***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to the next one *****
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19543964
Heads to roll?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 09:07
|
It's clear enough that the stadium's access arrangements and several other things were inadequate and a bad decision was made by police (said at the time to be 'panicking' I seem to remember).
One can't help feeling though that the fans themselves are substantially to blame, if only for their scrambling impatience to get into the ground as soon as possible after the kick-off, which should obviously have been postponed. A rational well-behaved crowd doesn't need 'controlling'. The whole event took place against the background of football audiences which are very often more than a little unruly. This is what I thought at the time and I don't see any reason not to think it now.
The fact that a lot of fans perished in this awful event doesn't eliminate the element of crowd behaviour in causing the tragedy.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 14:02
|
I too wonder about the fans.
Is the primary failure of the police that they failed in their attempts to protect the fans from their own behaviour? Which is not to say that it should not be investigated and reported openly and honestly. But if one is to be honest about part, surely one must be frank about it all? And that includes the football clubs?
Having said that, for the ones who tried to hide what happened there should be no forgiveness. For mistakes to be made is one thing, but to lie or mislead about them is another.
People died. What ever their offence, they didn't deserve that severity of consequence. I just feel that we should also believe that whatever the police did wrong, they don't deserve to be hanged for those deaths.
But, people died. And that's sad. For them and for those that have to live with those deaths.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 14:16
|
>> People died. What ever their offence, they didn't deserve that severity of consequence.
Well, those that did die were well behaved supporters who had arrived in good time, and were at the front of the enclosure. Women and children feature amongst the dead. If there is any blame on any supporters, it would be those who attempted to crush in from the back once the Police had erroneously opened the gate in panic.
There is no question whatever that anyone who died was guilty of any "offence" at all and I think you should carefully consider retracting that implication. It is now also clear that around half of those that died would have been saved had normal medical attention/resuscitation procedures been forthcoming.
I have very little time for Liverpool FC and its fans generally, but the facts in this report are staggering and heart breaking.
|
>>There is no question whatever that anyone who died was guilty of any "offence" at all and I think you should carefully consider retracting that implication
What implication? I meant what I said, whatever they did, good, bad, indifferent, nothing, something; - nobody there deserved to die.
If you wish to read something else into it, fill your boots.
|
>> What implication? I meant what I said, whatever they did, good, bad, indifferent, nothing, something;
That's not how what you said reads. You said: "Whatever their offence, they didn't deserve that severity of consequence". That clearly implies those that died may be guilty of some offence. That's quite different from this second post.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
|
The police made mistakes, the ground owners made mistakes, and the fans behaved badly.
It was the responsibility of all of them yet all were determined to claim they were blameless.
We're lessons learned? Yes. Were improvements made? Yes.
Time to call an end to it, except of course the Liverpool fans can't accept their share of blame. Remember Hilsborough, forget Heysel is their motto.
|
>> and the fans behaved badly.
From the report, taken from Nick Ravenscroft's feed on the BBC website: " South Yorkshire polce emphasised exceptional levels of drunkenness and aggression among fans. Beyond police accounts there is no substantive evidence to support this."
Read the report.
|
I think Alanovic is right. read the report.
Whatever might have been thought previously it now seems that much of the evidence of fan misbehaviour was concocted or 'sexed up' to cover for the failings of the Police and others. Multiple statements from both Police officers and ambulance crews were amended to remove or tone down accounts of deficiencies in equipment and in management.
Of course some people had had a bit to drink; that's normal at matches isn't it. Supporters arrived en-masse only close to kick off; again normal stuff The issue was that a problem outside the ground due to insufficient turnstiles became a problem inside the ground because exit doors were opened and fans continued to be sheperded in in spite of mounting trouble in the pens.
Listen to the accounts of witnesses that were on the radio this morninig and doubtless again tonight.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 14:48
|
>> >> and the fans behaved badly.
>>
>> From the report, taken from Nick Ravenscroft's feed on the BBC website: " South Yorkshire
>> polce emphasised exceptional levels of drunkenness and aggression among fans. Beyond police accounts there is
>> no substantive evidence to support this."
>>
>> Read the report.
You seem determined to read things that don't exist today don't you.
Can you point to the part where I said they were drunk and aggressive please?
You and they can not dispute that the 1000s of fans pushing and determined to get into the ground do not share some of the responsibility, as do the police for providing them the means to do so. I don't doubt the police tried to apportion all the blame on the fans and sexed it up, but please let's cut out this " the fans are completely blameless" *** please.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Wed 19 Sep 12 at 01:31
|
Zeddo,
Crushing at Leppings Lane both at the turnstiles and on the terraces was a known issue for several years before the disaster. There was similar trouble in 1981 at a Wolves v Spurs match; almost a pre-run. Warnings were not heeded by the police or by SWFC.
Where, beyond predjudice and the colllege of the Bleedin Obvious, is the EVIDENCE of fan misbehaviour??
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 15:22
|
We're both football fans, Zero. I'm sure we've both been in large crowds (even at West Ham it's possible), which have a tendency to push and shove. I know I've been lifted off my feet before and been worried. But I've never been herded by police towards a pen which is already full, and encouraged to enter a terrace section through an open exit gate designed to let hundreds out at once, nor a pen which no one is opening at the front in order to let people who are being crushed, out. And I've never been crushed to death as a result.
You say the fans behaved badly, well the report says they behaved as per a normal football crowd. By your reasoning, anyone who get crushed at a football match, well that's their look out and their fellow fans' fault. I don't think that holds water.
I would have stood behind your argument yesterday, and have argued the same myself in the past. Today, I can not.
|
>> You say the fans behaved badly, well the report says they behaved as per a normal football crowd.
'as per a normal football crowd' means 'quite badly' doesn't it? You made the good point above that most of the victims were innocent well-behaved fans who had arrived in good time and got places on the terraces.
What about the larger mass of Liverpool fans who turned up late, caused enormous congestion outside the ground after the game had started - why the hell wasn't it postponed for half an hour? - and when admitted rushed dangerously in scrambling over those already there and crushing them? The old bill were stupid and wimpish. The fans were their usual loutish selves.
|
>> 'as per a normal football crowd' means 'quite badly' doesn't it?
Been to many games, AC? I doubt it. By and large football fans are human beings and behave well. I've been to hundreds of games over 34 years, can you speak from the same point of experience?
>> What about the larger mass of Liverpool fans who turned up late, caused enormous congestion
>> outside the ground after the game had started - why the hell wasn't it postponed
>> for half an hour? -
The fans do not control kick off time.
>> and when admitted rushed dangerously in scrambling over those already
>> there and crushing them? The old bill were stupid and wimpish. The fans were their
>> usual loutish selves.
You are ignoring entirely the caging arrangements at the stadium and the fact that the fans coming from behind would assume that they were being allowed into areas of the ground (cages) in which there would be sufficient room. Once in, it's too late, and those further back have no idea what happening dozens of rows in front and below. The "usual loutish selves" comment is just regurgitation of old prejudices wheeled out to villify and demonise football fans.
AC and Zero, you're going to have to read the report. And then, I feel your minds may be changed. Mine has been, I'm ashamed to admit I was wrong, allowed myself to be mislead by the authorities and media, and allowed my prejudices to colour my opinion.
|
>> The "usual loutish selves" comment is just regurgitation of old prejudices wheeled out to villify and demonise football fans.
I certainly don't want to demonise and vilify football fans. Nor do I need to. They do a pretty good job themselves. It amazes me that you don't see the pushing and shoving by fans as loutish behaviour. You said yourself you had been lifted off your feet and become alarmed.
I've never been to a football match and don't want to go to one. But please don't imagine I know nothing about crowd behaviour, crowd control or the irresistible force of an excitable crowd in turmoil. I've been in quite a few of those, and not just fun-loving carnival crowds but armed, paranoid ones in unstable places.
For those who want to utterly whitewash the Liverpool supporters: why were they arriving outside the ground in huge numbers at kick-off time? Might they have dawdled to the ground getting tanked up as Zero convincingly suggests? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
|
>> I certainly don't want to demonise and vilify football fans. Nor do I need to.
>> They do a pretty good job themselves.
>> I've never been to a football match
Case closed.
|
>> Case closed.
You mean because you've been to a few football games you are in a position to whitewash Liverpool fans and because I haven't my comments are worthless? That's just pathetic Alanovic.
|
And I'm the one reading things that don't exist today apparently.
I haven't whitewashed anything. Today's independent report has done so. There is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the crowd. Evidence. That upon which our societal justice system hangs. It's not there. The Police are admitting such. The Government is admitting such. Even Kelvin bloomin' MacKenzie says as much. You and Zero are reading the things which don't exist.
Your comments are pretty much worthless on this subject today, AC. They are all speculation and conjecture.
|
>> Your comments are pretty much worthless on this subject today, AC. They are all speculation and conjecture.
So are everyone else's here. I am basing what I say on published sources, like everyone else.
Even when you are present in a big crowd scene it can be quite difficult to know what's happening a hundred yards away. No one present has the full picture.
I don't see this new report as suddenly being the real, complete truth about what happened in that damn stadium. I think Zero could be right to suggest that the report may be skewed to soothe the Scousers after the first one which blamed everything on them and exonerated everyone else.
Why were so many fans so late? How many of them still didn't have tickets? Why weren't the exit gates opened earlier to let them flow in at a reasonable pace, avoiding the last-minute rush and scramble? Something to do with getting the entrance money I shouldn't wonder. Why wasn't the game postponed until the stadium had been filled in an orderly manner?
None of that can be blamed exclusively on the fans, unless some of them dawdled in the pub on the way to the ground. But the rush and scramble were their doing.
|
>
>> By your reasoning, anyone who get crushed at a football match, well
>> that's their look out and their fellow fans' fault.
For gods sake will you stop inserting things I have not said - And ignoring the things I have said
Like for example there is contributory blame from the police and the Hilsborough owners
Yes I am a football fan of that era, which is why I know how they behave. The report is as much of a whitewash one way as the first ones were the other way
Why is everyone out for blame? The important question is Do we implement cried control better because of Hilsborough? Everyone should be pleased that the answer is yes?
|
|
From the BBC just now: "Chief constable David Compton adds that South Yorkshire police officers at the time "lost control" and admitted "lies were told about what happened".
|
You can't loose control of well behaved patient fans, it's just not possible there is nothing to lose control of.
We're a large proportion of them boozed up? Yes they were we we were always boozed up in those days
|
The report is here:
hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/
Only scan read the summary so far.
|
South Yorkshire Police say:
"On 18th April 1989 [sic], 96 of the Liverpool fans went to Hillsborough to watch the FA Cup Semi Final and died as a result of the disaster. On that day South Yorkshire Police failed the victims and families. The police lost control. In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame. These actions have caused untold pain and distress for over 23 years. I am profoundly sorry for the way the force failed on 15th April 1989 and I am doubly sorry for the injustice that followed and I apologise to the families of the 96 and Liverpool fans. South Yorkshire Police is a very different place in 2012 from what it was 23 years ago and we will be fully open and transparent in helping to find answers to the questions posed by the Panel today."
Zero and AC say..............
|
>> Zero and AC say..............
I don't know what Zero will say. But I say the fact that the police lied and tried to shift all the blame onto the fans doesn't exonerate an element of the crowd from the accusation of unruly behaviour which contributed substantially to the disaster.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 16:06
|
>> I don't know what Zero will say. But I say the fact that the police
>> lied and tried to shift all the blame onto the fans doesn't exonerate an element
>> of the crowd from the accusation of unruly behaviour.
As Bromptonaut points out above, there is no evidence of unruly behaviour, save for the now discredited Police reports. Therefore, the accusation should be withdrawn. Unless you were there and know better.
|
>> there is no evidence of unruly behaviour, save for the now discredited Police reports
I think 96 dead people constitute pretty convincing evidence. It's clear as I said in the first place that the stadium was crap and the police were crap.
But the stadium didn't crush anyone and neither did the police. The fans did. Are they supposed to bear no responsibility for their actions? Are we supposed to see them as a passive fluid channelled this way and that by the police? Crowds, even crowds of football fans, are made up of individuals with brains and freedom of choice.
|
>> But the stadium didn't crush anyone and neither did the police. The fans did. Are
>> they supposed to bear no responsibility for their actions? Are we supposed to see them
>> as a passive fluid channelled this way and that by the police? Crowds, even crowds
>> of football fans, are made up of individuals with brains and freedom of choice.
That much is true, but fails to account for the fact that those at the back could not have known what was going on at the front, and they would have believed they were entering areas which were large enough to accommodate them. The police, however, had CCTV views of the whole thing and did not act to ameliorate the situation, but in fact did the opposite. Then the CCTV tapes disappeared.
It's hard to implement your freedom of choice in the middle of over 25000 other people being told to go in once direction who have no idea of the calamity they are causing some distance away, which they can not see.
I'm sure you're not saying that those at the rear knew what was happening and carried on pushing, regardless.
|
>> I'm sure you're not saying that those at the rear knew what was happening and carried on pushing, regardless.
No, of course not. But I am saying that without knowing what was happening they carried on pushing, regardless. If they had known, I'm sure they would have stopped pushing.
|
Zeros he say he wants your answer into how you can loose control of a well behaved crowd?
Zero he want you to say that football crowds of that era who turn up late were not the ones who had been tanking it up down the pub
Zero he say he want you to acknowledge that he said blames was SHARED between all parties
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 16:09
|
>> Zeros he say he wants your answer into how you can loose control of a
>> well behaved crowd?
Ask SYP, they managed it. Reply to Bromptonaut's request for EVIDENCE to support the unruly behaviour accusation, then I'll listen to you.
>> Zero he want you to say that football crowds of that era who turn up
>> late were not the ones who had been tanking it up down the pub
Many a football fan has arrived at a match worse for the drink. Not many end up crushing people to death as a result.
|
>> Many a football fan has arrived at a match worse for the drink. Not many
>> end up crushing people to death as a result.
Actually they did before Hilsborough, just as they did at Hilsborough.
I will restate my position The police, the owners of Hilsborough, AND the fans ALL share the responsibility for what happened that day. There is no excuse for any of the parties trying to absolve themselves of any blame.
You are hung up on the fact that those who died were not to blame, but other fans DID contribute to thier deaths
|
>> but other fans DID contribute to their deaths
In so far as they were led to do so by the Police.
|
|
Why And how were the police pressured and panicked into making the wrong choice ?
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 16:30
|
|
Dunno. I wasn't there. I'll await the evidence on the matter. It may be in the report, but I haven't made it to page 393 yet.
|
Zero,
And you tell me off for banging my head against a wall....
horses/water/drink/can't.
|
All sides contributed to the occurence. I don't think there is significant dispute regarding that.
HOWEVER...
There is now substantive proof of cover-up, in other words officials lied (whether under their own steam or being directed from above) in their reporting of a fatal event.
I don't want heads to roll for what happened unless monumentally erroneous decisions were made (eg. the ground is full, quick open the gates and let more in).
I want heads to roll for conciously LYING (altering/'sexing up') statements in reports.
Utterly inexcusable.
If I did it to avoid a negligence claim I'd expect to be roasted severely.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 17:14
|
>> I want heads to roll for conciously LYING (altering/'sexing up') statements in reports.
>> Utterly inexcusable.
One can only agree. But alas, there's nothing unusual about it. It isn't inevitable, but it's all too common.
|
>> Utterly inexcusable.
>>
Yes absolutely disgusting behaviour, and alas those actions have completely masked the truth and probably made it unattainable
|
Hillsborough was 23 years ago!
Most of the officials involved will be dead or long retired by now.
Time to move on.
|
>>
>> Hillsborough was 23 years ago!
>>
>> Most of the officials involved will be dead or long retired by now.
>>
>> Time to move on.
I suspect the dead/retired bit might be true. In fact didn't one of the senior plods escape a discipline charge by retiring?
However, the corporate bodies whether police, the FA or HMG are all still very much in business.
Moving on is a matter for the survivors and relatives. If my son died in a similar set of circs tomorrow could I 'move on' by 2035 (when I'll be 75)? Probably not.
Could you?
|
I think I be struggling to move on if I lost a son fifteen years old watching a football match.
There is something sick in a society where people at the top nearly always get away with it.
I be looking also for the then Sun editor.
|
It strikes me that the altering of statements, (after earlier statements had been completed), when done in the presence of SYP solicitors..was to minimise the risk of litigation..a sad fact of modern life that police forces have to consider.
You'd be pretty foolish to alter a statement substantially with the intent of falsifying evidence to get yourself or others off the hook after you've already submitted the first one. Somewhere there'd be a copy. It's a different matter however to write another statement under the guidance of a lawyer with the intent to minimise risk to your employer.
According to the BBC news reports today, the official report says there WAS some evidence of drunkeness and unruly behaviour at that football match...but..not to the extent reported at the time and not to the extent it caused the tragedy.
I'm with Zero and AC on this.....there were many elements to this and some football fans actions had a part to play. It started with over crowding outside the ground at the start or just after the start of the match. Why was this?...Well late fans of course.
Were some noticeably inebriated? Well they are at every match I've been to. All the local pubs are full of fans necking pints, then they leave it to the last minute to get in the ground. That's been the case for donkey's years.
The Police got it wrong. The senior officer told staff to open the gates to alleviate crowding outside...which condemned many innocent people inside. However, he did so to try to help people who were being crushed outside, not with any malevolence.
Why were there barriers at the front of the stands?... Previous pitch invasions and football violence I'd presume. That ensured no one could get out and they were crushed to death.
Sounds like the medical staff got it wrong too...a lot of lessons had to be learnt.
Trying to suggest no football fan has a part to play is fanciful..and wrong.
|
|
Why do football fans of opposing persuasions have to be kept apart? Can't immediately think of any other sports or leisure events where that is deemed necessary. Just curious, I know nothing about football.
|
|
Because the football hooligans go for the confrontation and a 'scrap'. Watching a game is low on their agendas.
|
I've been looking at that old footage again on the box. What I didn't remember was that the stadium was already stuffed more or less to capacity when the lethal floodgate was opened. It never should have been. How did a much bigger audience than the stadium could contain come to arrive, much of it a bit late?
The other thing I'd forgotten is that the police had come with horses to edge the crowd back, and the crowd had simply swamped them and started to spook the horses.
What a monumental cock-up. Perhaps at a moment when football was still becoming the colossal all-devouring brain-rotting capitalist money pump it is these days, eh chaps?
|
I remember seeing this unfold on TV and the fact the ground was already full. But you could pack a lot more people in when standing was allowed on terraces. I bet there was no agreed figure for some of these stadiums.
It's been a long time now and I think we should all let it lie. The families have sort of got what they want. Those to blame for the catastrophe a likely to be dead or too old to do anything in terms of prosecuting.
|
Ch Supt David Duckenfield was the match commander and I recall that the gates were opened to relieve a pressure point. Turned out with hindsight to be a wrong decision. Certainly Hillsborough was a turning point in the way matches are policed and grounds designed. But then the rampant hooliganism that had preceded dictated to some extent the style of policing and the design of crowd control within the ground.
Indeed a tragedy and as observed innocent fans were the victims. But the pack mentality took over. At the end of the day there was pushing from the back which created a domino effect towards the turnstiles and subsequently into the stand.
I'm going to SYP tomorrow, shall gauge the reaction to the report.
|
As has been said by Zero and others, I think the important factor has been that lessons were learnt as a result of this disaster. Taylor reports etc introduced all seater stadia and there are no cages as such.
Just on the subject of cages, that is a prime example of how things change - there were various examples of crowds spilling or running onto pitches so the easiest way to stop that is by caging them in. Decisions like that would just not be allowed in today's world of H&S, litigation etc.
Anyway, I think this will bring closure for many involved, but not all. The previous reports always stank of cover ups and never seemed to back up what was being said by witnesses and the "men on the street".
It must be very difficult for those parents who now realise that their child could have survived if given the correct medical attention.
Re the crowds outside, I have been in plenty of football crowds and fans like a drink - its part of the "going to the game" experience. If you are walking to the turnstile , and so are several other thousand fans, singing their songs, waving their flags etc then you will only stop when you suddently hit the wall of fans in front of you, like a shunting of cars. And as the domino effect works its way back, then crushing begin and the rest is history.
I can't see how you would expect fans to leave braking distances between them and the fans in front, it just wouldn't have happened in those days.
I go along to Celtic park where there are regularly close to 60,000 fans going through the turnstiles. The differences I see now from 30 years ago when I used to stand in the Terrace and dread that warm feeling when you realised that since the crowd was packed so tightly, nobody could get out to the loo so they did it where they stood!
all ticket games
more turnstiles
quicker turnstiles
police / stewards at every turnstile
police / stewards at various points in the lead up to the turnstiles to monitor crowdflow
actively encouraged to come into stadium earlier ***
seated stadium
to name but some
*** In scotland the sale of alcohol has been banned inside football grounds for a couple of decades now after a riot between Celtic and Rangers fans. There is now a groundswell of opinion that it would make more sense to allow the sale of alcohol inside, gets punters in early, lets the club get the money rather than neighbouring pubs, and prevents the idea of drinking to 2.55 and then everyone crowding in together.
*** Also, I feel clubs should be doing more to provide entertainment pre and post match - maybe under 19 games played on same day as well or something that would make the experience more than just 90 mins
|
>> Ch Supt David Duckenfield was the match commander and I recall that the gates were
opened to relieve a pressure point. Turned out with hindsight to be a wrong decision.
Certainly Hillsborough was a turning point in the way matches are policed and grounds designed.
But, what if those gates hadn't been opened?
People could have been crushed against them.
Then there would have been 'Why weren't the gates opened to release the pressure against them?'
I doubt so many would have died, but we wouldn't have known how many would (did) have perished.... hindsight is a wonderful thing...
|
>> But, what if those gates hadn't been opened?
>> People could have been crushed against them.
There is no justification whatsoever for that statement. The place where the crush and subsequent deaths took place was at the bottom of a 1 in 6 gradient, in a cage. The gate which you speak of was a completely different situation.
|
>> The gate which you speak of was a completely different situation.
Of which you have no knowledge and seem unable or unwilling to answer my question, "why were the police panicked or forced into opening that gate"
It seems you are saying "just because they could" "or because they wanted to" or maybe "just to cause a crush and kill people"
Get real will you and apply your knowledge of how crowds and grounds were in those days.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 10:45
|
>> Of which you have no knowledge and seem unable or unwilling to answer my question,
>> "why were the police panicked or forced into opening that gate"
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. I don't know and will await the corrected statements from the Police to inform me. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer sometimes, you might like to try it. ;-)
|
|
Then if you don't know stop being so positive in not apportioning blame.. When you do know you can.
|
>> Then if you don't know stop being so positive in not apportioning blame.. When you
>> do know you can.
>>
Don't be silly, Zero. You're asking me WHY the Police acted as they did. I can't answer that until they tell us. It is now clear WHAT they did any why they are, for the most part, to blame, but WHY they acted as they did, well the nearest we are going to come at the moment is in the quote from the report I have posted below. They viewed the situation exclusively through the lens of potential crowd disorder. It would now be interesting to hear their reaction to that.
|
>> There is no justification whatsoever for that statement.
I beg to differ.
We know what happened at Hillsborough -thankfully the truth is finally coming out.
But people can, and have, been crushed to death without that aid of a 1 in 6 gradient.
To be honest, I having just Googled to find links, am horrified at the amount of times cases similar to Hillsborough have occurred around the world.
Look at this one, www.stuff.co.nz/world/6353550/Major-football-stadium-disasters some are of other causes, but out of around 25 cases, 18 or so are crush and or stampede based.
All those cases are very sad. (Hillsborough is included in that link)
|
|
Tony, you can not categorically state, as you have done , that people would have been crushed to death against the gate. There is no evidence to suggest this may have been the case.
|
|
And you have no evidence (remember you dont know) to the contrary.
|
>> Tony, you can not categorically state, as you have done , that people would have
>> been crushed to death against the gate. There is no evidence to suggest this may
>> have been the case.
>>
read again.
I did not, categorically state that people would have been crushed to death against the gate.
I did however say COULD HAVE - definition below.....
could (kd)
aux.v. Past tense of can
1. Used to indicate ability or permission in the past: I could run faster then. Only men could go to the club in those days.
2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force: If we could help, we would.
3. Used to indicate tentativeness or politeness: I could be wrong. Could you come over here?
|
|
OK, fair enough, I misread your could as a would. I'm at work and shouldn't really be on here at all. But it remains unlikely based on the findings of the report.
|
From the report:
""Throughout the 1980s there was considerable ambiguity about South Yorkshire Police's and Sheffield Wednesday FC's crowd management responsibilities within the stadium. The management of the crowd was viewed exclusively through a lens of potential crowd disorder, and this ambiguity was not resolved despite problems at previous semi-finals. SWFC and SYP were unprepared for the disaster that unfolded on the terraces on 15 April 1989."
POTENTIAL crowd disorder. There was no actual, measurable, significant crowd disorder in evidence at the time. Therefore, a crush against the gate resulting in loss of life is unlikely. Furthermore, again from the report:
"The flaws in responding to the emerging crisis on the day were rooted in institutional tension within and between organisations. This was reflected in: a policing and stewarding mindset predominantly concerned with crowd disorder; the failure to realise the consequences of opening exit gates to relieve congestion at the turnstiles; the failure to manage the crowd's entry and allocation between the pens; the failure to anticipate the consequences within the central pens of not sealing the tunnel; the delay in realising that the crisis in the central pens was a consequence of overcrowding rather than crowd disorder."
Clear enough.
|
>> From the report:
>> POTENTIAL crowd disorder. There was no actual, measurable, significant crowd disorder in evidence at the time. Therefore, a crush against the gate resulting in loss of life is unlikely. Furthermore, again from the report:
>> Clear enough.
Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
In real time, decisions are made without the benefit of full information.
Sometimes those decisions workout for the best, sometimes they don't.
Other times the results COULD be similar.
In real life choices can only be made once.
We then have to live (or die) according to the outcome.
|
True enough, Tony. Not convinced it's fully the case here though. The Police on the day had access to the CCTV cameras, and they failed to open the pitchside fences when it became apparent that there was a problem. they had far more information available to them than anyone in the crowd, inside or outside. They still made the wrong decisions, despite being in full possession of pretty much full information, seemingly due to getting their priorities wrong.
And on that, I'll let the report speak for itself, to those prepared to read it and digest it.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 11:12
|
The Leppings Lane stand was, in the language of today, not fit for purpose. Too few turnstiles, certified capacity in excess of what it could in reality handle, an internal layout that intuitvely directed people into particular pens that became overcrowded.
It was the inadequacy of the turnstiles for the entirely foreseesble arrival pattern of the supporters that lead to the gates being openend. There was a cultural unwillingness to postpone KO because of a feeling from previous years that fans were 'dictating' this by arriving late.
The 1981 semi between Wolves and Spurs was practically a full dress rehearsal for what happened eight years later. Matches in 87 and 88 involving Leeds United also led to complaints about crushing on which the authorities failed to act.
|
>> Look at this one, www.stuff.co.nz/world/6353550/Major-football-stadium-disasters some are of other causes, but out of around 25
>> cases, 18 or so are crush and or stampede based.
>> All those cases are very sad.
Heysel, Hillsborough, Harare, Ellis Park... Grobbelaar was at all four. (the latter two in the stands).
I remember the Ellis Park disaster very well - sitting in my office trying to phone all the 'staff' who I knew were at the game, and making sure they were all OK.
I've been at the FNB Stadium - venue of the last world cup final - when it has 'kicked off' in the crowd, and that was damned frightening, to say the least.
|
Swiss has a point actually, notwithstanding that releasing the crowd into the already full pen made the situation much worse.
There very likely would have been casualties in the gate crush, albeit many fewer and less severe, and the match commander would have been villified for that.
He took action to relieve the crush where it was. Bad action as it turned out. Perhaps the situation could have been saved, or at least mitigated, by releasing the crowd into the other much emptier pens rather than the Leppings Lane pen which was already full - and had been highlighted to the FA and the sports minister as a problem at least a year earlier after a previous cup semi.
But the die was largely cast by then. Too many people in the same place, inadequate plans, monitoring, ticket control etc.
The crowd behaviour may have been causative but that doesn't equate to blameworthy. The crowd did what crowds do. The MOTP who wrote to the Sports Minister in 1988 after leaving the Leppings Lane end at half time for his personal safety was careful to say that the crowd behaviour was good, but the situation was still very dangerous.
I'm sorry to say I probably fell for some of the original smear stories about the Liverpool fans. But whether or not there were a few score badly behaved ones among them can't be very relevant to the terrible events on that day.
|
>> the Liverpool fans. But whether or not there were a few score badly behaved ones
>> among them can't be very relevant to the terrible events on that day.
But it can. Without them being there, or there being previous problems with them, there would be no late arrival, no crush at the gate, no pressure on police command to open the gate, no closed fences round the pitch, and no crush and no deaths.
If you do a proper root cause analysis, and look at risk assessments, you will see that the behaviour of Liverpool fans (not those who died - granted) had a a place in the outcome.
I will say it again. Blame can be apportioned to Police, the owners of the ground, AND the fans. To argue anything else is ignoring the realties of the situation.
|
That risk assessement should have been done by the police surely at the time of the match.
|
|
Yup, they did, and it would have included mitigating risks from known bad behaviour by fans.
|
The ground didn't even have a safety certificate. So how did the match even take place there! And the stand's official capacity was greater than it could safely hold. So there will have been more fans with tickets than could ever fit in.
I agree with Zero that football fans in general around that time were part of the cause. Their behaviour led to the fencing in of fans to stop pitch invasions etc. With hindsight this tragedy was always going to happen at some point in time.
I think the emergency services, the ground (and staff), the FA and the fans were all partly to blame. Many mistakes were made.
The police should have admitted their mistakes and lessons would have been learned. But tampering with evidence has hidden important facts and probably should be pursued as perverting the course of justice.
|
I see from today's comic that the report says the crush outside the ground wasn't caused by fans 'arriving late' but by the inadequacy of the turnstiles on that side. I would be surprised if that were 100% true though.
Another snippet was the one about breathalysing (so to speak) the dead, including children, and running all those with a non-zero alcohol level through the national computer, presumably in search of evidence of earlier misbehaviour. That's pretty distasteful.
|
A propos of nothing AC has said, nor anyone else come to that, I see today's Express headline is: "Immigrants blamed for increase in crime".
W. T. F.
I actually let out an involuntary guffaw when I saw it in the works canteen this lunchtime.
|
>> A propos of nothing AC has said, nor anyone else come to that, I see
>> today's Express headline is: "Immigrants blamed for increase in crime".
>>
>> W. T. F.
>>
>> I actually let out an involuntary guffaw when I saw it in the works canteen
>> this lunchtime.
Exactly same reaction from me in Sainsbury's Local when getting my sarnie.
|
To return to the fraught subject, I was struck by a phrase used several times in the TV coverage of the new report, which has been very comprehensive: people who had 'crossed the Pennines' to attend a football game had been cruelly betrayed even before they set off.
Presumably the Liverpool fans had arrived by coach, bus, train and car. But somehow this phrase 'crossed the Pennines' suggests a sort of bucolic, folksy 18th century pilgrimage on foot taking several days. Used only once it wouldn't have been noticeable, but the repetition made it look as if the media campaign now is even more concerted than the disgraceful one back then.
Wouldn't want to make much of it - I imagine the phrase appears in the report and appealed to the hacks filleting it who are always on the lookout for something tasty - but it's the sort of thing I can't help noticing. Nuances are much more powerful than people think. I recall a news item about some frisky immoral lady whose woman writer described her twice as wearing 'seamed jeans'. This apparent tautology made the lady sound dirty, and was intended to.
|
Crossing the Pennines?
Even in April fog or snow over the tops can make it an expedition.
As a Yorkshireman by birth I'd regard a trip over the Pennines as like going abroad.
I suspect the inmates of the Red Rose county have similar hang ups.
|
...Exactly same reaction from me...
In my time hacking around the courts there has certainly been an increase in the number of immigrants in the dock.
There could be a few reasons for this, but as ever, the most obvious is the most likely - immigrants are committing more crime than in the past.
I've not seen the Express story, but we do have, broadly, an increasing crime rate.
So it's not such a giant leap to conclude immigrants are partly responsible.
|
Iffy, I'm not going to take the bait on that, but the thing which made me (and presumably Bromptonaut) titter is that it's so typical of that publication to focus on such a hoary old chestnut when there are bigger news stories around on that particular day.
The headline today just seemed to have been picked off the shelf, from some kind of reservoir of dross that the paper keeps in its bowels, it seemed to me that the paper couldn't think of anything to say on what was undoubtedly the biggest new story in the UK this morning (expect perhaps the unfortunate US Ambassador to Libya).
|
To use a horrible double negative: slagging off the Express story don't make it not so.
|
|
Lieber Gott in Himmel. I have not said that it ain't so. I refuse to engage on that point. I'm merely commenting on the lamentable publication that is the Express. If their headline had been: "Diana: Still dead", I'd have had the same reaction. I'm merely amused that they chose some piffling hogwash or other for their headline on such a day. Capiche?
|
Having finally exhausted Diana and being litigated off the McCanns the Express's new obsession is Romanians and particulalry Roma 'gypsies'.
Yesterday it's headline was about Romanian asylum seekers living high off the hog on our welfare system. Today it's Roma criminals terrifying the citizenry.
|
...Today it's Roma criminals terrifying the citizenry...
When I see Romanian-looking names on a court list, I can almost guarantee it will be card skimming.
Detectives I've spoken to tell me the defendants - men and women - come to this country solely to do card fraud.
As soon as they arrive here they will meet 'someone in London' who will give them the cards, skimming machine and directions of how and where to use it.
Vietnamese have become firmly associated with cannabis farming.
It's reached almost laughable proportions.
Some violent, but lazy, English criminals scope about until they find a Vietnamese, follow him to what they know will be a cannabis farm, and take it over by force.
Both of these trends are fairly recent and wouldn't have happened 20 or even 15 years ago.
|
>> When I see Romanian-looking names on a court list, I can almost guarantee it will
>> be card skimming.
>>
>> Detectives I've spoken to tell me the defendants - men and women - come to
>> this country solely to do card fraud.
>>
>> As soon as they arrive here they will meet 'someone in London' who will give
>> them the cards, skimming machine and directions of how and where to use it.
>>
>> Vietnamese have become firmly associated with cannabis farming.
>>
>> It's reached almost laughable proportions.
>>
>> Some violent, but lazy, English criminals scope about until they find a Vietnamese, follow him
>> to what they know will be a cannabis farm, and take it over by force.
Iffy is 100% correct in his observations. There are more that could be added to the list, however, the point has already been made.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 18:07
|
>> Iffy is 100% correct in his observations. There are more that could be added to the list, however, the point has already been made.
No doubt. But as times change, so do crimes. The new crimes aren't in addition to the old ones. They replace them.
|
>> the most obvious is the most likely - immigrants are committing more crime than in the past.
The most obvious is the most likely: the percentage of immigrants in the population has roughly doubled in that time - perhaps tripled - and the number of crimes committed by them has grown in proportion.
Do we have an increasing crime rate Iffers? Can't say I've noticed anything explosive. There's always been plenty of crime to keep the courts busy and newspaper readers amused. Of course our leaders keep inventing petty crimes, granted.
|
Accurate crime statistics are notoriously difficult to compile but Home office statistics show a climb from the early eighties to the mid nineties and a more or less steady decline ever since.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
|
...Accurate crime statistics are notoriously difficult to compile...
Last inquiries I made showed an increase in acquisitive crime.
A copper I spoke to reckoned it was partly to do with the economic downturn.
|
Is that just anecdotal or can you back it up?
|
Here are the latest stats for Durham - mostly downwards if anything
www.ukcrimestats.com/Police_Force/Durham_Constabulary
|
More immigrants = More immigrant crime.
Surely that makes sense?
Pat
|
|
Don't ever believe crime stats.... they are forever being manipulated and massaged.
|
|
Just like reports being forwarded to fatal accident inquiries.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 18:25
|
>> Just like reports being forwarded to fatal accident inquiries.
All inquiries? Al reports are false?
|
"Don't ever believe crime stats."
Treated with caution certainly but better than anecdote and supposition.
|
As some police do not investigate burglaries, it is likely they don't include some in their stats..
|
|
Which forces do not investigate burglaries?
|
|
Considering burglary is a criminal offence that can attract sentences of several years I presume this is fictitious.
|
>>
>>
>> As some police do not investigate burglaries, it is likely they don't include some in
>> their stats..
>>
>>
I suspect some forces at some times will filter out petty theft. Burglary/housebreaking is considerably more serious.
|
|
ISTR that some police services operate(d) a points system re burglaries. If you came home and found your place done over no points. CCTV helped, likely presence of DNA, really good descriptions of burglars, a vehicle reg number and so on. Seems like a reasonable way of prioritising resources
|
I've only just skimmed through this thread and as far as I can see no-one who has contributed to it was actually at the game in question. As somebody who was may I be allowed to make one or two observations?
Much seems to have been made by certain one dimensional contributors about the 'late arrival' of many Liverpool fans at the ground with the presumption that the reason for the late arrival was a dalliance in licensed premises. For the record I set off from my then home in St Helens (a small town about 12 miles east of Liverpool) to drive to Sheffield on the morning of the match at approximately 10.30am. The journey was no more than 70 miles. As might be imagined there was heavy traffic almost all of the way (there aren't that many routes available between Liverpool and Sheffield). There seemed to be almost as many coaches as cars making the journey and progress was, at best, sedate. My plan was to arrive in Sheffield, park in a city centre car park, have some lunch (probably in a pub) and then get a taxi to the stadium. The best laid plans........
The route over the Pennines was beset with roadworks (none of which had been advertised locally in the build up to the game) and the nearer we got to Sheffield the slower the progress we made. All football traffic was shepherded to an area several miles from the stadium and parking became a nightmare. I more or less 'abandoned ship' in an urban road where it was unclear whether or not my car would still be there at the end of the game (it was) and made my way on foot. I arrived at the ground at about 2.15pm and, although my ticket was not for the Leppings Lane terrace, I had to use the Leppings Lane turnstiles to access the ground. You need to be aware of the siting of the Hillsborough ground to appreciate how grossly unsuitable it is (or was then) to stage big games. Although the chaotic scenes that followed were not as bad at that time it was pretty obvious that severe congestion would develop as kick off time approached as there were thousands of fans still arriving.
Although little mention has been made of it as far as I have seen over the years I understand that there was similar congestion at the opposite end of the ground where Nottingham Forest fans were arriving (there were far fewer of them and they had been allocated the larger spectator area).
I don't have the stomach to counter the absurd comments made by some contributors to this thread but please be assured that the late arrival of a large number of fans had little to do with time spent in local pubs (many more prospective supporters never got to the ground at all – fortunately for them).It would be stupid to claim that there were no drunken supporters at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 but drink did not cause the disaster. Criminal action did that.
|
>> claim that there were no drunken supporters at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 but drink
>> did not cause the disaster. Criminal action did that.
Oh I see, we have no time for others absurd accusations, preferring instead to blame it on Criminals.
Of course no proportion of blame at all must be attached to ANY of he fans for ANY reason.
We can blame the police who pushed them through the gates by force.
Thats sorted then.
|
>>We can blame the police who pushed them through the gates by force.
FFS Zeddo you've now got an eyewitness account and you still pursue the same assertion.
Fans were directed by the police through the exit gates of the stand. That was the only way they were going to get in. Once in that tidal flow of people it would be pretty difficult to turn round. More police or marshalls directing people into the ill signed pens to the sides would have eased the crush. There was no such direction.
Not far off truth to say they were pushed in.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 09:34
|
.
I will ask you the same question, what made the police open that gate?
I dont give a rats ass what "aggrieved" scousers say, the police did not do it as a simple matter of choice, and to suggest its criminal behaviour is absurd.
|
And since scousehonda asserts that it was a criminal activity can he define 'the crime'?
Negligent, ill judged maybe, ........ hindsight is wonderful.
Subsequent 'coverup acts' may judged to be criminal, but action on the ground at the time?
Last edited by: pmh on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 09:54
|
>> And since scousehonda asserts that it was a criminal activity can he define 'the crime'?
>>
>> Negligent, ill judged maybe, ........ hindsight is wonderful.
Some of the inactions of SWFC and Police who ignored the crush were sufficiently negligent to be criminal.
|
>> >> And since scousehonda asserts that it was a criminal activity can he define 'the
>> crime'?
>> >>
>> >> Negligent, ill judged maybe, ........ hindsight is wonderful.
>>
>> Some of the inactions of SWFC and Police who ignored the crush were sufficiently negligent
>> to be criminal.
Which crush, the one inside the ground or the one outside?
|
>> .
>>
>> I will ask you the same question, what made the police open that gate?
>>
Have you read the report? The Hillsborough ground in general and Leppings Lane stand in particular were not fit for the purpose of a big cup match. The turnstiles were inadequate. People don't drift into football grounds over the hours B4 KO; they arrive en-masse.
Opening the exit gates was inevitable to relieve the crush outside.
|
>> Have you read the report?
Yes
The Hillsborough ground in general and Leppings Lane stand in
>> particular were not fit for the purpose of a big cup match.
You will see I have apportioned blame here in EVERY one of my comments above.
>> The turnstiles were
>> inadequate. People don't drift into football grounds over the hours B4 KO; they arrive en-masse.
>> Opening the exit gates was inevitable to relieve the crush outside.
Correct AT LAST someone has appreciated the potential disaster outside. Now who is to blame for that?
|
>> Correct AT LAST someone has appreciated the potential disaster outside. Now who is to blame
>> for that?
Why was anybody 'to blame'? It was as inevitable as night following day.
|
>> >> Correct AT LAST someone has appreciated the potential disaster outside. Now who is to
>> blame
>> >> for that?
>>
>> Why was anybody 'to blame'? It was as inevitable as night following day.
Ah right? Ok I ask you this then, had they died against that closed exit gate, who would have been blamed? And if it was inevitable why is blame been thrown around now? NO - I change that, why are some people being classed as criminals?
Ask yourself this as well, why was Hillsborough chosen and who made that choice? Were there more fans than tickets?
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 10:42
|
>>
>> Ask yourself this as well, why was Hillsborough chosen and who made that choice? Were
>> there more fans than tickets?
>>
>>
I would think the FA decided on the ground allocation. I guess back then SWFC were still a big team, the ground was used for quite a while until the 90's for FA cup semi finals and other big games needing a neutral big ground.
|
>> I would think the FA decided on the ground allocation.
Yes and no, the clubs have (had) some say, the FA input was " a neutral ground" the clubs input was SIZE, it was all about maximising income.
>> I guess back then SWFC
>> were still a big team,
Many ups and downs that mob, yes they were a League 1 side most of that decade.
>> the ground was used for quite a while until the
>> 90's for FA cup semi finals and other big games needing a neutral big ground.
It was used a lot as a neutral ground, most of the big northern games that required a neutral stadium were played there.
Given the above two circumstances, that fact that it was one of the poorest maintained and behind the times stadia is damning.
|
Thanks Scousehonda for your first hand account.
In the study of aircraft accidents it is not usually just one event that causes the eventual outcome. It is a series of events, including human failings, which cause the downward spiral (forgive the pun). If you relate this to Hillsborough then the moment Scousehonda left Liverpool by road with thousands of others encountering roadworks on the way the disaster at the ground was already starting to happen.
I said I was visiting SYP the day after the report and the atmosphere was fairly sombre. I spoke to two Officers who had been there. There is no doubt that the events that unfolded that day has had a profound impact on them.
However there is a universal acceptance from all fronts in hindsight that things went badly wrong that day and the Police, the Ground etc got it wrong.
I was told that a Police horse was lifted off its feet in the crush outside. Pubs on route drunk dry.
Its is interesting to note the accusations of changed statements. There were a number of examples in the Daily Mail. What I saw was that there were omissions of non evidential facts i.e. the perception of what was or was not happening which was critical of the management. Certainly during my career I was told to write a statement with the evidential facts and not opinion unless it was of an 'expert' nature. Now whether this was right or wrong in this case is a matter for debate. Remember an independent force conducted the investigation.
I'm sure as this continues everything will be examined in minute detail and there will be yet another report. But all those that worked the match that day did not go there to deliberately kill the fans.
I think the issue within this thread is that there is total denial by the Liverpool fans that they did have a role to play in the final part of that spiral.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 10:46
|
The times when football fans were hated
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19596766
|
|
And can I add in regard to the Liverpool fans who are very passionate about their football, that this was perhaps only a minority in percentage terms and it cannot be denied that the minority had a poor behavioural track record.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 11:25
|
"Pubs drunk dry"
What evidence. Hearsay. Solely by Liverpol fans? What about the opposing fans. They may have drunk them dry on their own. Not worthy evidence.
"Independant force conducted investigation"
So what. They only came to conclusion they did with the biased evidence provided to them by SYP. Another force, not an Independant non police body.
|
Fullchat wrote:
"Its is interesting to note the accusations of changed statements. There were a number of examples in the Daily Mail. What I saw was that there were omissions of non evidential facts i.e. the perception of what was or was not happening which was critical of the management. Certainly during my career I was told to write a statement with the evidential facts and not opinion unless it was of an 'expert' nature. Now whether this was right or wrong in this case is a matter for debate".
I hope he won't mind me elaborating, because it's an interesting angle.
In the early 80's and beyond, the way police officers were taught to write evidence was: include the facts only, not to include conjecture, presumption, your own thoughts, etc. You did occasionally, but you ran the risk of your evidence being inadmissible in court and it wasn't the done thing. Police officers prosecuted people in the magistrates courts for minor to middling stuff, then they'd have police employed solicitors to prosecute the more complicated magistrates court stuff and barristers dealt with the crown courts, as per today.
When the CPS was instigated, the responsibility for the submission of evidence was obviously passed to them...and...they wanted to know more of the bigger picture, so eventually the whole system has changed. Nowadays officers write considerably more and the lawyer/barrister talks you through your evidence at court and leaves out the bits that they feel would be inadmissible, so it's in your statement, but not quoted, whereas in the old days, it shouldn't have been in your statement at all.
1989 would have been a transitional stage. The CPS would be in place, but many, many officers would still be used to the 'old way' and would not be at all used to or comfortable with putting in more....except.....when something really got on their goat or they wanted to go that extra mile to convict someone or something was really important to them...e.g. 90 odd people dead, that the individuals at the shop floor thought was preventable and that the management had ****** up.
Meanwhile, the management read the statements, see all the conjecture and presumption and ask their staff to re-write it as per the norm (bearing in mind, that for them to be in a management grade, the way they were taught to provide evidence would have been way before the 80's, probably decades before).
So although backside covering would be a likely scenario, so would defending against civil litigation and complying with an excepted norm for evidence presentation at or about that time. It would be considered unprofessional to write too much 'hearsay' or presumption, which is some way different to fiddling the statements.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Sep 12 at 00:33
|
Phew - that's SYP off the hook.
Have there been any tragic events involving the 'Force that didn't start with immediate 'damage limitation' from on high?
And when I say immediate, I mean within minutes of events.
*edit* 'involving' does not imply fault - I'm with zero et al on the 'causes' beuind Hillsborough being multi-factorial.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 16 Sep 12 at 11:08
|
>> Phew - that's SYP off the hook.
Why are you so negative Lygonos?
It doesn't let them off the hook at all, as well you know.
I'm not trying to find a way to let them off that hook either...just explain one part of one element of the issues involved, that many people won't know about, something that is relevant....something that I know to be fact, because I was a cop from 1981 to 2012.
I think you need to be a bit more objective.
|
It's for the 'Inquiry' to be objective - statements should be taken in this context and witnesses interviewed by the Inquiry team, as they would be in a court.
This was not a random event, there appears to be culpability from several (?all) sides. in various degrees.
This isn't me being negative - this is my utter contempt for whitewashing, and that goes for all organisations private/public or whatever.
|
>> Have there been any tragic events involving the 'Force that didn't start with immediate 'damage
>> limitation' from on high?
Name me an organisation that doesn't.
|
Name me an organisation that does it by leaking out erroneous information that is not the Police.
(other than the US armed forces)
|
Every organisation, political, military, civil, commercial has done it at one time or another in living memory.
|
|
True - it appears increasingly prevalent the further away from "guys on the ground" management appear to be.
|
I've given statements for commercial litigation a couple of times, and in both cases 'our' solicitor assisted in the preparation of statements. Part of the editing was in respect of arguably irrelevant matters, or opinion/judgements etc.
Other edits were the removal of stuff that was unhelpful to our case.
That seemed fair enough in relation to a litigation, why should we have promoted evidence that wouldn't help our own case? It didn't go as far as altering facts or fabrication, of which there was no suggestion.
It seems to me it's a bit different in the case of trying to find out what happened in a tragedy like Hillsborough. Even if the norm in prosecutions was to edit evidence down to that which supported the case (and how can that be right if it could involve suppressing evidence of innocence?), that shouldn't apply in an objective investigation of a sequence of events.
It is something that lawyers are very used to doing though, or at least litigators are.
|
>> Name me an organisation that does it by leaking out erroneous information that is not
>> the Police.
Do I really need to answer that?
Is the medical profession constantly perfect?
Do I realise that in the medical profession there are countless numbers of people trying their best to 'get it right' in often difficult circumstances and who become mortified when some scandal rears its head and everyone gets tarred by the same brush?
|
Indeed but we don't change the medical records to cover our backs.
And when we do we rightly face criminal charges.
|
>> Indeed but we don't change the medical records to cover our backs.
>>
>> And when we do we rightly face criminal charges.
>>
Did you read my post, properly?
If someone in the medical profession had (perhaps naively) written something in medical records that was considered speculative, not accurate enough and against current policy when considering the norms of the time..and.. a senior colleague asked for it to be re-written, keeping the first copy, but only submitting the second one into officialdom....would that be considered criminal?
|
Yes.
Unless officialdom were made aware that version 1.0 existed, in which case what was the point of covering up in the first place?
|
>> in which case what was the
>> point of covering up in the first place?
>>
To get it right, at the time of the writing of it. Having regard to the norms of the time.
Those norms have completely changed now. The first version of the statements is now how they are all written. However, that is applying 2012 logic to a 1989 conundrum.
|
>> However, that is applying 2012 logic to a 1989 conundrum
Absolutely right, and this will be taken into consideration when further enquiries are made.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19068608
Recent medical example.
Management culture takes the heat although I doubt this is strictly criminal - if I was health secretary I'd be applying the thumbscrews (as I suspect is the case).
The problem with the Police has always stemmed from its management structure and willingness of many of those 'up-high' to hang fault on their subordinates.
The combination of 'type-A' personality and ego that is helpful for grass-root policing on a Friday night, when mixed with political (small 'p') aspirations and managerial responsibility doesn't often engender a respectful organisation.
|
The main thing in my mind is whether or not it was done purely with the intent of hiding something, compared to ensuring a statement is more factually accurate and has less conjecture in it, or (within acceptable boundaries) limits culpability for civil litigation..and of course whether the original(s) still exist and/or they are freely admitted to.
So if a senior officer asks/tells a junior officer to change a statement just because the senior office fears they've (either the senior or junior) done wrong...go to jail.
If a senior officer tells the junior etc to change things simply because it makes the police look bad ..go to jail.
If the senior tells the junior the statement isn't good, it is misleading in its format and/or puts conjecture and hearsay in (at a time that was not an acceptable practice) and needs to be corrected...and...the original remains available........then that is not a criminal matter.
...and neither is it so if the police lawyers suggest toning things down to prevent civil court action.
Basically, if facts are in there, they should still be in there. If presumption or hearsay (something heard from a 3rd party, not yourself) is in there, it need not be.
|
>> Indeed but we don't change the medical records to cover our backs.
>>
Lygonos, while in general I have the greatest respect for the medical profession, on 3 occasions in my own family, in 2 of which my wife was the patient, records were "lost" and explanations were given for problems during an operation which were contradicted by other, more junior doctors later.
Nothing was done in any of the 3 cases because the patient recovered in each case and that was the important thing but the medical profession, in my personal experience has been less than perfect at times in basic honesty.
I am sure that the vast majority of doctors are scrupulous about honesty with patients but there is definitely an element of covering ones back at times.
|
WP has elaborated on my statement theory. Now if the latest report has twisted that and then sold it as lies and cover ups and pointing the big finger at the Police then why? (Unless of course there is direct proof that occurred in which case my theory collapses). The Police service is undergoing radical reforms in respect of pay and conditions and introduction of Police Commissionaires. Its very easy to reduce public sympathy for an organisation or individuals if they can be shown in a bad light (Bankers anyone?). Currently performance is measured by 'Confidence and Satisfaction' Do you think that the residents of SYP would score them particularly highly at the moment? Now why would anyone want to do that you may ask? Regionalisation of Forces never took off.
When the Hillsborough inquiry first started after the 96 tragic deaths would there have been agendas or terms of reference set? By whom? Why? What were they?
Where was blame going to be apportioned or to whom? Where they an easy target?
Now you may think I'm a conspiracy theorist, paranoid and overly defensive of the Police but some elements of this whole inquiry do not quite stack up.
|
>
>> Now you may think I'm a conspiracy theorist, paranoid and overly defensive of the Police
>> but some elements of this whole inquiry do not quite stack up.
Now to be honest FC, I think you are driving off on a denial course akin to those who think the fans had no part to play in the tragedy. I have no doubts that the report has no link to any future change in terms of police employment or the upcoming governance, you really are bing more than a bit paranoid there. Reading the report its pretty clear that senior officers (lets face it, the CC of the SYP at the time was really old school police and a bit of a dictator who thought he could rule the roost) tried to divert blame.
In doing so those who ordered it have really made it worse, blame them - not the current report. Sure this report has swung the other way, and no doubt the truth in somewhere in the middle, but the ammo was provided by the SYP CC's and his managements actions.
|
>> >> in my personal experience has been less than perfect at times in basic honesty.
>> I am sure that the vast majority of doctors are scrupulous about honesty with patients
>> but there is definitely an element of covering ones back at times.
>>
+1
|
|
The irony is not lost on me that one of the world's most prolific serial killers was a UK GP.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 16 Sep 12 at 22:52
|
>> one of the world's most prolific serial killers was a UK GP.
Pretty talented liar too I seem to remember. But mined the vein of a certain working-class superstitious deference to doctors that used to exist. The ghastly backstreet abortionst Christie who lived in my old London manor in the forties wasn't even a doctor, but killed women with a mumbo-jumbo gas machine he had invented. He was mining the same vein too, at a time when a lot of people could barely read or write.
|
>> >> Opening the exit gates was inevitable to relieve the crush outside.
>>
>> Correct AT LAST someone has appreciated the potential disaster outside. Now who is to blame for that?
>>
I already pointed that out Zero... and took a bit of a bashing for it.
IMHO the person who took the decision to open those gates, did so because the facts as they saw them at that time (probably a decision made in seconds rather than minutes) lead them to believe that some would get killed against the gates/turnstiles/walls.
Hindsight leads us to believe that was an incorrect decision... but what if the disaster inside the ground hadn't happened?
Gates left closed and people died outside ''Inaction by officials leads to death's outside ground - Police blamed''
Gates opened, and crush dispersed ''quick thinking by Police narrowly averts disaster''
From what I've seen and heard, the layout of the ground, and the forward planning was not up to the job....
Also, let us not forget the reason that the 'cages' where installed in the first place... that one fact, lays in the so called fans laps. (crossed with fullchats posting....)
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 11:40
|
The crush outside should have been properly planned for. The same issue had arisen on at least three previous occasions as had severe crushing in the pens.
When the gates were opened the plan should also have put marshalls inside the ground to divert people into the relatively empty side pens.
|
Zero
I have no desire to enter into a slanging match with yourself or anybody else but I have to say that the tone of many of your contributions (not just this particular subject) comes across as very aggressive and not a little arrogant. You have referred to me either directly or indirectly as a 'tit', an aggrieved scouser, and someone whose opinion you don't give a 'rat's ass' about. You have referred to Sheffield Wednesday FC as a 'mob' and, on the emotive subject of the Hillsborough disaster, you have repeatedly inferred that spectators who arrive at a stadium over half an hour before kick-off are 'late' and, as such, are somehow architects of the death of many of their co supporters.
You have said that you have read the Report of the Hillsborough Panel and I have no reason to doubt that you have but your attitude to the event is something that I find extremely offensive. I was fortunate not to be directly involved in the horrendous crush (which was caused not because a horde of drunken scousers forced their way into overcrowded pens but because they were not directed by police or stewards to the adjacent virtually deserted pens) but I lost several friends and had to wait an anxious hour and a half before receiving confirmation that my son, who went to the game independently of me, had survived.
Your aggression has caused me much angst in the past but I have refrained from responding on the basis that to do so would somehow dignify your attitude. This, though, was a step too far.
|
scousehonda -
So your position is that the fans were in no way, in no part and at no level either involved in or a factor in the disaster?
Because all that that nasty aggressive arrogant Zero has said is that ALL parties have some level of blame.
Perhaps your angst is blinding you.
|
Mark,
Zero has repeatedly peddled the assertion that the fans contribution was to arrive late and tanked and then to push into a crammed ground.
He's still to come up with the evidence.
This report and I think that of the late Taylor LJ (which I cannot presently find on the net) both blamed the police for lack of planning and organisation in the face of what was a normal arrival pattern at a match of this type ie 'AWAY' for both sets of fans.
ScouseH was there and deserves some slack.
|
Bromptonnaut,
Has he? That may certainly be inferred from what he's written, but I think he's not actualy said it.
My position is this;
1) Any cover up or hiding of facts after the fact is appalling and should be dealt with.
2) It would appear to me that all parties involved had some level of responsibility for what occurred. Its difficult to know who and how much, but I don't think anyone was wearing white.
3) We would not, for example, accept a policeman emotively proclaiming the innocence of all police simply because he was there. Neither should we accept that from any other party.
4) Nobody went there to kill or die. Whaetever they did (or did not do, Alanovic) we should bear that in mind and hopefully treat it more as a learning experience than a scapegoating and pillioring exercise.
I am sure the fans would not have pushed if they thought someone would die, I am sure the police would not have taken their actions if they thought that someone would die. That does not mean that they were not wrong, misguided or even incompetent. But that's not the same as evil.
5) Anybody culpable in a cover up or mis-representation endeavour should be nailed to the wall. They weren't doing their best and they were criminal.
>>ScouseH was there and deserves some slack.
My intention was not to pick on anyone. But I do gently suggest that being there, or having relatives there, may not be the ideal basis for accepting complete objectivity.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 13:39
|
>>
>> 3) We would not, for example, accept a policeman emotively proclaiming the innocence of all police simply because he was there. Neither should we accept that from any other party.
I don't think it's a matter of taking anyone's word. The report covers, in this case, the fan's actions and the impact on those killed (none in this case). If we only had one person's view that would be a different matter.
|
>>I don't think it's a matter of taking anyone's word
Inevitably I think it will be. Just not one person's.
Surely all a report can do is take as many statements as possible and try and work out what happened? I guess some television pictures will be available, and some physical evidence. But most of it will be based on the word/opinion/recollection/call it what you will of people involved.
- again, not talking about cover-ups and stuff, talking of the incident itself.
|
|
Sorry I thought you meant one person, scousehonda rather than the whole report.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 13:57
|
One thing is clear. The ground was unsafe. The Club's Directors knew it. The Local Authority knew it.
Both were capable of contributory negligence and as a very minimum the Club's Directors should have been charged.. (what charge I am unsure of).
The FA was also aware. And I believe the police as well.
Funny how everyone tends to skirt round the issue: I suspect a lot of very senior people could end up being charged with a multiplicity of charges. Culpable Manslaughter?
Last edited by: madf on Sat 15 Sep 12 at 15:46
|
>> Zero
>>
>> You have
>> referred to me either directly or indirectly as a 'tit',
Which one of the many categories for earning that accolade did you meet? There has been a few I know.
>>an aggrieved scouser,
Based on your complete inability to accept that the fans had a part to play? then yes.
>> and someone
>> whose opinion you don't give a 'rat's ass' about.
Based on your complete inability to accept that the fans had a part to play? then yes.
>> repeatedly inferred that spectators who arrive at a stadium over half an hour before kick-off
>> are 'late' and, as such, are somehow architects of the death of many of their
>> co supporters.
No I haven't inferred it, i was pretty specific about it, and will state again that yes 30 minutes before a major cup tie is late, however worse they were still turning up at kick off, and this contributed to the crush outside the gate (they didn't want to be locked out of the game) that caused the gate to be opened and was part of the problem (not the word "part" please)
Now let me tell you how I know. Its in the report, and I was a "football" fan in the 70s and 80's and Its how it was.
If you arrived by coach you sank a load of bevies on the coach ( or inter city train in my "firms" case). If you had time a few more were sank int he local boozer. For a cup tie, you turned up late and you swamped the place to help those without tickets in) Liverpool fans were no different. Please dont try and say they were not, because its simple not true.
>> You have referred to Sheffield Wednesday FC as a 'mob
An accolade well earned. It was a badly run club, who spent far less on safety and facilities than most on their ground, didnt pay for stewards on the day, overstated the capacity of the ground to earn more cash, conspired in the cover up and were a contributory factor to the deaths of your fans. Now based on that I think "mob" is pretty tame, dont you?
I would have though you would have been pretty angry with them as well.
>>
>> You have said that you have read the Report of the Hillsborough Panel and I
>> have no reason to doubt that you have but your attitude to the event is
>> something that I find extremely offensive. I was fortunate not to be directly involved in
>> the horrendous crush (which was caused not because a horde of drunken scousers forced their
>> way into overcrowded pens but because they were not directed by police or stewards to
>> the adjacent virtually deserted pens)
Again have you considered why this was not done? Do you seriously think the police did these actions deliberately? Ok they cocked up, badly, poor choices made during a deteriorating situation. The subsequent cover up is unforgivable.
>> Your aggression has caused me much angst in the past
I am sorry about that. Does not change the facts in this case tho. I will restate them
The Police, the Ground, and the Liverpool fans all had their part to play in this tragedy. To try and absolve any one of them is folly. To have done so would not have led to the huge improvement in policing, the grounds, and fan behaviour.
|
|
Thank you for your explicit analysis.
|
Of course one feels the pain of the victims and their loved ones. What normal human being wouldn't? But I do have to suspect that blame is rarely unilaterally attributable.
A bit like a road traffic accident. One person's mistake or stupidity can set it off but the seriousness of the outcome may be compounded by the subsequent or even the preceding actions of others who in hindsight would regard themselves as innocent victims.
Anyway, let us trust that this allows those affected to find some closure, those who are culpable to be brought to account while concurrently hoping and trusting that it doesn't create scapegoats of those who do not deserve it.
|
I'll say my final on this. The Taylor report that came directly out of the Hillsborough disaster
(wiki quote)
The Taylor Report found that the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.[3] It recommended that all major stadia convert to an all-seater model, that all ticketed spectators have seats, as opposed to some or all being obliged to stand. The Football League in England and the Scottish Football League introduced regulations that clubs in the highest divisions (top 2 divisions in the English system[4]) must comply to this recommendation by August 1994. As a result most clubs refurbished or rebuilt (partly and in some cases completely) stadiums, while others built new stadiums at different locations.
Some clubs had started upgrading their stadia before this rule was introduced. For example, St Johnstone arranged for the construction of McDiarmid Park, which opened in time for the 1989-90 season and was already being built when Hillsborough occurred.
The report stated that standing accommodation is not intrinsically unsafe, but the government decided that no standing accommodation was to be allowed at all.
Other recommendations of the Taylor Report included points on items such as the sale of alcohol within stadia, crush barriers, fences, turnstiles, ticket prices and other stadium items
The lessons were learned, improvements were made, the likelihood of that happening again are now much rarer than they were. Some will say the atmosphere has gone now, in truth its a small price to pay for the safer customer experience that is now live soccer.
|
|
Zero is often too acerbic for his own good but I don't think he has been in this thread. I can't claim as he can to have been a fairly drunken and loutish football fan in those days but from a different perspective, and some experience of crowds in all their brainless volatility and force, I have come to similar conclusions. I don't think I've said anything that should offend a rational Liverpool fan, and I don't think Zero has by his standards to give the devil his due.
|
>> Zero is often too acerbic for his own good but I don't think he has
>> been in this thread. I can't claim as he can to have been a fairly
>> drunken and loutish football fan in those days but from a different perspective, and some
>> experience of crowds in all their brainless volatility and force, I have come to similar
>> conclusions. I don't think I've said anything that should offend a rational Liverpool fan, and
>> I don't think Zero has by his standards to give the devil his due.
>>
+1
|
In today's Telegraph the Hillsborough Families Support Group issued a long statement demanding prosecutions and including this:
"The fans did not contribute to the tragedy. Any blame laid at their door has been found to be part of a despicable conspiracy..etc.."
|
>> Families Support Group issued a long statement demanding prosecutions and including this:
>> "The fans did not contribute to the tragedy.
It seems to be widely accepted that people who are upset about something have to be allowed to get away with saying any old rubbish.
|
The Families Support Group are perhaps right in essence.
I didn't make an argument out of it, and I won't now, but a crowd is not the sum of its parts and the crowd behaviour was nothing if not predictable. I did say IIRC that it seemed to me that crowd behaviour might well have been causative, but not blameworthy as far as I can see.
Just because something is an essential factor doesn't mean it's a 'cause' in the normally understood, non-technical sense of the word.
Somebody used the term 'root cause analysis' which is most often heard in IT circles, and presumably air crash investigations. I've seen more than a few IT ones. They aren't generally intended as a means of apportioning blame. What they usually do is to tell you which 'holes in the cheese' lined up, perhaps to allow an everyday problem to become a disaster. In the case of a plane crash, bad wind, visibility etc can be critical factors, but if the pilot does the wrong thing, he or she is responsible - not the weather, regardless that the crash would not have happened had it been calm and sunny.
Certainly there were many factors here - but it's pretty clear to me where the responsibility lay, which was among the people responsible for maintaining order on that day. Whether they are culpable is more complicated, but nobody else was responsible. Crowds don't have a brain, a consciousness, a control system.
The trouble is, it's almost impossible to discuss this without using language that's loaded in some way. It's pretty clear what happened, in broad terms, isn't it?
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 17 Sep 12 at 13:54
|
Crowds don't have a brain, a consciousness, a control system
So all rioters are innocent?
|
>> Crowds don't have a brain, a consciousness, a control system
>>
>> So all rioters are innocent?
That's just silly.
I made a thoughtful post in the context of a discussion. It doesn't make me right of course, but to construe it as you have adds nothing. Or was it a joke? If so I apologise for being po faced.
|
>> Crowds don't have a brain, a consciousness, a control system.
No, they don't. But they do consist of many individuals with brains, whose individual comportment on a large scale governs crowd behaviour. Emotions - fear, panic, anger, impatience - are infectious in crowds and spread instantly.
Football crowds at that time - they may have changed a bit - consisted largely of youngish men up for all sorts of physical fun, even fighting sometimes. So the rush and scramble to get into those lethal stands was indeed predictable, especially as the same fans were pressing in and swamping the police outside the ground - not waiting politely to be admitted through those infernal turnstiles - and the exit gate shouldn't have been opened in panic the way it was. I agree that the main responsibility rests with the ground and the police.
But some has to rest with the fans. If more of them had been more restrained and less aggressive those mounted police might not have panicked and the disaster might not have happened.
|
|
Since much of the material will have been professionally prepared it is surprising that a statement such as this is included. 'Victims' may have this view but a rational professional surely cannot.
|
Having thought about this subject matter and this thread, in depth. I think the official inquiry has allowed the pendulum to swing too far....and it doesn't do any good.
We've gone from a cover up or plastering over of some of the facts and an unnecessarily high blame of football fans...to..no blame whatsoever of football fans...and that simply isn't credible.
|
I'm not trying to 'win' an argument Westpig, but why isn't it credible?
Agreed, the behaviour of the crowd was a factor, the victims were crushed by the crowd not by the police or the FA, but was the crowd behaviour in any way different from what might have been expected or had happened before?
The same teams had met there previously in a cup semi, and serious concerns had been raised about crush problems. Were adequate measures taken to address that?
Add in the opening of the gates, the failure to delay kick off, and the failure to direct the fans into the less crowded pens, and finally the failure of the barriers, and casualties start to look inevitable.
Further add the failure to act to relieve the crush, the attempt to prevent people escaping on to the pitch, failure in fact correctly to assess the developing situation, and disaster looks certain.
What then, if anything, did the crowd or elements of it do that was either different to what could have been expected or that they hadn't done before, or even do now? The 'late arrival conspiracy' theory was thrown out IIRC in the original enquiry. Large numbers of people still pack local pubs before a football match, but we don't see 96 people crushed to death.
What seems to have happened is that things just went over centre in 1989 in a way that could have, but hadn't, happened before.
The Nottingham fans had almost three times the number of turnstiles that the Liverpool fans had - the shortage of turnstiles was a major part of the problem. Lord Taylor didn't think that disaster would necessarily have been avoided if the terrace allocations had been reversed - that doesn't square with the idea that it was a Liverpool fan problem.
Not forgetting that Lord Taylor said the drunkeness etc were exacerbating but secondary factors. The original inquiry concluded that the principal cause of the disaster was a failure of police control - so has the view as the the cause really changed much?
What has happened is that we now know that there were fairly systematic attempts to make the police look better and the fans look worse than was actually the case, and hopefully we know more about why the police lost control.
So how much blame really attaches to the fans, and why? What abnormal behaviours did the fans exhibit that meant the police and stewards could not keep order?
I'm just trying to understand.
|
Telegraph report including statement of Sir Norman Bettison:
tinyurl.com/9xb2wtz
Seem balanced and factual to me. But it seems: "..The panel found "no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans".
|
>> I'm not trying to 'win' an argument Westpig, but why isn't it credible?
>>
>> Agreed, the behaviour of the crowd was a factor, the victims were crushed by the
>> crowd not by the police or the FA, but was the crowd behaviour in any
>> way different from what might have been expected or had happened before?
Well that sort of answers your own question.
For me the report has left out the degree of culpability of some fans (and whether or not it was the norm at the time to act like that is immaterial, although I'd agree the Police should be well aware of this and act accordingly).
The report doesn't give any real credit/credence to the angle Fullchat first highlighted and I elaborated on, higher up the thread re reasons why some statements might alter... and that surprises me. It ought to if it is to be properly balanced. It needs to cover the angle of outright covering up, of course it does, but to properly balance things why wouldn't it cover the other as well?
I believe in the aircraft crash analogy mentioned higher up the thread, not the 'all blame goes one way'.
It has allowed the relatives of the deceased to inflame their grief by grasping at something that isn't fully correct.
That is my opinion, based on near 31 years of policing, the last 6 years in a management rank and I have been a football match commander (albeit at nothing like the level we are talking about here).
The one sidedness of it troubles me, it doesn't seem right...i.e. lacks credibility....and I fully acknowledge that the senior officers present badly ****** up on that day....but a load of other things played their part as well, including some fans.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Wed 19 Sep 12 at 01:29
|
So much has been done to remove the conditions that allowed Hillsborough to happen that it couldn't happen now; but the same procedural failings could create a different disaster.
More important than allocating the blame in the correct proportions is understanding how to prevent that sort of dysfunction in the command of complex developing situations requiring quick decisions and actions. Hopefully, this has long since happened in relation to Hillsborough given that 23 years has gone by.
To compare again with air safety, investigations do not set out to apportion blame but to find causes so as to make recommendations, if appropriate, to prevent future accidents.
Air accident investigations are not directed to criminal liability or blame. First, find out what went wrong, and work out how to stop it happening again.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 17 Sep 12 at 23:11
|
>The Nottingham fans had almost three times the number of turnstiles that the Liverpool fans had..
The Hillsborough ground basically has two points of entry and exit, the Leppings Lane end and the Herries Road end separated by a couple of residential side streets. Leppings Lane was the traditional home crowd end and closest to direct routes from Liverpool. Herries Road is at the opposite end of the ground and on the main road towards the M1 and rail link to Nottingham.
The obvious solution to keeping the fans apart was to use Leppings Lane for Liverpool fans and Herries Road for Nottingham. The Herries road end has more turnstiles but sharing them would have been asking for trouble.
|
Kevin says:Sharing the turnstiles was asking for trouble.Well that is a understatement they got trouble over ninety people crushed to dead.
D Duckenfield refused to the opening of gate C to relieve pressure and blamed later that the Liverpool fans smashed the gate.
Ambulances and Fire engines where stopped to go into the ground to help people.
A copper Martin Long recieved £330.000 for traumatic stress.What about the families who lost their loved ones on the football pitch.
And the berieved families having to wait 23 years for a outcome to hear. We are so sorry beggars belief.
I was 40 at the time remember it well never read that S paper ever again.Mc Kenzie you deserve to go somewhere where it is hot.
I like to see two sides of a story bit this Hillsborough disaster was down to the authorities.
|
|
I'm guessing you never went to a sell out 70's or 80's first division football game Dutchie.
|
Today's blame culture always seems to demand a "person/organisation" to blame if ordure happens. Suing people is now a national pursuit!
No-one can possibly think that this tragedy was planned.
It is clear that blame, as such, lies with many different sectors, from the designers of the stadium, the marshalling of the crowds and indeed, the crowds themselves, to the mistakes made by everyone at the crucial crisis point.
A witch hunt benefits nobody, except perhaps those whose sole meaning and focus in life has been channelled into obsessively chewing away at this horrid occurrence.
Are we now to see the ambulance chasing lawyers - a despicable breed - descending on the families concerned, all with £££££££ signs flashing in their eyes?
|
Yeah - I lost my relative 23 years ago: a few grand will make the pain go away.
(Genuine financial hardship directly attributable excepted).
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19652747
Looks like we're going down the route of suppression of free speech.
|
You mean in relation to comments last week?
Unless it's ultra vires the referral to the IPCC is probably the best way to deal with it - the Police Authority may well agree with your views on free speech but it would not sit well for them to dismiss complaints themselves. The IPCC might chuck it out though.
Or have I missed the point again?
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19652747
>>
>> Looks like we're going down the route of suppression of free speech.
Not sure I grasp this.
Not unreasonable for Bettison's conduct in Hilsborough aftermath to be reviewed.
What's the impact for free speech?
|
Bettison came out with some comments last week that had the potential to inflame people. I was trying to clarify with WP that that was what what he was referring to.
It said a second element of the referral related to a statement he made last week, following the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, in which he said the Liverpool fans' behaviour made policing at the tragedy "harder than it needed to be".
Maybe he's not very bright (Bettison, not Westpig).
|
My point is that when a Chief Inspector, a not insignificant rank in itself, he says he witnessed things that he felt made policing harder at the tragedy....repeated them 23 years later...and now finds himself under investigation, whilst Chief Constable.
It seems to me that some folk don't like his evidence/viewpoint.
If that is how he saw it at the time and continues to see it, he's perfectly entitled to express it ....and if someone complains about it....why would anyone think it necessary/appropriate to investigate it?
Do they really think he's made it up?
There is a whiff of something deeply unpleasant in the air... a sort of 'failure to comply with the party line = knocked off your perch'.
Should someone investigate me for saying what I've said?
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 19 Sep 12 at 21:45
|
Normally I'd support him, and I probably agree with his point of view. However, there is a difference between his right to a freedom of speech when speaking as a private citizen and the significance of his words if spoken as a Chief inspector.
And it would seem he was speaking as a Chief Inspector.
|
Surely he would have had his chance in any future official processes, like the new inquests, and any legal proceedings taken against the force or individuals therein? There is the best place, not to the press, should have read the moment better - peeing into the wind springs to mind - wait till the wind drops.
|
There seem to be two parts to the complaint, one relating to the cover up, presumably based on the findings of the Independent Panel (though that's just inferred by me) and the other relating to some comments he made last week.
Why he made last week's comments, apparently at odds with the Panel findings, and guaranteed to provoke some sort of response from defenders of the fans, who knows?
Anyway, "Sir Norman said ... he was pleased to have the matter investigated."
|
>> Why he made last week's comments, apparently at odds with the Panel findings, and guaranteed
>> to provoke some sort of response from defenders of the fans, who knows?
>>
>> Anyway, "Sir Norman said ... he was pleased to have the matter investigated."
>>
My take on it as well. I suspect he has strong feelings on the subject, because he was there.
...and if I were he, I'd be incensed at having to toe a party line and not say something, if he truly believes it and thinks some stuff is being brushed under the carpet.
Hence him speaking out.
It seems to me that the pendulum has gone completely the other way. First we had suppression of info/facts that maligned some fans, now we have suppression of info/facts that criticises some fans.
|
|
Yeah the pendulum has swung the other way, so his timing was cack awful, its bad sound bites. Should have known that and chosen a better moment/forum.
|
>> It seems to me that the pendulum has gone completely the other way. First we
>> had suppression of info/facts that maligned some fans, now we have suppression of info/facts that
>> criticises some fans.
>>
Re-reading this, it could be ambiguous.
I meant: first facts were suppressed to the detriment of fans, then facts are suppressed to the advantage of fans.
|
A bit of a news story here with a couple of Police Officers who allege they were told to alter their statements. Copies of statements included. Make your own minds up regarding content and allegations of 'changes'.
I'm afraid to say the off duty Merseyside PC's was in need of some development structurally and grammatically.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19601652
|
The 'just report the facts' argument for statement changes seems to run a bit thin here.
|
I'd agree with that observation. However there is still not before and after to make direct comparisons.
It was a possible explanation earlier and if I was to see a number of similar examples then I would have to accept that theory was misguided although it was best practice at the time.
|
Apparently Kelvin McKenzie, author of the Sun's notorious The Truth headline wants an apology from the police for misleading him!!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19727779
Other papers reported the assertions about fan behaviour for what they were; stories doing the round. The Sun's own reporter was, or at least now says he was, cautious about the strength of the story but McKenzie wrote the headline anyway.
Last week he gave an apology now he's trying to palm off responsibilty to others. Don't see his stock on Merseyside rising anytime soon.
|
|
Just about confirms my opinions about him.
|
A new inquest has been opened to inquire into the deaths of 96 football fans.
The court is the largest in England and Wales, in order to accommodate the numbers with an interest.
|
>> A new inquest has been opened to inquire into the deaths of 96 football fans.
>>
>> The court is the largest in England and Wales, in order to accommodate the numbers
>> with an interest.
The premises are on an industrial estate and will presumably be leased 'for the duration'. Driving up the M6 on Friday we noted temporary signs indicating the route to the Hillsborough Inquiry.
In my last post in the Civil Service I was involved in concept of getting Government decisions, at levels from parking through benefit entitlement to life changing stuff like asylum or licence to pursue your profession 'Right First Time'.
Hillsborough is a classic example of the costs that follow when stuff is got wrong first, second and third time.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 31 Mar 14 at 19:48
|
|
I thought we more or less knew what happened. I fear that the Hillsborough enquiry has become an industry in its own right with the lawyers rubbing their hands at the prospect of continued employment.
|
>> I thought we more or less knew what happened. I fear that the Hillsborough enquiry
>> has become an industry in its own right with the lawyers rubbing their hands at
>> the prospect of continued employment.
We've a pretty good idea now what happened. Unfortunately that knowledge is considerably at odds with verdicts etc recorded in aftermath.
I only they'd got it 'Right First Time'.
If we need lawyers to prove that then there's a second fault with the system - lack of public legal education.
|
I am troubled by the way this inquest is going and am not at all convinced this is going to end up as the 'correct version'.
Relatives of those who die have a beef...and it's understandable why, although fortunately I've never been in that situation so don't fully understand it...nevertheless, their judgement is not always that objective.
My problem is the way that no one nowadays is being allowed to say that any of the fans might have been drink soaked.
Well any football match I've ever been to has a noticeable element of the fan base indulge in a fair amount, if not a copious amount of alcohol intake...yet amazingly, this particular match was not like that..allegedly. Some of the police officers at the time said this was the case..but subsequently they have been portrayed as all corrupt...all of them, not just some of them.
As far as I am concerned, this tragedy arose from the following:
- The ground was not really fit for purpose (as were loads of other grounds). The fences at the front (to stop pitch invasions by previous unruly elements) were in reality an accident waiting to happen.
- The cultural (if you can call it that) norm for football matches is to stick as much beer down your neck before kick off (because you are not allowed to drink inside due to previous unruly elements) and then get to the ground just before the match starts. Trouble is it then gets very crowded..and the ground wasn't built well to cater for this.
- A senior police officer (not the one in overall charge) ordered (in good faith) a gate opened to relieve serious crushing o/s the ground..but..made the situation far worse inside, because those sudden extra people tried to get into stands already very full and the fences at the front caged everyone in.
...and that's about it.
|
Story doesn't end there, though WP.
A potentially monumental cover-up operation then ensued and was subsequently re-covered up.
And that's the beef for those of us not directly involved.
|
|
And if that is proved as so then there is, has and will be a diversion from some of the root causes.
|
>> Story doesn't end there, though WP.
>>
>> A potentially monumental cover-up operation then ensued and was subsequently re-covered up.
>>
>> And that's the beef for those of us not directly involved.
>>
If that is so Lygonos, then it needs to be dealt with thoroughly and if criminality took place, then court cases and imprisonment etc...however....as Fullchat says, that does not change how the tragedy unfolded...and a re-writing of history to the benefit of the fans is as wrong as covering up aspects of what happened to make the police look better.
Somewhere in the middle I suspect is the truth.
|
>> If that is so Lygonos, then it needs to be dealt with thoroughly and if
>> criminality took place, then court cases and imprisonment etc...however....as Fullchat says, that does not change
>> how the tragedy unfolded...and a re-writing of history to the benefit of the fans is
>> as wrong as covering up aspects of what happened to make the police look better.
>>
>> Somewhere in the middle I suspect is the truth.
>>
The other thing is....there's a difference between being 'corporately aware' and acting accordingly..and..out and out hiding things (and criminality).
The Police have always been bad at covering their angle, it was never a priority..and then when that became a necessity, could often be well clumsy (and still are).
It remains to be seen whether someone senior has covered up things in a criminal fashion..or.. tried to p.r. things and it's all gone bang.
|
>> I am troubled by the way this inquest is going and am not at all
>> convinced this is going to end up as the 'correct version'.
.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, this tragedy arose from the following:
>>
>> - The ground was not really fit for purpose (as were loads of other grounds). The fences at the front (to stop pitch invasions by previous unruly elements) were in reality an accident waiting to happen.
>>
>> - The cultural (if you can call it that) norm for football matches is to stick as much beer down your neck before kick off (because you are not allowed to drink inside due to previous unruly elements) and then get to the ground just before the match starts. Trouble is it then gets very crowded..and the ground wasn't built well to cater for this.
>>
>> - A senior police officer (not the one in overall charge) ordered (in good faith) a gate opened to relieve serious crushing o/s the ground..but..made the situation far worse inside,
>> because those sudden extra people tried to get into stands already very full and the fences at the front caged everyone in.
>>
>> ...and that's about it.
Exactly the way I saw, and still see it.
IF that officer hadn't ordered the gate to be opened, then there is a strong possibility that people would have got injured / killed OUTSIDE the ground.
Then, the inquest would have asked, why something hadn't been done to release the pressure... maybe open a gate?......
Last edited by: swiss tony on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 06:44
|
IF at the time everyone had been open and honest about it and said, "some of the fans were pished, and a bit unruly, the ground was derelict and unfit, the Officer in charge on the day cocked up, the FA cocked up in timing and location, and the emergency services were badly prepared and inefficient" we could have all said "Ok its a major cock up all round and a many causal accident, lets get it improved" (and we have) and everyone would have gone away quietly and settled down.
However
The old bill tried to cover it up and divert blame ( not PR - LIES and deliberate misinformation )
So now we are where we are, and have given the money grabbing, publicity seeking, mawkish relatives more ammo than they need to make a killing financially.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 09:03
|
>> IF at the time everyone had been open and honest about it ....................................................
everyone would have gone away quietly and settled down.
>>
Somehow, I just don't think so.
The aggrieved relatives have long and selective memories.
|
And whatever the truth is, will be hard put to emerge after all this time, even with the best will in the world.
I knew one of the victims, one of the youngest at 16, attending with his father and a friend who both survived.
|
|
The media and the public likes to play Saints and Sinners. One side must be the black hats and the other the whites with no in between. In this case the blameless Liverpool fans were the innocent victims of the Establishment and to openly suggest that may not be entirely the case is heresy.
|
>>The old bill tried to cover it up and divert blame
And that's what they should focus on - there should be no witch hunt for the actual event. Nobody intentionally tried to kill the supporters any mroe than the supporters intentionally risked their own lives.
They should focus ont eh fact that during the even itself mistakes were made and should be learned from.
On the other hand anybody who lied to conceal stuff or covered it up afterwards should absolutely be identified and blamed.
Unfortunately from what I can see the relatives don't want that. They want to blame someone there on the day for what happened and declare the fans innocent of any and all misbehaviour.
|
>> The old bill tried to cover it up and divert blame ( not PR -
>> LIES and deliberate misinformation )
My problem with that statement is, IF some police officers have deliberately lied and have actively tried to divert blame, then they deserve all they get.
However, some police officers have consistently and persistently stuck to their line and been vilified for doing so. What happens if they are right?
Norman Bettison is one of them, he was an Inspector at the time of the incident and ended up a Chief Constable. The p.r. machine of the relatives and the media have tried to do for him.
One again..if he's been lying, then let him swing..however if he hasn't been, then there's something sinister and very underhand going on.
Keep an open mind.
|
>> Norman Bettison is one of them, he was an Inspector at the time of the
>> incident and ended up a Chief Constable. The p.r. machine of the relatives and the
>> media have tried to do for him.
He has history.
|
>> He has history.
>>
..and?
|
>> >> He has history.
>> >>
>>
>> ..and?
Meaning its not beyond the realms of possibility he is guilty as charged because he has past history at it.
|
>> Meaning its not beyond the realms of possibility he is guilty as charged because he
>> has past history at it.
>>
Big one to stick your neck out on for no reason...and no personal gain.
|
>> If we need lawyers to prove that then there's a second fault with the system
>> - lack of public legal education.
i think that's always going to be the case. The law is complex, many people won't really be interested in the ins and outs of how the law is structed and applied. I see from previous posts you spent your career in it, and i do find your posts in this regard interesting, but I do find them difficult to follow and i bet you're not even scratching the surface.
Just as an example how many phrases and words used in legal terms are still in latin?
|
Complex case law etc is one thing. Public Legal Education is more about getting people to understand the basics and better position them to defend their own rights. Access to tribunals for Social Security is a case in point. Understanding that a not guilty verdict does not condemn accusers and witnesses for prosecution as liars is another.
The so called Wolf reforms in the nineties attempted to drive latin out of procedure rules etc. Guardian ad-litem (the person acting for an incapacitated party) for example became litigation friend.
On the other hand latin terminology is heavily embedded in case law and, like technical terms in engineering or medecine, it conveys a precise meaning between practitioners.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 12:43
|
>> Complex case law etc is one thing. Public Legal Education is more about getting people
>> to understand the basics and better position them to defend their own rights. Access to
>> tribunals for Social Security is a case in point. Understanding that a not guilty verdict
>> does not condemn accusers and witnesses for prosecution as liars is another.
>>
You think it's doable, that people can/would change how they view the legal system? Maybe, case in point I remember a TV show where they showed some people newspapers reports of court cases and asked if they agreed with the judges vedict. Then showed them the official recordings, nearly all changed their minds. Interesting to watch.
|
It would only be do-able with political will and funding. A lot of it is what the Yanks call civics and should be covered at school.
This organisation www.lawforlife.org.uk/ covers the 'helping you assert your rights' angle.
Looking at the number of its staff and trustees I've met professionally over the years though reminds me how immersed in that area I was while still working.
|
"………….. with the lawyers rubbing their hands at the prospect of continued employment."
"A hundred lawyers in court today" according to BBC tv news.
|
>> "A hundred lawyers in court today" according to BBC tv news.
>
Bearing in mind that the family of each victim might be separately represented and that SYP, FA, SWFC etc etc will call up QCs plus juniors I'm surprised there are not more.
In terms of the case as a whole thank goodness the reform of the Coroner Service survived the coalition's ham fisted attempt to step back from the post Shipman changes. This time we've got a senior judge at the helm and not some local solicitor or medic.
|
So the original Coroners verdict of 'Accidental Death' were overturned.
This is a fresh inquest with a jury. Not a Public Inquiry or trial.
Because an inquest does not determine blame for a death, the verdict must not imply criminal liability or civil liability on the part of any person by name. Verdicts used include natural causes, accident or misadventure, industrial disease, suicide, and unlawful killing, or open verdict if evidence for any other verdict is insufficient. Coroners must not add any comment to a verdict, but can inform any appropriate person or organisation of action needed to prevent further deaths in similar circumstances.
So where will the inquest be many months down the line.
Unlawful killing? Doubt it. Unfortunately the disaster was what is was, a catalogue of mess ups.
So we are back to 'Accident or Misadventure'
|
The original inquest was based on the parameter that everyone who died was dead by 3.15pm I seem to recall.
Potentially ridiculous assumption from the start no doubt jammed in to prevent commentaries on the actions of police/ambulancemen/members of the public from being heard - as such actions could obviously have had no effect on whether any of the 95/96 lived or died, let's just ignore what happened...
I see no reason to expect some poor souls' lives could have dragged on for many minutes with multiple rib fractures and crush injuries, perhaps past the 3.15pm timepoint.
And the use of this arbitrary timeframe was used to pour scorn on some witness statements (including policemen and emergency workers') and help avoid some possibly very embarrassing questions being asked.
|
Just to add to the above. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for the jury to reach a verdict of 'unlawful killing'. So who was responsible for that. Police, Ambulance, the football club ???? Maybe a tentative dable at 'malfeasance in a public office' against the Police but all was ok until the gates were opened due to the pressure from outside. Corporate Manslaughter? That came in well after Hillsborough.
So IF there were hoards of Liverpool supporters, in drink and without tickets trying to force there way into the ground would not the finger of suspicion point towards them?
I've not seen any evidence in the media to support that accusation but have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence. Did it happen or have subsequent events, accusations and general mud slinging at all levels, even up to the Prime Minister, deflected from the root causes?
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 22:49
|
>>So IF there were hoards of Liverpool supporters, in drink and without tickets trying to force there way into the ground would not the finger of suspicion point towards them?
Taylor commented on these issues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Aggravating_factors
There is little doubt that, in hindsight, South Yorshire Police made a harris of the events of that day (forgiveable), and deliberately fed misinformation and possibly completely fabricated information to the media to cover their butts (in my mind, unforgiveable).
As Taylor also commented:
"In all some 65 police officers gave oral evidence at the Inquiry. Sadly I must report that for the most part the quality of their evidence was in inverse proportion to their rank"
|
Relatives of those killed at Hillsborough having been making personal statements to the inquest.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-26866318
What for?
What useful purpose can it serve? Does it makes things better/worse if the dead person was a wonderful person? Or if the person was an apalling individual?
|
They are described as background statements - I don't see the harm in that, and I imagine it's not that unusual for inquests to hear something about the character and nature of the deceased.
In this case there is also a belief on the part of many that the deceased have been accused, by association and implication, in some way of being the authors of their own fates. Hence phrases such as "...not a hooligan, but a hard-working family man".
I think somebody here said that the focus should exclusively be on the cover up allegations. That can't happen - these are inquests and the cause of death will have to be (re)explored properly. The re-examination of previously accepted evidence is incidental to that.
|
I notice there are no calls for another enquiry into the Heysel disaster. I wonder why?
Perhaps the drunken hooliganism of hundreds of Liverpool fans which led to the deaths of 39 innocent Italians might not sit too well with the "Blameless" behaviour of those at Hillsborough.
|
>>I notice there are no calls for another enquiry into the Heysel disaster
Why would there be? The causes aren't in any doubt there.
At Hillsborough there is significant doubt and apparently widespread evidence manipulation, and lies passed onto the media by figures high up the foodchain.
Apples and spaceships.
|
Some footage from Match of the Day 15th April 1989
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypE5TG2UPNk
At 09.00 min Liverpool fan accusing others of being in possession of forged tickets.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 3 Apr 14 at 20:34
|
|
Terrible though the Hillsborough events and the probable follow-up errors/malfeasance were, it seems to me, uncharitably perhaps, that the relatives have turned into professional victims.
|
You are right, it is very uncharitable. Beyond uncharitable.
Had it been one of my family, and if I thought the cause of his or her death had been concealed by people who thought if more important to avoid all responsibility or possible blame than to allow the truth to come out, I wouldn't need to be a professional victim to be quite cross.
Whether some Liverpool fans were drunk, or had forged tickets, or other Liverpool supporters misbehaved at Heysel is also irrelevant.
Innocent people died and gratuitously to suggest that their relatives are undeserving of sympathy or just venal is beneath contempt.
I see you have a supporter. Consider yourself frowned at too.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 3 Apr 14 at 22:21
|
Manatee is spot on.
How about if PMF junior had gone off to watch a football match and never returned?
If the powers that be are set against you then you've lost UNLESS you take what might be portrayed as a professional approach to remedying wrongs.
|
One element I can't get my head around is the booze angle and the total denial that this could be one of the factors.
Apart from what I've already posted about football matches in general being usually booze soddled affairs anyway and it being unlikely this one would have been any different...
...surely most people could work out, (inc the families of those who died), that any negativity about the behaviour of some due to booze, wouldn't be aimed at those who died..because they were at the front and by definition would have been those who got there first and weren't at the pub, either at all or for all that long (especially as some were children).
Any problems were from those at the back, who got there last and were trying to squeeze into a space that had no room for them.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 3 Apr 14 at 22:31
|
>> One element I can't get my head around is the booze angle and the total
>> denial that this could be one of the factors.
>>
>> Apart from what I've already posted about football matches in general being usually booze soddled
>> affairs anyway and it being unlikely this one would have been any different...
I was a fan (hooligan if you will) in the 70s and travelled to away games and home games and booze sodden was sometimes an understatement.
>> ...surely most people could work out, (inc the families of those who died), that any
>> negativity about the behaviour of some due to booze, wouldn't be aimed at those who
>> died..because they were at the front and by definition would have been those who got
>> there first and weren't at the pub, either at all or for all that long.
Absolutely, they were in in early and unlikely to be topping up at the boozer. HOWEVER the police have not been too discriminatory about who's character they blackened and it seems to me they tried to use drunkeness as a blanket to blame those who died.
>> Any problems were from those at the back, who got there last and were trying
>> to squeeze into a space that had no room for them.
True, not sure the old bill bothered to make that distinction when reporting "facts" In fact the opposite.
|
I agree Wp. Drink and bad behaviour may have been a factor. But as you say, they were predictable; and large crowds in confined spaces are potentially dangerous on their own.
What seems unacceptable to me is that the presumed and quite possibly actual reckless behaviour of some fans seems for some to translate into a lack of sympathy, or even hostility, towards the victims and their families. I don't think I have imagined that.
|
>> What seems unacceptable to me is that the presumed and quite possibly actual reckless behaviour
>> of some fans seems for some to translate into a lack of sympathy, or even
>> hostility, towards the victims and their families. I don't think I have imagined that.
I can only speak for myself of course, but the way I see it is... the awful circumstances of so many people losing loved ones, that anyone but a psychopath would have the utmost sympathy for...has morphed into a biased crusade that isn't accurate...and that irritates. So although I still have the sympathy for the loss and sort of understand where they are coming from...their angle should not have been allowed to have become a norm, because it is not at all objective.
Too many people in positions of influence or power have gone along with it, because they wanted to be seen to be supportive and gain more popularity with it...e.g. politicians.
If there were cover ups by officialdom at the beginning of this..that was plain wrong. If there's a warping of the truth now by the families and their crusaders, that is also plain wrong.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 4 Apr 14 at 08:16
|
>> One element I can't get my head around is the booze angle and the total
>> denial that this could be one of the factors.
If the booze angle (pished late arrivals wanting to ease in ticket less mates) was really a factor then I think we have to rely on the coroner, in his case a High Court Judge, not some jumped up local solicitor or medic, to identify it from the evidence.
If, OTOH, as described upthread by somebody who was there, plenty of fans arrived late because of weather/traffic with powers that be determined to avoid delaying KO the situation is different.
|
"One element I can't get my head around is the booze angle and the total denial that this could be one of the factors."
