Hillsborough inquest verdict.

Status
Not open for further replies.
zophiel said:
thank you werewolf, your explanation is good. Done without threats like an adult.
Click to expand...
What threats? You were given a warning for posting lies. I have a hard enough job putting up with ignorant opinions on this subject but when I know that somebody is lying and doing so with the intention of causing offence, I won't stand for it.
 
and as per your private messages we have done this now, and proven with reports we were on the same page, when you take your blinkers off and read what is written. thats all i have to say.
 
zophiel said:
and as per your private messages we have done this now, and proven with reports we were on the same page, when you take your blinkers off and read what is written. thats all i have to say.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? What page was that? You repeatedly claimed that the gate that was opened supplied the stand or areas of the stand that was full, arguing that supporters were at fault for using it because of this. This was something you made up from thin air. The exit gate (and turnstiles) was the only entrance to the entire stand and only the two central pens were full. Supporters had to use those turnstiles and the exit gate that the police opened to access the stand, the stand with pens that weren't full.
 
BaZ87 said:
Football supporters were treated like animals in those days and it wasn't uncommon for stands to be so tightly packed that you had no control over your movements. To supporters entering the back of the pens it wouldn't have appeared any different to 99% of other matches.
Click to expand...
They were treated like animals because a vast number of them used to act like them. Liverpool fans are no angels either {Heysel anybody ? } but they have the victim mentality up there in Liverpool so that little part of there thuggery is swept under the carpet
 
Pretty sure I remember seeing quite a bit of video footage in the early 90s showing the bad behaviour of Liverpool fans outside the ground... Doesn't seem to get shown or be available in the public domain anymore. Maybe I just imagined it.
 
Sounds like myth 2, debunked at the inquest (the jury's verdict is at the very bottom of the quoted section).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35473732

Myth 2: 'Drunken fans caused the disaster'
Image copyright AP
Image caption Police tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto "drunken" fans but the inquest jury did not agree
Myth: In the days following the tragedy, some newspapers reported that a "crazed surge" of Liverpool fans, many the "worse for drink, others without tickets" had raced to the stadium causing the deaths of 96 people in the stadium. Reports quoted police witnesses describing fans as "lager-louts" or even as "animals".

What we know: The chief constable of South Yorkshire Police at the time of the Hillsborough disaster told officers if anyone was to blame it was "drunken ticketless" fans. The comments by Sir Peter Wright were revealed in minutes from a South Yorkshire Police Federation meeting, held four days after the 1989 tragedy.

They were read to the inquests jury during evidence from Paul Middup, who was then the federation's secretary. Mr Middup was quoted in several newspapers in the days following the 15 April 1989 disaster, claiming some supporters at the Liverpool versus Nottingham Forest match had been "tanked up".

A number of police officers told the inquests that fans were drinking before the match. One of them, a Sgt Lomas, said he had never before seen so much alcohol consumed before a match - "beer, cider, wine, big bottles, cans, carafes of wine; a wide array of different drink". Some fans were "unsteady on their feet", he told the jury.

The Hillsborough Inquests heard an allegation that former SYP chief inspector Sir Norman Bettison had been asked to "concoct a story" that "all the Liverpool fans were drunk and that we were afraid they were going to break down the gates, so we decided to open them". This was strongly denied by Sir Norman.

The Taylor Report, while accepting there was a "drunken minority" of fans, said they did not cause the congestion at the turnstiles. The coroner Sir John Goldring told the jury that more than half of the victims of the disaster had either no alcohol in their blood or an amount which was entirely negligible. Most of the others had levels "consistent with only modest social drinking before a sporting event".

His 1989 report said that, while many supporters who arrived at 2.30pm or after, had been drinking, the great majority "were not drunk nor even the worse for drink". Evidence from shops and off licences on the way to the ground "did not suggest a great amount of alcoholic drink was bought there".

Others described a generally normal crowd with an uncooperative minority who had drunk too much. In his view, "many officers overestimated" the drunken element in the crowd. He concluded that "drunkenness played no part in the disaster".

The HIP report found that, of the 95 individuals who died as an immediate result of the disaster, only six had alcohol levels at which they may have been expected to show "signs of being intoxicated". The recording of blood alcohol levels in victims and questioning of bereaved families about their drinking habits proved highly controversial and upsetting at the time.

