( Split off from the original thread to maker it more readable - the original thread is here
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=11880 )
Well....
Today's news is that David Dukinfield, in giving evidence to Inquest, has admitted that gates were opened by Police.
Suggestion that they'd been broken down by drunken fans was a blatant lie.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 09:08
|
|
Having a quick scan through this thread, I think we all accept that was the case. The reasons and causes why that happened will be interesting.
|
>> Having a quick scan through this thread, I think we all accept that was the
>> case. The reasons and causes why that happened will be interesting.
Probably so, it was more Dukinfield's finally admitting it that struck me. Gasps in court according the 'hot off press' account on radio as I drove home from CAB.
|
|
This chap is about to be crucified.
|
The fans who rushed in when the gates were opened, mainly young men from Liverpool, many allegedly without tickets, surged into the back of the stand and caused the crush and deaths further forward. It was all quite clear from footage shown at the time.
When I pointed that out on HJ at the time, several people came on like whining scousers and accused me of something or other, I forget what. Anyway I hadn't done it.
I imagine the former Chief Super has agreed take the flak after several years of careful negotiation. The crucifixion will be purely formal, unlike the compensation.
|
Read the Beeb article: the guy didn't have a clue about the ground management.
He's at risk of being liable for manslaughter charges I suspect.
It's as if there was a hole in the bottom of the boat, so he made another hole to let the water back out.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 18:48
|
>> When I pointed that out on HJ at the time, several people came on like
>> whining scousers and accused me of something or other, I forget what. Anyway I hadn't
>> done it.
It almost doesn't matter whether they were ticketed or ticketless, drunk or sober. That sort of thing was (allegedly) commonplace at big fixtures at time. Police, FA & SWFC should have had plans/procedures in place to deal.
Furthermore, in so far as those plans might have included opening the Leppings Lane end gates, there should have been police and or stewards in the access passages to direct fans to side pens. It wasn't as if possibility of crush was unknown. There had been a full dress rehearsal for this event at a previous FA cup semi a year or two previously. On that occasion disaster was averted because fans were promptly evacuated onto the pitch side. .
The more that comes out at the inquest the more I'm reminded of The Herald of Free Enterprise.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 19:22
|
>> The more that comes out at the inquest the more I'm reminded of The Herald
>> of Free Enterprise.
All the failures at Hilsborough have been lessons learned, and policing, ticketing, stewarding and ground design more or less will ensure this scenario could never happen again. Crowds have changed as well. We don't need to know why it happened or more importantly who was to blame because we know what happened and have fixed it.
Not sure where the HFE fits tho.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 19:40
|
>> Not sure where the HFE fits tho.
I was thinking of the quote from the inquiry about a "disease of sloppiness" and negligence at every level of the corporation's hierarchy.
Management of Sheffield Wednesday FC, those charged with licencing the ground and the South Yorks Police both in planning and on day seem to match that description too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 19:50
|
The only value from such an inquest would be to learn. What learning was possible has been learned.
Now its just seeking someone to blame so that the supporters have someone to vilify and the Daily Mail has something to whine about.
Those in charge, be they police or commercial, were not evil men trying to murder people. They were not doing the wrong thing because they thought it would be fun.
After all this time its about time people moved on.
Nobody comes out of this well, including the supporters (have we forgotten why the barriers were there in the first place?). Learn and move on.
|
>>What learning was possible has been learned
No, what needs to be learned is the extent of lies and possibly criminal levels of management that was largely led by the Police themselves.
Dukinfield's admission to telling lies here adds weight to the lack of truth in the subsequent processes/inquiries.
The Police may have botched up the initial problem but what is inexcusable is lie after lie that followed to divert attention from the Police failures.
The Rule of Law starts with the Law itself.
If this process leads to those in charge being more capable of accepting they've fecked up rather than 25 years of impunity through lies and misinformation, then the Inquiry is worthwhile.
As Westpig said a year ago on the previous thread:
...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.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 20:15
|
>> The Rule of Law starts with the Law itself.
An inquest is designed and set up to to establish how or why people died and to establish if anyone could be culpable. It is not set up or designed to establish if there was any cover up in the intervening years. That is the job of an inquiry.
|
Surely the inquest explores the event, not subsequent behaviour?
|
>>Surely the inquest explores the event, not subsequent behaviour?
Indeed but the protagonists now risk perjury if they lie at the Inquest presumably, so if/when the Inquest returns a verdict of unlawful killings the chain of events will move on.
|
>>but the protagonists now risk perjury if they lie at the Inquest presumably,
A fair point, I grudgingly suppose.
Still, I find the supporters', and the media's, baying for blood distasteful.
|
>> A fair point, I grudgingly suppose.
>>
>> Still, I find the supporters', and the media's, baying for blood distasteful.
In supporter's shoes would you behave differently? Their burden is a miscarriage of justice on an epic sale.
The media OTOH swing like weathercocks in the currents of what might sell tomorrow's fish wrapper.
|
>>In supporter's shoes would you behave differently?
I don't know. I think so, and I hope so.
|
>> a miscarriage of justice on
>> an epic sale.
Is it? jumping the gun there a bit old bean. The inquest might uphold the original verdict. Nothing miscarried let alone justice.
You are looking to pin the blame on someone it seems.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 20:57
|
>>Still, I find the supporters', and the media's, baying for blood distasteful.
As I did initially but the more that comes out to vindicate the position of the victims' families, the more it reeks of foul play.
As Bromp alludes to, the initially Inquest determined before the start that EVERYONE who died was dead by 3.15.
I'm pretty sure the cops on the forum and any medical guys, as well as a few of the rest of the forum will have seen how much some people can strive to stay alive despite horrific injuries/illness - it stinks to high heaven of cover-up.
Remember the inquest after the Tube bombings: the coroner made statements such as "I never knew a human body could be so damaged and still survive" after various people had several traumatic amputations and were not recovered for 40+ minutes.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 20:45
|
>> Surely the inquest explores the event, not subsequent behaviour?
In principle yes.
In this case behaviour subsequent to event made original inquest a nullity. And that's before considering the original coroners egregious conduct - eg ruling that all casualties were dead by time X.
Re-running it and doing t'job properly this time is only option.
|
>>The Old Bill at the time made mistakes and got things wrong, but on the whole they were
>>genuine mistakes.
All I know is what I read, but it seems an awful lot more focussed on blaming someone for the individual actions at the time than on any potential cover up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 20:25
|
>> The only value from such an inquest would be to learn. What learning was possible
>> has been learned.
I'm not sure that's right on either 'only value' or all lessons learned.
When a city loses nearly a hundred of it's citizens and the powers of state allow a massive miscarriage of justice there's a bit more at stake. I've not followed every twist and turn of this re-run of the inquest but while today's revelation where Dukinfield finally admits he lied is the biggest news its not only so far. And there's almost certainly much more to follow.
The lesson that's not been learned by Government is 'Right First Time'.
I only wish I was convinced, albeit this example is now being dealt with, it wasn't still a distant mirage.
EDIT: Plus what Lygonos said.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 20:15
|
>> allow a massive miscarriage of justice
There you go again.
|
>>The lesson that's not been learned by Government is 'Right First Time'.
That is a meaningless term trotted out in environments where correctness reigns.
I have never heard any competent, intelligent person with experience of the area under question who has said such a thing.
It is the sort of trite saying that people who are never actually at the sharp end and at any risk of fault love to throw around.
It is the sort of thinking which gets conkers banned - then nobody ever gets hurt.
A better one is "never wrong three times".
Once, you didn't know it could happen.
Twice, perhaps you didn't understand fully how it happened.
Three, negligence, stupidity or lack of effort.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 21:34
|
>> >>The lesson that's not been learned by Government is 'Right First Time'.
>>
>> That is a meaningless term trotted out in environments where correctness reigns.
That's a rather 'ad hominem' sort of a response Mark.
Not got time to address it tonight and we're taking the caravan on it's 2015 maiden voyage tomorrow - destination Peak District. Caravan Club wi fi is variable at best so no guarantee I'll get on site before next week - by which time focus might have moved on.
|
>>That's a rather 'ad hominem' sort of a response Mark.
Firstly, no it isn't. When I ad a hominem, then the hominem is in no doubt that he's been ad'd.
Secondly, aren't you trotting out "ad hominem" a bit too often lately?
It is a comment aimed exactly as it sounds. You may well have worked in such environments, so have I, although as rarely as possible. Doesn't mean you are one, but your comment was silly.
It is trite. It is typically said by some useless middle management type with not much relevance in the world except that he sits on committees and follows rules to the letter. He never deals with the requirement for adaption and compromise, because he doesn't work in any customer or activity oriented area.
He simply points at others and sanctimoniously points out where things could have been done differently. He, and his ilk, facilitate an environment which pushes people towards doing nothing, since that is lower risk than doing something. Often, although less these days, he works on implementing quality [sic] systems.
In any environment requiring ability, he is usually pushed off to one side, so often into some Health & Safety, Risk Assessment or Auditing group.
Nobody likes him, nobody wants anything to do with him. He is boring, detail oriented and has no understanding of the real world.
Now I wouldn't say that was you, so either you're different to how I suppose or you are over sensitive.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 22:30
|
You've kept me up now!!
RFT is none of those things.
I'm not talking about one off issues but about recurrent processes and decisions that affect individuals. My experience was in government's interfaces with citizen but I don't suppose it's much different where commerce exercises discretions - lending for example.
Listen and explain - don't blindly follow 'SOP' or targets. Sound like a human being, what's more disturbing than having your problems obviously analysed/decided from a script or flow chart?
Learn from experience so that decisions don't end up as complaints or appeals for same reasons over and over and over again.
Don't duck decisions or give trite answers 'because the complaints office/tribunal/ombudsman will put it right if they complain'.
Have feedback mechanisms and use complaints as intelligence - not nuisances to be swatted off.
My first post was aimed at any number of instances where inquests and inquiries into multi death accidents and incidents had to be re-run. Hillsborough is not exactly unique. Shipman was a wake up call for the Coroner service and maybe the subsequent reforms, albeit watered down, will change things.
I wish I was confident.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 22:56
|
>>RFT is none of those things.
>>
>>I'm not talking about one off issues but about recurrent processes and decisions that
>>affect individuals
How can "Right First Time" not be about one-off issues? Otherwise it'd be called "Right after a while".
>>Learn from experience
You don't need to, you were right first time.
etc. etc.
Its trite rubbish. It is a meaningless target, especially in a world which changes - as, of course, they all do. It sounds good until you think about it, and then you realise its silly.
In my experience people who have found the right thing to say are often then content to leave it to others to find the right thing to do - and the comment if they don't do it first time.
I have made money in the past undoing that sort of nonsense.
|
|
Whatever. I can't be bothered anymore.
|
>> It is trite. It is typically said by some useless middle management type with not
>> much relevance in the world except that he sits on committees and follows rules to
>> the letter. He never deals with the requirement for adaption and compromise, because he doesn't
>> work in any customer or activity oriented area.
>>
>> He simply points at others and sanctimoniously points out where things could have been done
>> differently. He, and his ilk, facilitate an environment which pushes people towards doing nothing, since
>> that is lower risk than doing something. Often, although less these days, he works on
>> implementing quality [sic] systems.
>>
>> In any environment requiring ability, he is usually pushed off to one side, so often
>> into some Health & Safety, Risk Assessment or Auditing group.
>>
>> Nobody likes him, nobody wants anything to do with him. He is boring, detail oriented
>> and has no understanding of the real world.
It's been a long time since someone's posted something that I can equate to quite so closely. That is exactly how I saw bureaucratic people in my old organisation. It has them to a tee.
These people probably don't set out to do nothing, it sort of evolves in to that with meeting after meeting, rather than 'doing' something... and many have convinced themselves how useful they or their departments are.. when in fact they hold up the system.
The only bit i'd challenge is the 'nobody likes him' bit. Many are pleasant enough people in their own right... but seen for what they are by those desperately trying to make the system work but ending up swimming in quicksand.
|
>> The fans who rushed in when the gates were opened, mainly young men from Liverpool,
>> many allegedly without tickets, surged into the back of the stand and caused the crush
>> and deaths further forward. It was all quite clear from footage shown at the time.
IF the gates had not been opened, I wonder how many would have been injured or killed AT the gates, being pushed forward by those behind them?
Of course we will never know that, but there is a possibility that people would now be asking; 'Dear God, why didn't someone open the gates to relieve the crushing?'
|
>> IF the gates had not been opened, I wonder how many would have been injured
>> or killed AT the gates, being pushed forward by those behind them?
I wasn't either/or. It should have been possible to open the gates AND THEN manage the influx.
As already stated they'd had a near miss one or two years before. The risk inherent in the layout at Hillsborough wasn't a complete unknown.
|
|
Where do you see any money spent before any incident.It is always after the event people tend to react.
|
Whatever the guff being discussed above, the basic points as I see it are:
- The man in charge was underskilled for the role
- The man in charge did not know the stadium he was in charge of
- The man in charge didn't even know the capacities and expected fan numbers/locations
- The man in charge made the wrong decision on several occasions (in fact it seems he wasn't even aware of many decisions that were available to him)
- After the disaster further poor decisions were made that may or may not have led to unnecessary deaths and suffering
- Almost immediately the police hierarchy fed misinformation to the media and attempted to change official statements so they were coming off the same hymn sheet
- The coroner's inquest outcome appeared to have been decided before it began
-25 years of lies and cover-up, possibly to the level of serious criminal behaviour, is just now being uncovered
I couldn't give a rat's bunghole about the management buzzwords - I want to know how deep the corrupting influences in the Police (and possibly judiciary) were in this instance.
The level of anus-covering appears to have been at least as bad as the various pressure groups have been saying for quarter of a century.
If nothing is done, nothing will change - I don't want Duckenfield's head on a stick: I want him to tell the truth and then see what develops - if there's a paper trail that ends in knowingly culpable top coppers treated like Fred Goodwin, or facing criminal charges, then I think we'll see some change in behaviour.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 11 Mar 15 at 23:20
|
A lot of what you say makes perfect sense, but I have a couple of reservations or worries;
You may not want Duckenfield's head on a stick, but it seems like many do.
I hope we see a change in behaviour, but how that change manifests will depend on how people like Duckenfield are treated in this inquest and any further proceedings.
We want Duckenfield and any future person in a similar position to feel safe to tell the truth about what happened and learn from it. We do not want them either to refuse to allow such an event nor do we want them to lie about what happened.
Back to conkers; we don't want to scare people into banning conkers altogether, we just want it organised properly and poeple to be honest about any difficulties they have.
An entirely separate matter is the question of any subsequent lying, spinning, misinformation or cover ups. Anybody party to that should have their head on a stick forthwith.
|
Duckenfield has only finally admitted in public something we already know and can best be described as a media highlight. What is not being nationally broadcast on a daily basis is all the other evidence that is being heard from individuals on the ground.
So if you ask a random person what they know of the inquest they may remember two things as highlighted by the media. Police altered statements and now Duckenfield has admitted lying. Not balanced at all. To get a more balanced perspective you would have to do day to day research of local media reports.
|
>> The level of anus-covering appears to have been at least as bad as the various
>> pressure groups have been saying for quarter of a century.
And having waded through your guff it appears you still have no idea what an inquest is. None of this outraged conspiricy spewing has anything to do with why or how people died
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 08:59
|
>> it appears you still have no idea what an inquest is
>> None of this outraged conspiricy spewing has anything to do with why or how people died
I'm well aware of the purpose of an Inquest.
In the process of the Inquest going about its business there may be previously hidden disclosures that lead to evidence of a conspiracy.
Without the Inquest I'm pretty sure there would be no Inquiry subsequently.
The Inquest may not answer the following but it's a necessary part of the pathway to find out:
1. Did the fans die, at least in part, as a result of bad decisions made by responsible parties? Could responsible parties have done more that was within their remit?
This would enable appropriate civil redress for the families affected.
2. Were decisions so poorly made as to be criminal?
This would allow appropriate CPS involvement.
3. Did responsible parties knowingly commit or omit actions leading to 1. and 2. being erroneously investigated.
This is the biggie: 1. and 2. are already well recognised legal pathways in use for hundreds of years by the courts, but 3 is a perversion of the Rule of Law and must not be tolerated.
Additionally, my understanding is that Inquests can be used to make recommendations - obviously the horse has long bolted and many lessons were learned regardless of the earlier Inquest as has been said by a few contributors already.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 13:23
|
>> I'm well aware of the purpose of an Inquest.
>>
>> In the process of the Inquest going about its business there may be previously hidden
>> disclosures that lead to evidence of a conspiracy.
>>
>> Without the Inquest I'm pretty sure there would be no Inquiry subsequently.
>>
>> The Inquest may not answer the following but it's a necessary part of the pathway
>> to find out:
1 and 2 are the purpose of the inquest, 3 is nothing to do with it, and shouldn't even be considered as it could deflect from or influence 1 & 2
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 13:25
|
>> 1 and 2 are the purpose of the inquest, 3 is nothing to do with it, and shouldn't even be considered as it could deflect from or influence 1 & 2
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make - I expect testimony given at the Inquest to be looked at by the CPS to consider whether further investigation is merited or not.
|
Coroner has duty and the powers to make what are termed Reports to Prevent Deaths.
"Coroners and Justice Act 2009, provides coroners with the duty to make reports to a person, organisation, local authority or government department or agency where the coroner believes that action should be taken to prevent future deaths."
|
"The man in charge.........."
Also failed to take into account that Liverpool fans had recent form for massed stupidity.
|
Liverpool football fans have some previous for stupid crowd behaviour.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster
|
>> Liverpool football fans have some previous for stupid crowd behaviour.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster
Not excusing role of Liverpool fans but, at least by that Wiki account, Juve supporters were far from blameless.
The other linking factor with Hillsborough is an overcrowded and under policed stadium that was utterly unfit for purpose.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 09:01
|
|
Who thought it was a good idea to place opposing fans next to each other? As usual, multiple factors involved, but some remain wedded to the "blame the scouser" outlook. No Liverpool connection btw.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 09:32
|
"As usual, multiple factors involved, but some remain wedded to the "blame the scouser" outlook."
Can you please point me to a post that says that it was entirely the fault of the fans?
|
>> Can you please point me to a post that says that it was entirely the
>> fault of the fans?
It would be a reasonable inference from both your post and Duncan's. And posts passim on the original thread.
|
"It would be a reasonable inference from both your post and Duncan's."
Read it again then, Brompt, and you will see that I was saying that the 'authorities' had failed to take into account the recent form of Liverpool fans.
|
>> >>
>> Can you please point me to a post that says that it was entirely the
>> fault of the fans?
>>
Heysel was entirely the fault of the fans. If the fans had behaved themselves no injuries or deaths would have occurred, no matter how inadequate the stadium was.
|
|
Clearly we differ on the meaning of the word entirely! Given the tolerance offered to behaviour inside and outside stadiums which would be treated as criminal offences in other settings, football fans are permitted, by omission, to behave in an loutish and uncivilised way. There is no way that organisers can assume reasonable behaviour, therefore they have to take adequate precautions. Heysel resulted in several top officials being incriminated including police captain Johan Mahieu, who had been in charge of security on 29 May 1985 and was subsequently charged with involuntary manslaughter. 14 fans were given 3-year sentences for involuntary manslaughter.
|
>> As usual, multiple factors involved, but some remain wedded to the "blame the scouser" outlook. No Liverpool connection btw.>>
Agreed multiple factors involved.
Agreed, the various authorities didn't do enough to minimise the risk and the consequences, but the perpetrators (spectators) must accept their share of the blame. This they don't seem prepared to do.
Some remain wedded to the "Scousers can't possibly have done anything wrong" outlook.
Edit.
Note, I said 'share' of the blame.
Last edited by: Duncan on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 09:50
|
>> Who thought it was a good idea to place opposing fans next to each other?
At some points, unless you have just all the fans from one side at the ground, the fans will be next to each other. In truth you couldn't even separate the fans into ends in those days, we used to get tickets from any source, often good forgeries, and used to pride ourself on taking "their end"
In those days even known how many people were in the ground until they tallied the mechanical turnstile counters at the start of the match - by then of course too late.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 10:38
|
Hillsborough is an overcrowded and under policed stadium that was
>> utterly unfit for purpose.
Indeed it wasn't - a situation that has been remedied around the country, so thats one lesson we learned even without this witchhunt.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 10:40
|
>> Hillsborough is an overcrowded and under policed stadium that was
>> >> utterly unfit for purpose.
>>
>> Indeed it wasn't - a situation that has been remedied around the country, so thats
>> one lesson we learned even without this witchhunt.
I'm sure the partial edit there is a mistake Zeddo but you've completely changed the meaning.
What I said (re Heysel) was
The other linking factor with Hillsborough is an overcrowded and under policed stadium that was utterly unfit for purpose.
Was not a comment on Hillsborough now and can only be read as such by mistaken or selective edit.
|
>> "The man in charge.........."
>>
>> Also failed to take into account that Liverpool fans had recent form for massed stupidity.
or maybe thats what he feared and prompted him to open the gates. The gates were opened for a reason, be interesting to see what that reason was.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Mar 15 at 10:42
|
>>
>> or maybe thats what he feared and prompted him to open the gates. The gates
>> were opened for a reason, be interesting to see what that reason was.
>>
A little bit like that farmer who opened the sluice gate on the Somerset Levels.
|
Surely it's reasonable to assume that there was no evil intent in the actions taken by the police on that day?
Wrong/mistaken decisions, maybe, taken with the best of intentions, but who has ever been right all the time?
From that point of view what possible benefit is there in gripping this facet of the tragedy like a pit-bull? The lessons on crowd control surely have been learnt.
The cover-up & lies are, however at a different level and need to be pursued vigorously.
|
Father of 18 year old killed at Hillsborough receives apology from Mr Duckenfield.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31939407
|
Just read this...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-33133281
It's a very moving account of how a sister tried to save her younger sister.
A horrible tragedy for all involved.
|
Inquest drawing to a close.
Link to Guardian:-
tinyurl.com/j54mumf
|
"The jury at the Hillsborough inquests into the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans has been sent out to consider its verdicts after hearing two years of evidence."
Blimey, 2 years.
That'll be 2 years those jurors won't get back.. What a long long time... Glad I wasn't on that one!!!
|
Horrible.
For those who were there, the scab gets dragged of again.
|
Police were blamed for panicking and opening some floodgate. Deaths were caused by large numbers of ticketless yobbish 'fans' climbing over everything and everyone and piling down into that restricted stand. All clear from the TV footage at the time.
There was a great deal of balletic a**e-covering by all concerned both at the time and later. I call it the human comedy.
|
Terrible tragedy whoever is to blame.But how long is this going on regarding who is quilty?
Is it to do with compensation or retribution.
|
>> Terrible tragedy whoever is to blame.But how long is this going on regarding who is
>> quilty?
>>
>> Is it to do with compensation or retribution.
Yes and Yes
|
Jury down to 9. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35988255
I wonder what's a quorum, before a re-inquest is required?
|
>> Jury down to 9. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35988255
>>
>> I wonder what's a quorum, before a re-inquest is required?
Did we start with 12?
|
|
Oh - maybe not! I assumed we did... (I'm having an off-day...)
|
For some reason it was 11.
Unless there was an "undecided" they overlooked.
"The panel of five men and six women are expected be sworn in on Tuesday."
From www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-26783600
|
|
I thought the jury was seven women and three men.
|
|
Well a lot can happen in two years these days... :-)
|
>> who is quilty?
Eric Pickles.
|
Hillsborough inquests: Jury reaches decision on unlawful killing question
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36128693
The conclusions will be formally returned at 11:00 BST on Tuesday.
|
|
Out of interest (I am not an expert), why can the verdict not be delivered today, if it has been reached by the jury already?
|
|
So that the legal teams can get another days pay and expenses.
|
|
That must be a lawyers scowly.
|
The Guardian report says delay is so that relatives who are not already there have time to attend.
|
Ah. Must learn to read article before asking question which it answers.
Thought it was some arcane legal reason.
|
I wonder when the next inquest will start.
Did we get all this for Harrow & Wealdstone, Valley Parade, Ibrox, Aberfan, Gresford Colliery, etc. Oh no, they didn't take place in Liverpool !
|
And this happened in Sheffield.
Not that I'm entirely comfortable with the record of Liverpool supporters, Heysel leaps to mind amongst other incidents.
|
>> Did we get all this for Harrow & Wealdstone, Valley Parade, Ibrox, Aberfan, Gresford Colliery, etc. Oh no, they didn't take place in Liverpool !
What a load of faff... Scousers are no more self-pitying and given to displacing 'blame' than anyone else. Tchah!
The 'fans' were to blame and caused all the deaths owing to poor police practice. Stupid thugs.
|
The 'fans' were to blame and caused all the deaths owing to poor police practice.
Try telling that to the parents of the 16 year old boy who went to the match with his father and came home in a box. And yes, I did know the boy. Goodness knows what he would have become if he had lived but he had leadership potential in spades along with quite a high intellect.
It's probably inescapable that the basic cause of the deaths was the actions of the mob, but the policing and crowd control was way under the standard needed. And turned into a slap around the face caused by the lying to protect one's skin by those in authority. I'd be fairly sure that quite a few deaths were 'needless' ones too as a proper reaction ought to saved some of them after they passed out.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 15:28
|
I thought that was more or less what I'd said Sp...
When a lot of people are accidentally killed because of their own unruliness and police failings, there will certainly be a number of individual tragedies. Anyway, even stupid thugs have loving parents as often as not.
|
What you're missing, AC, is that it wasn't the "thugs" who got crushed. It was well behaved people who had arrived early with genuine tickets. Families, that sort of thing. They were at the front of the pens, down the bottom.
If there were any "thugs", they were at the back, pushing. Those people remained unharmed.
I don't think anyone died because of their own unruliness: if unruliness was a cause, it was the unruliness of others which cost people their lives.
|
Read what I wrote FFS Alanović!
Or if you can't be bothered, rest assured that I took a view very similar to yours at the time on HJ.
'What you're missing' indeed! I don't miss much of this very simple stuff believe me.
|
>> Read what I wrote FFS Alanović!
>>
>> Or if you can't be bothered, rest assured that I took a view very similar
>> to yours at the time on HJ.
>>
>> 'What you're missing' indeed! I don't miss much of this very simple stuff believe me.
>>
>>
Calm down, AC. When you write: "a lot of people are accidentally killed because of their own unruliness", I take it to mean what it says. And I'm saying that the unruly ones were not killed, but innocent people trying to enjoy a legitimate day out. There's a world of difference and your comment most certainly indicated that those who were killed were unruly thugs.
Maybe if you didn't mean that and you want people to understand what you think, perhaps you should try writing what you mean rather than the opposite.
If you didn't miss that, why did you write what you wrote? I don't have perfect recall and a photographic memory, so what you may or may not have written on HJ some years ago has given way to a few bottle of Vin de Pays d'Oc in the intervening time and lodged itself firmly in the dirt of my woodshed floor.
FFS indeed.
|
AC, more or less, yes, but one needs extreme precision in such matters. The other point is, the 'mob' that caused the deaths were not those already and legally inside, but those pushing from outside. I doubt any of the dead were any of the 'mob', just their victims. The one I knew certainly wasn't part of the 'mob'.
Unpleasant truth though is that the issue will never go away. Somebody somewhere is bound to object. It's going to need a coroner with a very thick skin.
|
|
See, AC? SP read your post the same way as I did.
|
>> See, AC? SP read your post the same way as I did.
That's two of you who can't read then...
er, :o} I suppose.
It's mildly annoying I must say, being berated by people for not saying what I'm saying and indeed said 25 years ago.
But I'm tired of this Scheisse. I was right then and I'm right now, but I don't care all that much, so think what you like Comrade.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 17:02
|
I assume you don't get the North West news down your way AC !
|
>> What a load of faff... Scousers are no more self-pitying and given to displacing 'blame'
>> than anyone else. Tchah!
Load of faff, yourself! Where have been all your life? Scousers daily drown in tears of self pity.
>> The 'fans' were to blame and caused all the deaths owing to poor police practice.
>> Stupid thugs.
Blimey! I agree with AC - must lie down.
|
>>
>> I wonder when the next inquest will start.
>>
>> Did we get all this for Harrow & Wealdstone, Valley Parade, Ibrox, Aberfan, Gresford Colliery,
Poor shot Ted.
There are still rumblings about Valley Parade including suggestions that other businesses owned by City's Director Stafford Heginbotham seemed prone to destruction by fire. New inquiries/inquests are called for from time to time. There are also doubts about the efficacy of the subsequent inquiry though it was nothing like the perversion of justice that occurred after Hillsborough (the inquest not Lord Justice Taylor's report).
Things emerge from time to time about Aberfan too and need to be put right.
HArrow and Wealdstone? A railway accident caused by a driving passing signals at danger. Properly investigated at time, as were all rail accidents, by an incorruptible outfit under leadership of an officer from the Royal Engineers.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 16:01
|
>> The Guardian report says delay is so that relatives who are not already there have
>> time to attend.
It also occurs that verdict process may take some time. The coroner has determined a series of fourteen questions the jury must answer. It also seems there will be individual verdicts for each of the deceased.
Add some summarising for the record by the coroner and it's going to be taking a while.
|
|
On key question, jury finds that victims were unlawfully killed.
|
I am really uncomfortable with this whole scenario.
I accept that various people behaved badly.
That the stadium was badly designed.
etc, etc.
However no one seems to address the root cause of the deaths - that they were crushed. Who crushed them - how and why?
The fans were crushed to death by other fans. Why? Because they found that there way was blocked by fans and so they pushed as hard as they could to try to force a way through.
Any person whether at a football ground or an airport, or anywhere else, who finds their way ahead blocked, will stand still and wait for the holdup to clear. It's common sense isn't it? Why didn't the fans do that?
|
>> Any person whether at a football ground or an airport, or anywhere else, who finds
>> their way ahead blocked, will stand still and wait for the holdup to clear. It's
>> common sense isn't it? Why didn't the fans do that?
Have you ever been in a large and moving crowd?
|
We need to differentiate between learning from the incident itself and punishing the lying afterwards.
The incident has lessons, including lessons for the crowd itself. But nobody set out to kill.
Any lying or covering up afterwards is a different matter.
|
>> We need to differentiate between learning from the incident itself and punishing the lying afterwards..... The incident has lessons, including lessons for the crowd itself. But nobody set out to kill....Any lying or covering up afterwards is a different matter.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
Plus:
- the ground was deficient
- football hooliganism of that era was rife, so metal barriers were placed at the front
- the culture for some fans is to remain in the pub for as long as possible, then go to the ground
- the match police commander was not so experienced in that role
The whole lot has a part to play.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 26 Apr 16 at 15:44
|
|
A crowd can be a nasty, unruly thing, Duncan, irrespective of the character of the individuals in it. It's a bit like the braking wave that propagates backwards up a congested motorway: the single action that triggers it may be tiny, even imperceptible, but it's progressively amplified until everyone is caught up in it and can do nothing about it.
|
>> A crowd can be a nasty, unruly thing, irrespective of the character of the individuals in it.
Yes, a frightened crowd takes on a life of its own. When adult men can be swept away or knocked off their feet and trampled you can see how dangerous a mob can be to children.
Never ever take a child into a crowd if there's any risk of volatility.
|
I always felt more comfortable watching Rugby League than football matches.
At football, supporters can be more menacing with each other the rivalry is very strong.Rugby League supporters at least in my day where often people who had played the game.
Our home was near the Feyenoord stadium in Rotterdam but I've never been in it.>:)
|
>> Our home was near the Feyenoord stadium in Rotterdam but I've never been in it.>:)
I lived for several years very near the arsenal stadium Dutchie. I never went inside it either.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 Apr 16 at 01:38
|
|
Indeed WDB. A crowd may be innocent of intent, yet cause immense pressure. Those in the rear ranks may be able to pull back, but were not made aware of the situation at the front, which would be out of sight and below them. If ever caught up in the midst of a crowd trying to get in or out, you'd be well aware that there is nothing an individual, caught up in the midst, can do. The Emergency Planning College at Easingwold has copious material on the issues.
|
One aspect of this tragedy that I've never seen mentioned was the fact that the fans had nowhere to go because of the fencing off of the stand from the pitch.
If people had thought ahead at the time, fencing would never have been installed...or at least fitted with remote control explosive shoot bolts. It wasn't afaik, and thus the incident was magnified instead of fans just escaping onto the pitch
Grounds soon removed their fencing after this !
|
|
Still gives me the willies to see mesh fencing like that at Indian cricket grounds.
|
>> the fans had nowhere to go because of the fencing off of the stand from the pitch.
A lot of the more athletic fans are seen in the original footage dropping down onto the pitch and spreading out there. But children, women and the infirm were very quickly at terrible risk of death or injury.
It was awful, terrible, and all spelt out with agonizing deliberation on live TV. It wouldn't happen in this country these days, the news would be 'managed' into respectability.
|
>> A crowd can be a nasty, unruly thing, Duncan,
I was a steward at Twickenham for more than 30 years.