A very good friend of mine (I was his best man) is originally from Sheffield. I remember that shortly after the tragedy occurred, he told me that his aunt lived on one of the roads leading to the football ground; the morning after the match, she filled a black bin liner with empty beer cans that had been tossed into her front garden by the passing crowd.
|
>> A very good friend of mine (I was his best man) is originally from Sheffield.
>> I remember that shortly after the tragedy occurred, he told me that his aunt lived
>> on one of the roads leading to the football ground; the morning after the match,
>> she filled a black bin liner with empty beer cans that had been tossed into
>> her front garden by the passing crowd.
And at a ground with a capacity of 40k that was to be expected.
Just look at the amount of shi'ite dumped along roads into this village - population 3k.
|
>> And at a ground with a capacity of 40k that was to be expected.
>>
>> Just look at the amount of shi'ite dumped along roads into this village - population
>> 3k.
Err making that comparison just goes to show you have no idea at all what was involved in going to any football game in the 70s and 80s.
|
>> Err making that comparison just goes to show you have no idea at all what
>> was involved in going to any football game in the 70s and 80s.
So do you or do you not agree that large scale dumping of rubbish on arrival routes was to be expected. An anecdote about bags full of cans tells us nothing of relevance to this inquiry.
|
>>
>> >> Err making that comparison just goes to show you have no idea at all
>> what
>> >> was involved in going to any football game in the 70s and 80s.
>>
>> So do you or do you not agree that large scale dumping of rubbish on
>> arrival routes was to be expected. An anecdote about bags full of cans tells us
>> nothing of relevance to this inquiry.
BEER CANS
Your village route is not littered with BEER CANS. I can tell you that a significant proportion of that crowd were half way to pished. I can also tell you a significant proportion were late because they were topping up in the pub. Liverpool fans were in no way different from any other fan of that era. Ok those at the front were not pished, but most of those pushing in were. The late transport" thing is a red herring - just means they spent more time on buses/trains/coaches/cars getting pished.
Alas this wholesale forgiveness of everyone who was a liverpool fan is going to detour the route to the truth about the aftermath, which is the real crime.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Apr 14 at 09:41
|
@Z
I've barely a passing interest in football but I was brought up in Leeds when LUFC were at their height and lived within hailing distance of Highbury 79-81. Seen it and been caught up in it more times than I remember. Could get quite rowdy round Vicarage Rd when I lived there too but Watford were pioneers of 'family football' and fans were better behaved than most.
So don't try and tell me I know nothing.
I don't doubt that a proportion were bladdered, though I'm not convinced beer cans thrown in gardens are evidence of that rather than a tinny on way to ground. The Taylor report dismissed drunkenness as a significant cause. Scouse Honda writing upthread also contradicts your assertion that lateness was just an excuse to get more booze down.
You more or less admit you were a hooligan and I don't think your evidence is that of a typical fan.
Even if the pushing was orchestrated by drunks and was primary cause of gates being opened that doesn't get Police or SWFC off the hook. The risk of crowds in that ground's maze like passageways was well known, there'd been a near dress rehearsal of the disaster in a previous years neutral ground semi-final.
Police and stewards should have been in ground diverting to side pens, not just pushing more fans through gate into overcrowded centre pen.
Apparently Police/SWFC are still sticking with the drunks line at inquest so let's see what the Coroner says.
|
>> You more or less admit you were a hooligan and I don't think your evidence
>> is that of a typical fan.
...and I think it is.
>>
>> Even if the pushing was orchestrated by drunks and was primary cause of gates being
>> opened that doesn't get Police or SWFC off the hook.
What hook? We've been talking about the unrealistic stance and near saint status given to all the Liverpool fans that went to that fateful match...and the fact that any rational thought would find that daft.
The inadequate ground, automatic FA approval, light SWFC management, Police management cock up on the day (some of it understandable), is a virtual 'given'. Then you've got the cover up allegations thrown in as well.
>> Police and stewards should have been in ground diverting to side pens, not just pushing
>> more fans through gate into overcrowded centre pen.
Yes. But very easy to point out afterwards.
>>
>> Apparently Police/SWFC are still sticking with the drunks line at inquest so let's see what
>> the Coroner says.
Hopefully he'll impartially follow the evidence..and not pander to the mass political correctness that seems to have manifested itself.
>>
|
>> @Z
>>
>> I've barely a passing interest in football but I was brought up in Leeds when
>> LUFC were at their height and lived within hailing distance of Highbury 79-81. Seen it
>> and been caught up in it more times than I remember. Could get quite rowdy
>> round Vicarage Rd when I lived there too but Watford were pioneers of 'family football'
>> and fans were better behaved than most.
>>
>> So don't try and tell me I know nothing.
You have shown you have no knowledge of fans, fan behaviour and football.
>>
>> I don't doubt that a proportion were bladdered, though I'm not convinced beer cans thrown
>> in gardens are evidence of that rather than a tinny on way to ground. The
>> Taylor report dismissed drunkenness as a significant cause. Scouse Honda writing upthread also contradicts your
>> assertion that lateness was just an excuse to get more booze down.
Again you show your ignorance of football in that period.
>>
>> You more or less admit you were a hooligan and I don't think your evidence
>> is that of a typical fan.
It is typical of fans of that period, especially those who bought tickets to "ends" you don't know what an "end" is or why they are chosen.
>> Even if the pushing was orchestrated by drunks and was primary cause of gates being
>> opened that doesn't get Police or SWFC off the hook.
No it doesn't. They share a proportion of the blame.
>>The risk of crowds in
>> that ground's maze like passageways was well known, there'd been a near dress rehearsal of
>> the disaster in a previous years neutral ground semi-final.
yes
>> Police and stewards should have been in ground diverting to side pens, not just pushing
>> more fans through gate into overcrowded centre pen.
yes
Altho of course none of that would be needed if the crowds were pleasant and ordered as you keep trying to suggest they were, and denying what fans were like in that period. (tho better than they were in the 70s)
>> Apparently Police/SWFC are still sticking with the drunks line at inquest so let's see what
>> the Coroner says.
As one of numerous causes its up there.
|
>> Scouse Honda writing upthread also contradicts your assertion that lateness was just an excuse to get more booze down.
>>
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
|
"large scale dumping of rubbish"
I didn't say 'large scale dumping of rubbish', I said 'empty beer cans'.
|
>> A very good friend of mine (I was his best man) is originally from Sheffield.
>> I remember that shortly after the tragedy occurred, he told me that his aunt lived
>> on one of the roads leading to the football ground; the morning after the match,
>> she filled a black bin liner with empty beer cans that had been tossed into
>> her front garden by the passing crowd.
As Wp said, par for the course, so a known factor in almost every match, but it was at Hillsborough, and on that day alone that 96 people died. 96. I can remember even now the news coming out and being incredulous at the number.
|
"Had it been one of my family, and if I thought the cause of his or her death had been concealed by people who thought if more important to avoid all responsibility or possible blame than to allow the truth to come out, I wouldn't need to be a professional victim to be quite cross.
Whether some Liverpool fans were drunk, or had forged tickets, or other Liverpool supporters misbehaved at Heysel is also irrelevant.
Innocent people died and gratuitously to suggest that their relatives are undeserving of sympathy or just venal is beneath contempt."
If I'm the supporter I'll take it on the chin
".....and if I thought the cause of his or her death had been concealed by people who thought if more important to avoid all responsibility or possible blame than to allow the truth to come out..."
That depends where you are pointing the finger of blame because as I perceive it there is denial and deflection going on. For example it has been strongly suggested that those that perished have been blamed and even alcohol tested. No one with a modicum of intelligence would blame those that perished. As WP suggests they were in the stand and on time. Alcohol and substance testing is standard procedure at a post mortem.
To establish cause of death you have to establish the root causes not what happened afterwards.
".....Whether some Liverpool fans were drunk, or had forged tickets, or other Liverpool supporters misbehaved at Heysel is also irrelevant...."
I disagree its all highly relevant. Lets say the ground holds 10.000 away supporters and there are 13.000 tickets of which 3000 are forgeries that's 3000 extra people trying to get into a ground that's at capacity. Heysel, drink etc shows a pattern of behaviour whereby those 3000 might try and get into the ground.
I've said it before and will say it again it was a cluster**** all round. The TRUTH need to come out and if there has been a deliberate and criminal cover up then heads should roll. Responsibility needs to be accepted ALL round.But we are looking at crowd dynamics and control from a different era brought about by football crowd behaviour at the time. Lessons have been learned and much put in place.
This is set to run for a long long time.
|
|
Is the business off those who have lost relatives reading out "Personal Impact Statements" to the court something new and surely the coroner's findings will not be affected by people's personal loss and grief? Seems like a waste of the court's time to me. We all know they are suffering.
|
These are not "personal impact statements" these are "my husband/son was angelic sweetness and light' which after 25 years of memory meddling is meaningless.
Is this kind of thing normal at an inquest?
|
|
Whatever they are called, I agree with you that they are irrelevant to the proceedings and findings.
|
>> These are not "personal impact statements" these are "my husband/son was angelic sweetness and light'
>> which after 25 years of memory meddling is meaningless.
>>
>> Is this kind of thing normal at an inquest?
Yes I think it probably is now in just same way as such statements are made between verdict and sentence in criminal cases. And on the point of "angelic sweetness/light" even those seeking to pin blame of fans accept that those killed arrived on time and were not plastered.
|
>> >> These are not "personal impact statements" these are "my husband/son was angelic sweetness and
>> light'
>> >> which after 25 years of memory meddling is meaningless.
>> >>
>> >> Is this kind of thing normal at an inquest?
>>
>> Yes I think it probably is now
What "now" as in hilsbrorough inquest?
|
Do we have an estimated date for completion of this inquest, or is it going to roll on like another BloodySunday inquiry?
Already i can see certain similarities.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:32
|
>> What "now" as in hilsbrorough inquest?
We know it's happening at Hilsborough because of saturation press coverage. The Chief Coroner would suggest it be allowed where appropriate at inquests where death, particularly in multiple, occurs in tragic circumstance. Obviously it's less likely if deceased was found dead at home.
There is though an analogy with prosecution in the Yewtree cases - no option but to allow/proceed once demand is there. Coroner will keep process under control though.
|
|
The grief of the families and relatives is irrelevant to the findings and I personally find these public proclamations of obvious and normal feelings rather awkward. Rather like the TV coverage, where the bereaved sit on a sofa and look through a family photo album.
|
|
My wife and I discussed our reaction. She categorically stated if we had lost a son under such circumstances - thankfully not - she would have rebuilt her life by now. If living in an area where that was impossible due to all the others who lived with the past - she would move.
|
>> the relatives have turned into professional victims.
I don't know about the "professional" part of it, but I do get the impression that for many of them the original cause has been lost in the pursuit of their chosen role in life.
And its not uncharitable, they suffered losses which were terrible and sad. But really, the heart-wrenching grief ought to have passed by now. I don't even think they know what they are looking for. I am pretty sure though that if they got it they would feel lost as their cause disappeared and the media interest waned.
|
|
I lost a child in dreadful circumstances 30 years ago. I had some grief counselling, I visit the place where his ashes are scattered, along with those of my father and my late wife. When I am having a good time I think how nice it would be if they were with me to share it. Memories fade, love lives on and life goes on.
|
Could the Police/rescue services/authorities have done more, and if so were they called to account? Or did they spin a web of lies and cover it up?
As FC says above this is about getting to the truth.
Police statements contained criticisms of superiors and fans alike, and were modified so they were all consistent. This consistent version may be very different to the 'truth'.
As NoFM2R says, the affected families will likely never find closure, or even recognise closure when they see it - that can't be helped but a truthful view is required.
I have a lot of faith in the ability of a Judge to look past the emotion and politics to come up with a judgement, and say it how they see it.
Time will tell.
|
CCTV clips widely shown at the time made what had happened pretty clear. A large number of fans, late arriving and allegedly ticketless and drunk, but anyway young, vociferous and pressing, gathered outside the turnstiles as the game kicked off inside. The police, allegedly panicking, opened some sort of floodgate and those fans swarmed in and rushed up into the back of the stand which was already full of respectable fans with tickets and young children. Those behind, eager not to miss any of the game, carried on piling forward on top of their mates who no doubt were trying to hold back. There was a terrible crush against the barriers further down and most of the victims were those innocent respectable fans.
However in the aftermath there was much confused comment and umbrage taken by fans who thought they were being blamed for their own deaths or injuries. It was all, and still is, terribly stupid and tiresome. And nought out of ten for the ground and its owners, and for some elements (but not all) of the old bill who behaved very badly.
|
"CCTV clips widely shown at the time made what had happened pretty clear………………"
I feel that we have as good an idea of what happened as we'll ever get after 25 years and, as I indicated earlier in the thread, there is only one group of people who stand to gain any real satisfaction from this continuing inquiry.
|
|
Armel has it utterly spot on.
|
>> And nought out of ten for the ground and
>> its owners, and for some elements (but not all) of the old bill who behaved
>> very badly.
>>
To be pedantic. The Old Bill at the time made mistakes and got things wrong, but on the whole they were genuine mistakes.
Afterwards, senior officers wanted statements amended.
If that reason was to take some of the raw emotion out of them and unnecessary criticism not knowing the full picture and to be more professional as a whole, then that is to some degree acceptable, albeit your initial note should still be available.
If the reason for statement amendments was to deliberately cover up some police actions and management decisions..then that is indeed 'behaving very badly', to a criminal degree.
I have no idea which one applies. I hope this hearing enlightens me.
|
Others behaved very well Wp, letting people out of the stand onto the field and administering first aid. But the initial mistakes, by senior officers it seems, were pretty damn serious if you ask me.
I could bang on about this as you know. The Met are absolute rubbish at low-pressure crowd control and I don't suppose those swedebashers up North are any better.
|
|
Not allowing ambulances to enter the field is beyond me.Once the situation was critical and people where dying still no decision from the top.It is easier to blame the foot soldier typical of any force.
|
Hillsborough Report - Armel Coussine