The panel also found "no evidence... to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans".


What the jury said: The jury found nothing to suggest that the behaviour of fans, drunken or otherwise, contributed to the disaster.
Click to expand...

(Edited to add the whole section.)
 
Last edited:
rubberduck said:
Pretty sure I remember seeing quite a bit of video footage in the early 90s showing the bad behaviour of Liverpool fans outside the ground... Doesn't seem to get shown or be available in the public domain anymore. Maybe I just imagined it.
Click to expand...

70s was the worst and after two incidents on the trot at the Victoria Ground, even though we had season tickets, my Dad paid for tickets in the paddock where it was safer from them.
At the back of the old Stoke End was a very high wall with glass and barbed wire at the top but Scousers used to come over it like it wasn't there and then push down on the Stoke fans from the back.
We played Arsenal at Goodison Park in the early 70s and about 15 mins from the end, Liverpool & Everton fans came through the back doors and started to push all the fans from the back. At that point all the kids including me were crowd surfed down to the pitch.
Because of these experiences it took a lot of proof to convince me that it wasn't the fans fault at Hillsborough.
 
Scam said:
I wonder if in 2037 we'll be hunting down that firefighter from Grenfell I mentioned earlier. I still think Duckenfield should be punished for lying, but there's no way he can be solely to blame for the deaths.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be solely or even mostly responsible for someone's death to be charged with murder or manslaughter. Contributing to it in a way that is more than minimal is enough, and the CPS and the judge who today lifted the stay on the prosecution must think there is evidence that is capable of proving it.

You quoted a person earlier who said that no one meant to harm anyone. I'm sure that's true but it's also completely irrelevant in the context of gross negligence manslaughter. If you are responsible for someone else's safety and either create a danger or fail to respond to one, you could be liable for civil damages or, if you have been utterly incompetent, criminal charges if they suffer any harm that was preventable.

As for this prosecution not bringing back the dead, prosecutions never do but offenders are punished anyway.
 
I'm puzzled. From what we know, what would lead to a Grenfell Firefighter facing the same charges?

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Edit: not directed at you, TJM.
 
Won't duckenfield almost certainly be able to claim that he was inadequately trained to handle the situation? And rightly so. I wonder how many courses he attended or mock exercises were run prior to the tradegy occuring.
 
Yadda said:
A bit late now, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I think he's trying to make a comparison to the Firefighter who citied his lack of training on evacuating tall buildings for why he didn't make the decision to evacuate people sooner.

Of course the Fire Service didn't then try to pull off a big coverup or distort the facts by leaking dodgy accounts to a certain tabloid etc.. though I guess these manslaughter charges are irrelevant to that aspect of the police behaviour too.
 
Loves Love Island said:
I think he's trying to make a comparison to the Firefighter who citied his lack of training on evacuating tall buildings for why he didn't make the decision to evacuate people sooner.

Of course the Fire Service didn't then try to pull off a big coverup or distort the facts by leaking dodgy accounts to a certain tabloid etc.. though I guess these manslaughter charges are irrelevant to that aspect of the police behaviour too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that but this happened a long time ago and there have been many opportunities for him to make that claim.
 
rubberduck said:
Pretty sure I remember seeing quite a bit of video footage in the early 90s showing the bad behaviour of Liverpool fans outside the ground... Doesn't seem to get shown or be available in the public domain anymore. Maybe I just imagined it.
Click to expand...

I dont think you are imagining it.
It was a known tactic at the time to steam the gates with a mob to gain entry without tickets, the police would open a gate somewhere to stop people being crushed outside the ground.
I can recall this happening at either Hull or Brentford, Liverpools previous FA cup games.
At Hillsborough i am sure the same thing happened, the police let them in, but this time it all went wrong.
I think the whole thing was the perfect storm of the police not knowing what to do in the situation that some fans had created.
I really dont think the blame can be put on one person, but lying to cover your ass cannot go unpunished.
 
altus said:
I really dont think the blame can be put on one person, but lying to cover your ass cannot go unpunished.
Click to expand...

If he's being charged with manslaughter then the lying to cover his ass isn't the reason why he might be punished, it is simply his actions on the day that have lead to the charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom