specifically to respond to a major incident rather than have any crowd control brief, were slower than police to identify and realise the severity of the crush despite being close to the central pens.

Why are you suddenly using the report to prove a point? When the report in question is now being scrutinsed yet again. The above bullet point does not make sense and does not read well in English at all.

In reply to smithaldo:
Isn't he just. Only an utter and complete fool, would under estimate the power of a collective voice. Those who work in the law should know that you are not above the law, certainly not above the common law.

Remember the old saying an life for life, eye for eye etc...justice will prevail.

In reply to halo:
The above bullet point does not make sense and does not read well in English at all.

What do you not understand about it?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: If needs be yes, everyone is answerable and so are you. You need to change your attitude as speech in forums travels fast on the net, your behaviour is one that replicates a troll.

If indeed that is what you are.

In reply to Postmanpat: I understand perfectly well, but it does not read well it is full of grammatical errors. Can you not read it?

In reply to halo:

Yes.It seems clear, concise and grammatically correct.

In reply to Postmanpat: So that is why you call yourself Postman...

In reply to halo:

No, it's not. But seriously why do you think it doesn't make sense nor read well? Can you isolate the problems? I'm baffled.

In reply to halo:


•Ambulance control room transcripts show that Ambulance Service officers, present [where were they] specifically to respond to a major incident rather than have any crowd control brief, were slower than police to identify and realise the severity of the crush despite being close to the central pens.

In reply to halo:

That paragraph makes sense to me. I'm not clear why you are referring to it though. I was responding to your suggestion : The ambulances were held back by the authorites from doing their job, they were outside trying to get in.

The paragraph I referred to explains why no other ambulances went onto the pitch and does not criticise that decision.
Incidentally - the reference you have 2.4.13 appears to be wrong? Para 42 of the summary of of Chapter 4.

Why did I refer to the report? Because it does present a referenced summary of the evidence. Whether you agree or disagree with that summary is a separate matter. At least the evidence is available should you wish to disagree with the conclusion they have reached.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What is this Hillsborough industry of which you speak?

In reply to halo:

Did you add the bit in brackets? If so, do you mean to imply that your issue with the sentence is that it is not clear where the ambulance officers were?
If not, then could you please explain what it is that doesn't make sense?

In reply to off-duty: I have got better things to do with my time on a sunday afternoon...

In reply to halo:


Fair enough. If you want to read the details that were condensed in the summary paragraph you quoted as incomprehensible - they are contained in the body of the report - paras 2.4.28 onwards.

In reply to Postmanpat: That's my point..now I must get going. I got a match to photograph.

In reply to halo:

If jcm is a troll then I am sure he can be demolished by destroying his arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and vague comments open to misinterpretation about "an eye for an eye" , "not being above the law" and "speech in forums travels fast on the net"

In reply to halo:
You need to change your attitude as speech in forums travels fast on the net, your behaviour is one that replicates a troll.

Num Num feels you may not have done your homework here. JCM is not a troll, he is commenting on one aspect of Hillsborough as he sees it. Nothing wrong with that.

In reply to halo:

Perhaps I should think less of the few who spoke against the collective voices of politicians, police and media at the time of Hillsborough? I suspect not.

I'm always pleased to hear dissenting voices, even if I disagree with their interpretations. Jon at least argues without resorting to abuse, insult and threats.

His cardinal sin appears to be suggesting that the pendulum of media hysteria may have swung from one extreme, 'The Truth', to another. When even Channel 4 news has sunk to the level of aggressive doorstepping, even if it's Kelvin McKenzie's door, I think that's not an entirely indefensible view.

In reply to MHutch:


It's very welcome is this case though. Hoorah! ()

In reply to Timmd:

Well, alright, perhaps fun in an ironic way. But when C4 News is doing it over a bit of a non-story? Strange Days indeed.

In reply to MHutch:

By non-story I meant their angle, BTW, not Hillsborough in general...

In reply to MHutch:

I'm just glad they hassled Kelvin. I agree news should actually be news though.

In reply to Timmd:

Ah, that's what you ment by fun in an ironic way, only just realised, didn't go to bed 'till 4am, brain is a bit slow today...

In reply to birdie num num: That is a terrible photograph. But if I had been holding a bolt cutter there I would have been terrified to use it, because it would have been obvious that the pressure on people being forced through the gap was likely to kill some of them.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I wouldn't have hesitated Rob. I'd have used the bolt cutters.

In reply to birdie num num: I hope I would have done so too, but I'm not so sure, so I can understand why people (who at the time might not have realised that people were dying anyway) might have hesitated - fatally, in the event.

Nobody wanted this to happen, nobody anticipated it, though it might be argued that they should have done. Let's hope people remember Hillsborough next time they start to slag off the work of H & S.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Perfectly reasonable, only a fool would state they know what they would have done in those circumstances, as if the people who were there were different to the rest of us.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Re the modification of statements before submission to the inquest. I see where you're coming from but I think the expectation of the general public is quite different to yours. While putting a spin on witness statements might be perfectly normal in adversarial trials and you couldn't expect things to be any different, the general public were expecting conclusions which were drawn from an inquisitorial process. A process whose purpose was to get to the truth not simply find out whether somebody had committed a crime or not.

I haven't read the report but have read summaries and did watch a documentary on CH5 so you may want to contradict me. However what I've seen, read and heard leads me to the conclusion that the police and ambulance and service did not tell the whole story, with senior officers deleting or altering sections of statements to ensure that a story emerged that absolved them of any blame. No different to what goes on everywhere in the world every day of the week except in this case 96 people had died and result of this "spin" was that the "blame" for the disaster was at least partially put on the supporters themselves.

A bit much to take if you're one of the relatives. I think that's what has angered the general public.

In reply to Removed User:

Agreed. It's an old chestnut - what the victims always want on these occasions is to know what exactly happened, and research (in medical negligence contexts, but I doubt it's that different) suggests that more than anything they want to know that lessons have been learned and it will be different another time for others. And to get those things they need openness from the people who have made mistakes. But you won't get that if at the same time you, or some of you, want vengeance.

It would be lovely if the system could be changed such that victims of this sort of thing were compensated irrespective of whether fault on the part of the authorities (or whoever) could be established, because then we could perhaps make some progress towards giving victims' families what they actually want. But I don't see any sign of it. Indeed, the trend is against it - witness the howling about corporate manslaughter charges in the present case.

The only alternative would have been huge inquests with cross-examinations of dozens of witnesses, which the coroner was clearly anxious to avoid as much as anything else because it was an enormous expenditure of public money and very unlikely to alter the result of what he was there to do. Much of the problem is that the battle the relatives want to fight is really largely a PR one, and the legal system is understandably not well set up for that. The law dealt with everything that needs dealing with fifteen years ago, or whenever the last of the negligence claims finished making its way through the courts.

>No different to what goes on everywhere in the world every day of the week

Quite - in fact very much the same happened in the case of the Marchioness disaster (as the report points out). We don't hear quite so much about 'the people of London' and their treatment in that case, though.

>I think that's what has angered the general public.

Yes, but I don't think the general public distinguishes between what happened here (normal, I'm afraid) and what happened in, for example, the Bridgewater Four case (ie the changing of statements after they had been made and without the knowledge of the witnesses - totally unacceptable and really should have led to criminal charges). The fact that the press refers to both processes as 'doctoring' reveals the utter dishonesty of even the so-called quality press.

jcm

In reply to smithaldo:

>Woud you give up if you had lost a teenage son or daughter? then got told it was their own fault? and then read in the papers that their fellow fans had picked their pockets?

No-one who has bothered to inform themselves has believed any of those things for a long, long time. The Taylor report found that none of those who died were to blame in 1990, and the inquests established that none of the victims were drunk even before that.

Give up *what*, exactly? Who knows how one would react in such horrible circumstances, but I doubt I'd be very interested in vengeance. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be instructing Charlie F to make a fool of himself calling for the FA to face criminal charges for choosing Hillsborough for the match, for example.

>Its people EXACTLY LIKE YOU that mean this was seen as the truth for 23 years.

Do you think? I would say rather it was people like the Sun newspaper, who printed those things. Lawyers like me established about 20 years ago that the police were to blame for what happened with zero contributory negligence by the victims but a certain amount by the club, the ambulance service and the engineers who carried out a survey of the ground, and that the victims were not drunk nor ticketless.

What I do think is rather unlikely is that the crowd, seen as a whole, behaved perfectly. I suspect that had this been a typical audience for a chamber music concert, and had everyone in the crowd been happy to wait and get in half an hour after kickoff if necessary in order to ensure that everyone got in to the ground in a safe and orderly manner, the disaster would not have occurred. If the contrary is the Truth that's been established (which it isn't; the question hasn't been addressed, and in my opinion isn't worth addressing), then I suspect it's not all that True.

jcm

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Like many disasters it was predictable.

Fans had written to the FA about a dangerous crush at a previous match and the club chairman is quoted as saying "Bollocks – no one would have been killed." in a post match meeting with the police after the 1981 FA Cup Semi-Final.

On the day the police screwed up and then behaved appallingly afterwards but before the disaster the were the people pushing safety concerns.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The suggestion has been that 'doctoring' was carried out in a systematic way to avert blame from the police.

If you are saying this is not the case (and I haven't read all of the above very systematically), and it's just been the normal routine amendments of statements, why is it deemed such a complicated issue that the police can't explain it to anybody, or the media (who must be as clued in on this as anybody) can't explain it to the public? Are we all too dumbed down to be deemed capable of understanding anything any more?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

It's about time we had the truth about Hillsborough. At the time there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts and blame the innocent victims of the disaster. This cover up was orchestrated at the highest level by the right wing media, the police and the Tory regime who at the time, let's not forget, owed a huge debt of gratitude to the South Yorkshire Police.

If so, why would the subsequent Labour Gov't participate in such a conspiracy, surely they would want to embarrass and shame their predessors?

I'm far from convinced about the 'conspiracy' Indeed I'm more inclined to believe there's a conspiracy now!

Steve

In reply to bullybones:

He's suggesting that these alterations are what would occur normally in an adversarial system where opinion and hearsay that attacks the police case was removed, prior to initial accounts being made into formal statements.

This was first highlighted by Taylor in 1989, and further reviewed by Stuart-Smith in 1997.

In reply to off-duty:
OK, so if there was no systematic doctoring, why doesn't someone just say so?

In reply to bullybones:

>why is it deemed such a complicated issue that the police can't explain it to anybody,

Frankly I suspect the police have better things to do than deal with the detail of events which happened 20 years ago.

>or the media (who must be as clued in on this as anybody) can't explain it to the public?

Because if they did it wouldn't be so sexy a story, of course.

>The suggestion has been that 'doctoring' was carried out in a systematic way to avert blame from the police.....

>If you are saying this is not the case (and I haven't read all of the above very systematically), and it's just been the normal routine amendments of statements

I don't understand this distinction. The purpose of 'normal routine amendments of statements' by a party's solicitors in any adversarial system is precisely 'in a systematic way to avert blame from (their client)'. As I say, that's the game, I'm afraid. That's not 'doctoring'. 'Doctoring' implies the changing of evidence without the witness' knowledge.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

OK, now I get it mostly, thanks.

Except it would be a sexy story for some. Nothing pleases certain reputable news/current affairs commentators/progs more than to point out the failings endemic in their low-brow counterparts.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

'Hillsborough industry'? What a disrepectful little man you are. My 15 year old friend, a friend i'd had since the infants, was crushed to death at that game. The manner of his death was given no dignity or respect by the media, police force or the government. His family along with a lot of others have fought for over 20 years to get a resemblance of the truth and you call it an industry? Even now, 23 years after it happened, there's no respect from people like you for that lad and the 95 others who went with him.

I hope the same injustices that befell these families doesn't befall you sometime in your life.

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:Hillsborough industy rankled with me a little bit as well.

I can't think of anything connected with Hillsborough which resembles an industy...

In reply to Timmd:

I always regard the production of films and TV documentaries an industry.

In reply to Timmd:

You just need to read between the lines with JCM's posts to see where he's coming from. He may make valid comments questioning the 'independency' of the enquiry board but his views are clear with regards to his respect for the victims and families of this tragedy.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: There is a big difference between the taking of witness statements in a civil matter and in a criminal one. I don't know in what context the Hillsborough statements were taken, but if it was for potentially criminal proceedings I don't think it's acceptable for statements to be materially altered like they were, to essentially change the whole inference.

It's not uncommon for statements to be left unsigned so that solicitors can comment, and statements be amended before they are finally signed. In my experience though, this isn't done to tip the balance of the case, change the whole inference etc. It's more about the solicitor trying to ensure all the material facts have been covered, remove hearsay, check for mistakes with dates, typos etc. Bear in mind the need for full disclosure in a criminal case.

Also relevant is whether the officers changed the statements under any degree of coercion, which would point to a systemic cover-up. I don't know the facts so I can't comment.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Do you? I just associate money with it.

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

As does HMRC. That's why they call it the film "industry."

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Please explain what you are saying. Are you really drawing parallels between a 23 year legal fight by the families of the dead with a money making entity that qualifies for taxation?

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:
I am saying that the production of TV programmes and drama documentaries is an industry which employs a lot of people. As such, it is not an insult to anyone to call it an industry.

I am not sure how many TV documentaries have been made about Hillsborough, but they have provided employment for hundreds of people (including at least one member of the Panel) ans as such can be properly regarded as part of an industry.

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

You seem, like quite a few others, to be assuming that criticism of the football fans and the surrounding culture in the 1980s amounts to criticism and blame of the specific fans who were crushed. The simple fact is, as JCM puts it above, you would never have got a crush at chamber orchestra recital because of the different behaviour of those watching. The fact is football at the time was justifiably a byword for bad behaviour and it was this reputation for bad behaviour that led directly or indirectly to the deaths, probably more so that police action or inaction on the day.

In reply to MG:

What about the infamous first performance of the Rites of Spring? I guess any crowd can act in unexpected ways.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Inquests, I believe. I don't think there have actually been any criminal proceedings, have there?

To be fair, it is possible for all I know that different rules are in some way supposed to apply to inquests. Although the report doesn't mention any, and LJ Stuart-Smith obviously didn't think so when he found in 1997 that what had happened about this was, in the main, 'perfectly proper'.

>Also relevant is whether the officers changed the statements under any degree of coercion

Not really; some of them were unhappy at not being allowed to express their opinions, but witnesses often are.

>which would point to a systemic cover-up.

Well, as I've said, clearly there was a systematic removal of material critical of the police. But then any solicitor would do the same. Anyway, I don't object to that being reported; what I don't like is the press talking about 'doctoring' as if what happened was in any way out of the ordinary.

I'm a bit puzzled too about this notion of a 'cover-up'. The police were found to be at fault in 1990 by Lord Taylor and subsequently embarked on the largest civil liability payout by far in their history. What was there left to 'cover up', really?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: The truth is out. It was the FA, police and ambulance service who were pushing through an open gate at Leppings Lane.

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

And what are those, I wonder?

I have the same amount of respect for the victims of this tragedy as I do for those of Aberfan, the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Marchioness, King's Cross fire, etc, etc, etc. How could I not - they're just some of the really rather large number of totally innocent people I don't know who've been killed in horrible circumstances in the last, say, fifty years.

What I'm not so keen on is the mawkish insistence on going on and on about this particular tragedy. I don't see people releasing balloons over the Thames every year.

jcm

In reply to MG:

Where are you getting that from? I've commented on JCMs use of the word 'industry' to describe the fight by the families for justice. This insinuates other motives. He has also commented on how the fight has been more for the fans who are alive than for the truth about how the fans died.

The simple fact is, as JCM puts it above, you would never have got a crush at chamber orchestra recital because of the different behaviour of those watching. The fact is football at the time was justifiably a byword for bad behaviour and it was this reputation for bad behaviour that led directly or indirectly to the deaths, probably more so that police action or inaction on the day.

That's not a simple fact, it is a ridiculous example that you couldn't possibly make a comparison of. Maybe if you staged a Pavarotti concert at Hillsborough, get a bottleneck of fans and then don't direct them to the right area, then you may get something to compare.. The report states that the fans were no differently behaved than any other fans in the country at that time. The report states the ground had had previous crushing incidents. The report states there was bad decisions made. Lets leave it at that eh?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The Hillsborough industry hasn't been about respect for the dead for a long time. It was only really ever about the living - it was the living who were said to have arrived late and ticketless, pushed drunkenly, robbed the dead, etc.

Do you think that is a respectful comment?

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

No. Football and its followers need to acknowledge there shortcomings too if we want this nebulous Truth. The pens were needed due to fans previous behaviour, for exmple. And no, I don't belive a Pavarotti audience wouls have resulted in similar problems.

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

It was a well known practice at the time for football fans to go to matches without tickets knowing that when the match started, the police would prefer them in the ground rather than out it it. Most of the big teams had groups of supporters who did this. As for drinking; well I am sure many football fans still arrive at grounds downstream of a few pints.

Alan

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:
I remember one Christmas, when Num Num went to Handel's Messiah at the Phil, in the stampede for seats someone once trod on Num Num's toe.

In reply to birdie num num:

Hallelujah. That's the only sensible thing i've read on this thread today.

In reply to MG: I read that the entrance had a gradient of 1:6 or steeper. That has to be a material factor (providing it was downhill of course).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Actually I see that the statements which were altered were for the Taylor inquiry rather than the inquests.

I find I don't really know about criminal evidence to make sense of some part of the report. Where's MikeR and Sloper when you need them?

They don't really seem to contradict Stuart-Smith that nothing that could have been included would have affected the result of the inquiry. But then they say that the amendments did prejudice the disciplinary proceedings and refer to chapter 6. But in chapter 6 the reason the disciplinary proceedings stall is that the statements that were available *don't* have evidence in them that was given to the Taylor inquiry - in other words, they must somehow have been different statements altogether. So why did it matter that these ones were amended? Especially since the disciplinary proceedings eventually ran into the sand because Duckenfield was too ill to defend them, so it wouldn't have made any difference what statements were available. Curious. What they say doesn't create a very even-handed impression to me, but maybe I'm missing what it is that they mean.

jcm

In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

>The report states that the fans were no differently behaved than any other fans in the country at that time.

Does it? I'm not so sure it does - it wasn't really in the terms of reference of the inquiry. It says there's nothing in the documents to corroborate the police view, but equally it does record ambulance workers giving evidence that they were attacked, and an internal police meeting where lots of officers evidently felt that the crowd had been unusually unruly and gave eyewitness accounts of poor behaviour.

Frankly it's not that surprising - everyone agrees that there was overcrowding outside the ground. It's very likely that what feels to the crowd like overcrowding feels to those who are in the middle of it and supposed to police it like an unusually unruly crowd. I suspect that if you were asked to predict what the accounts of both 'sides' would be in such a situation, you'd get something similar to what occurred.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Just what is your agenda? Two years of research into half a million documents by a truly independent panel.Have you got links to the exact statements that ambulance workers were attacked? or evidence of unusually unruly or poor behavior?

Your attitude towards this is a disgrace.

In reply to Skip:


Interested to hear why?

In reply to Mooncat:

I've no idea why he has the attitude that fans were in some way to blame, or asserts (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) that fans attacked ambulance workers. That is why i asked what his agenda is.

In reply to Skip:

JCM quotes a report that refers to this unless there's something I've missed John has been fairly neutral.

In reply to Mooncat:

Okay i have reread his opening post and it is reasonably neutral, i will therefore delete some of my posts. I am emotionally involved in this event. I still assert however that the claim that fans attacked ambulance workers is complete nonsense and that statements claiming so are fabrications as part of the initial cover up.

As to his questioning of why original statements still exist. Simple SYP never thought it would get this far.

In reply to Skip:
Could you tell me why you are sure about this?

In reply to Skip:

The statements make horrific reading but in relation to your question about the ambulance men:-

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/YAS000000890001.pdf#... (Para 3)

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/YAS000001490001.pdf
(Para 15 onwards)

In reply to off-duty:

"The crowd were lashing out at everyone inuniform, including ambulance staff."

Oh yea! So just were is the video footage of this. I've watched all that is publicly available and there is no evidence of such behaviour.

Same for the other statement.

In reply to Skip:

Fair enough. You asked about the statements so I linked to them.
I believe Eason and Higgins were the on duty ambulance personnel first on the pitch.

In reply to off-duty:

I have heard an interview with the first on duty ambulance driver on the pitch (more than once) at no time did he mention being attacked.

In reply to Skip:

A bit of a corrective to the nonsense the media is presently producing, I guess.

>Two years of research into half a million documents by a truly independent panel.

You think? As I pointed out earlier, one might feel that the main mover on the panel has a professional reputation invested in showing that certain theories are the Truth.

>Have you got links to the exact statements that ambulance workers were attacked? or evidence of unusually unruly or poor behavior?

Well, I could just say read the report http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/. It's not hard. But off-duty has obliged, I see. The report itself links to various statements.


Really? How so?

jcm

In reply to Skip:

It looks like there were 4 ambulance personnel on duty at the game.
The first two I have linked to :-
This ambulance man appears to have been the third.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/YAS000001410001.pdf (para 5 and 8)

From the report it appears that these 4 personnel were on duty at the game and were the first on the pitch before anyone realised that there was anything untoward going on.

Certainly once the disaster had fully unfolded I haven't seen any of the subsequent ambulance men describing any attacks - including the drivers of the ambulances that eventually got on the pitch.

In reply to Skip:


Do you think that meant the Ambulance men were mistaken? Or that the video footage didn't catch everything? One witness says "One of those youth kicked Q.A. <redacted> repeatedly on his side and legs as he gave the mouth to mouth treatment." It seems an odd thing to mix up or lie about.

I think its relatively well known in psychology having studied disasters that out of a large group of people involved in bad situation, a few act heroically and take leadership roles, most people are in the middle and will act well if they are given leadership (and often that's the problem - lack of direction or leadership), and some breakdown or act unhelpfully.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
And you think you have done that on this forum? Well done, a bit of a fail then, you have a long way to go and maybe you need to post somewhere where you can correct the general nonsense , and tell people how the Hillsboro crowd/ business works.

And to off duty you are wrong to assume I don't like you or the police, Jumping to the wrong conclusions again on that one.

Listen to these whinging scousers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mqm9d

In reply to gd303uk:

I am happy to be demonstrated to be wrong about your opinion.
Though quite how else you expected me to interpret your comment I am not sure.

In reply to off-duty:

You mentioned>

What the point in saying this, ever?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Having posted about Hillsborough before (not difficult thread to find if you want to look it up) then I was interested to see this one pop up.

I was contemplating responding to some of the points, but two key things have meant that I look upon the OP with suspicion.

Firstly - his generalised claim that the Hillsborough report paints the Liverpool fans as "saints".

Secondly - his use of the terms "Hillsborough Industry" and "Hillsborough Syndrome" in his own post here and another of his posts about the Mark Duggan case.

Despite some very articulate phrases and carefully constructed wording, to my mind he actually has an axe to grind and is somehow still scratching around for reasons to undermine the findings of the report and feels that it is appropriate to add his own cheap and disparaging label to the families of Hillsborough victims and their long fight for justice.

Just in case it wasn't clear enough, here are verbatim extracts from the Foreward to the report:


"The disclosed documents show that multiple factors were responsible for the deaths of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough tragedy and that the fans were not the cause of the disaster. The disclosed documents show that the bereaved families met a series of obstacles in their
search for justice.

The Hillsborough Independent Panel, in accepting its terms of reference from the Home Secretary, acknowledges the legitimacy of the search for justice by the bereaved families and survivors of Hillsborough through the disclosure of documents relating to the disaster and its aftermath."

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

"It's about time we had the truth about Hillsborough. At the time there was a conspiracy to cover up the facts and blame the innocent victims of the disaster".

Balls. The blame was not pointed at the 96 who died, who had turned up in plenty of time & got a place at the front.

It was pointed at those at the back, who hadn't.

There is no one group or organisation to blame, all parties should accept their share of it - fans, police, the lot.

Policing methods may have been lacking, but so was the behaviour of fans back then, to say the least. You get the standard of policing you deserve, in general. That's why I go to rugby matches.

In reply to gd303uk:

>And you think you have done that on this forum? Well done, a bit of a fail then, you have a long way to go and maybe you need to post somewhere where you can correct the general nonsense , and tell people how the Hillsboro crowd/ business works.

Gosh, yes. I'll do that the second I've finished organising world peace.

jcm

In reply to Rampikino:

>Firstly - his generalised claim that the Hillsborough report paints the Liverpool fans as "saints".

I don't believe I said that. I think you will find that I said that the Hillsborough industry likes to paint them as saints.

>and their long fight for justice.

Well, you tell me. What *does* this mean? As I've said before, the families' legal claims were settled fifteen years ago and Lord Taylor found 22 years ago that the fans were not to blame. The rest is a PR war, surely, nothing more. What exactly would this 'justice' look like?

I don't actually have too much against the panel. They report reasonably fairly, although I've indicated some reasons above why I don't believe for a moment they were an 'independent' panel (whatever that might mean), and why reading their report it does sometimes seem they might have had something of an agenda.

My main beef though is with the press reporting of the report, which has been downright ludicrous, and the public hysteria which leads to scenes like that policeman being forced to apologise for his observation that the behaviour of fans outside the stadium didn't help police in doing their job. How anyone could possibly think that wasn't true is completely beyond me, and this twaddle about it not being 'respectful to the dead' to say so is, I'm afraid, utter bollocks.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>The Hillsborough Independent Panel, in accepting its terms of reference from the Home Secretary, acknowledges the legitimacy of the search for justice by the bereaved families and survivors of Hillsborough through the disclosure of documents relating to the disaster and its aftermath

I would, in fact, go further and say that this statement itself makes it pretty clear that the panel had some pre-conceived notions and was far from being Independent.

Of course governments are fully entitled to appoint people to perform PR duties and people are fully entitled to take up that role, but it's a little unappealing when they style themselves something which they're clearly not.

Do they go on, I wonder, to answer the interesting question of what exactly TF it is that they mean by 'justice'? Perhaps it's the closing down of The Sun newspaper. Now that's something we could all agree on - actually, one interesting omission from the report is any real consideration of whether the relationship it reveals between the press and the police is a Good Thing. Perhaps Leveson will have something to say.

jcm