I have been a steward at a Premiership Rugby Union ground for more than 15 years.
Last edited by: Duncan on Tue 26 Apr 16 at 17:55
|
Ok. Unfortunately I have insight on a lot of this, having been there, done that, and spoken to folk.
I've been in a human wave at stadia. Never pleasant, and b***** frightening.
Fans come in, wish to see a match, don't care who is ahead of them. Or run back in. Luzhniki disaster? Look it up.
Locally, we had the Ellis Park Disaster in 2001. Same thing - jam up the stairs, want to see a big match. 43 dead.
I was on the phone until 4am trying to call 'my people' at the event, and find out if they were safe.
BG* - a goalkeeper - told me that he was ranting at the cops to open the gates, and was told to F off. We hit a bottle of scotch or two that night.
* yes. He did Heysl, Hillsborough and was upstairs in Harare.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Tue 26 Apr 16 at 16:07
|
>> Ok. Unfortunately I have insight on a lot of this, having been there, done that,
>> and spoken to folk.
>> I've been in a human wave at stadia. Never pleasant, and b***** frightening.
>>
>> >>
So have I. One of the stairs leading off the North Bank at Upton Park was a particularly dangerous place, I can remember going down there when it was so tightly packed that all I could move were my legs and my neck. I was too young at the time to realise the danger, but it would have taken only one person to trip and another disaster would have been in the history books.
I feel sorry for all sides at Hillsborough, everything was done with the best of intentions. The police let the fans in because they thought that was the safest option, the fans trying to push their way in at the back had absolutely no idea of the carnage they were causing 100 or more steps down the terraces in front of them and the fences had been erected because the problem of pitch invasions was very real and threatening at the time. It's easy to look back and lay blame, but we can all be experts after the event.
I don't see the point of prosecutions for what happened on the day, though the cover up afterwards is another matter.
|
>> I don't see the point of prosecutions for what happened on the day, though the cover up afterwards is another matter.
The problem is that there are a lot of bereaved parents out there, who have had ample time to let the story mutate into something really damning.
Crucifying coppers won't really make them feel any better, but they are angry and vengeful.
The human comedy to put it heartlessly.
|
Yes we need to be wary of hindsight wisdom. But aspects of the disaster had happened previously at Hillsborough as you will be aware no doubt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Previous_incidents
There were modifications after the 1981 incident in which 38 people were injured. There was another instance of a crush on the same terrace in 1988 but on that occasion IIRC police or stewards blocked the central tunnel and diverted fans to the side pens. That did not happen in 1989.
If the first and second incidents were accidents, it's hard to allow that the third was not due to negligence by somebody - not necessarily the ground commander, if there was no system in place to share and carry forward the knowledge that should have been gained after 1981 and 1988.
|
|
And the poor devil only had 15 days from his appointment (possibly due to previous incumbent put on other duties) to the event. System failure?
|
The Beeb all over the story like a rash. It seems that there is 24 hour coverage, with interviews taking place with anyone who has the slightest connection to Scouseland
Now again this morning BBC Breakfast is absolutely full of it.
Talk about overkill.
Granted it's an important story, but this is too much.
(I once flew in and out of John Lennon Airport, so I'm waiting for a call from the BBC asking for my input),
|
Prepare for more coverage Roger. You could always go abroad….
Given the victim-blaming stance of the PM's lackey Ingham, the Boris, and the burnished Sun, and the orchestrated cover-up, I'm not surprised with the extent of coverage. It's only the day after the verdict and there is a lot of pent-up hurt and material to be released. Even if IPCC messes up as usual, the causes seem to be the negligent preparation now revealed, across several actors. The cover-up may be regarded as conspiracy, possibly both Statutory and at common law, together with incitement and substantive matters such as perjury. Shares in shredding machine makers will be on the up.
edited. You know why
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 Apr 16 at 10:27
|
>>Prepare for more coverage Roger.
Except :-
Newspaper review: Hillsborough 'justice' hailed, but not on Sun's front page
|
>> I don't see the point of prosecutions for what happened on the day, though the
>> cover up afterwards is another matter.
Not sure I see point in prosecuting Dukinfield over a single act - the opening of the gates - or indeed any other individual. Whether the FA, Police Force, club or Sheffield Council (as safety authority) should be in the dock is a different question.
Those responsible for the cover up OTOH.
|
In my view, the 27 years of cover-up and lies can't be allowed to mitigate the prosecution of appropriate individuals/services, as otherwise the message is 'cover it up long enough and you'll not get humped as bad'.
The event happened - lessons were learned - Dukinfield (and others?) likely would have been prosecuted at the time had the 'truth' been available, but the concerted efforts by layers of establishment to whitewash the events and hide culpability really make my pee boil.
It really is a mess, isn't it?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 27 Apr 16 at 12:07
|
New Hillsborough Inquest Opens - Zero
