Hillsborough Disaster

Dabbles · 16 Sep 2012 at 16:46

BaZ87 said:
Liability for what though Loki? Liverpool FC or its supporters have never been charged with anything - it's the families seeking to press charges against the authorities. I'm not sure how Liverpool offering to pay their legal fees could backfire in any way.

It could be seen by some as some sort of admission if culpability or feeling of guilt.

It also sets a precedent that other will compare other situations to. E.g. What if a fan is attacked by another team's hooligans, are they going to get legal aid from their club?

Loki · 16 Sep 2012 at 16:56

BaZ87 said:
Liability for what though Loki? Liverpool FC or its supporters have never been charged with anything - it's the families seeking to press charges against the authorities. I'm not sure how Liverpool offering to pay their legal fees could backfire in any way.

Basically what Dabbles said. Not suggesting for one minute LFC have had nothing but the absolute best interests of all the families concerned as their priority. Maybe the whole legal fee thing would have been just one step to far. An opinion more than a fact

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 16:56

Culpability or guilt of what though? I don't understand.

If you were hit by a car and a rich friend of family member paid your legal fees when seeking damages against the person driving the car, is that friend or family member guilty of anything? :confused:

Dabbles · 16 Sep 2012 at 17:03

BaZ87 said:
Culpability or guilt of what though? I don't understand.

Anything, or nothing. It doesn't matter, it could be seen as some sort of admission, even if it isn't. If they set a precedent for this, where do you draw the line for future incidents?

BaZ87 said:
If you were hit by a car and a rich friend of family member paid your legal fees when seeking damages against the person driving the car, is that friend or family member guilty of anything?

My rich friend/family member is nothing to do with the situation in your example. The fans were at a match where LFC were playing and perhaps LFC should have refused to play at a ground with no safety certificate, for example.

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 17:10

Dabbles said:
Anything, or nothing. It doesn't matter, it could be seen as some sort of admission, even if it isn't. If they set a precedent for this, where do you draw the line for future incidents?

It's not anything or nothing, it's nothing. There isn't and never has been any charges brought against Liverpool for what happened at Hillsborough.

Dabbles said:
My rich friend/family member is nothing to do with the situation in your example. The fans were at a match where LFC were playing and perhaps LFC should have refused to play at a ground with no safety certificate, for example.

Whether they were connected to the incident or not, neither have done anything wrong to feel any guilt.

As for the safety certificate, it was the FA, Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield Council's job to make sure the ground had a safety certificate. I don't think Liverpool (or Forest) would have had the information available to them to know that it didn't have a safety certificate.

grimm · 16 Sep 2012 at 17:52

The proper analogy would be if you were driving your friend's car, and there was some sort of accident, then your friend paid for the legal costs. It implies that there may have been a problem with the car in the first place or something along those lines, hence the admission (of sorts) of liability.

In that analogy you would be the fans, and the friend would be LFC.

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 17:57

Just because somebody is willing to help you, even if they have a connection to the incident, it doesn't imply that they done something wrong or have anything to be guilty for. Can't people just help others without any sort of ulterior motive?

grimm · 16 Sep 2012 at 18:09

BaZ87 said:
Just because somebody is willing to help you, even if they have a connection to the incident, it doesn't imply that they done something wrong or have anything to be guilty for. Can't people just help others without any sort of ulterior motive?

It can be argued in court by a good legal team that it does though. That's the world we live in nowadays unfortunately.

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 18:13

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Somebody willing to help another person does not imply any guilt, especially when they've done nothing wrong to be guilty of.

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 18:30

An interesting find from Tony Barrett. Graham Mackrell had overall control of safety matters at Sheffield Wednesday at the time of Hillsborough - he is now UEFA venue director for the CL.

Jimbeam3678 · 16 Sep 2012 at 20:04

BaZ87 said:
An interesting find from Tony Barrett. Graham Mackrell had overall control of safety matters at Sheffield Wednesday at the time of Hillsborough - he is now UEFA venue director for the CL.

What arses do these people lick to get where they are. Shocking

Dabbles · 16 Sep 2012 at 21:22

BaZ87 said:
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Somebody willing to help another person does not imply any guilt, especially when they've done nothing wrong to be guilty of.

It's isn't nonsense, sadly. A good lawyer will make the inference that the party paying legal costs feels some sort of guilt or responsibility for the incident, that being why they feel like they should pay. All the lawyer has to do is persuade a court on the balance of probability this is the case.

BaZ87 · 16 Sep 2012 at 21:29

Dabbles said:
It's isn't nonsense, sadly. A good lawyer will make the inference that the party paying legal costs feels some sort of guilt or responsibility for the incident, that being why they feel like they should pay. All the lawyer has to do is persuade a court on the balance of probability this is the case.

No, it is nonsense. In action taken by the families against the relevant authorities - whoever pays the families legal fees will have no bearing on whether the authorities are guilty of the charges against them. Even if Liverpool FC were responsible in some way (to be clear, they weren't) and they were paying the families legal fees to make up for their part in the disaster, it wouldn't change the charges against the Police, FA etc.

The only way in which it could benefit the defense is if they could prove that it was only Liverpool FC and not the Police, FA etc that were responsible for the disaster. That obviously isn't the case here though as they couldn't prove that.

Liverpool paying the families legal fees would be what it seems, a gesture by the club to families of its supporters that died that day.

strocky · 17 Sep 2012 at 09:50

Nice touch by the MOTD last night for the closing credits and puts paid to the nonsense spouted that 99.9% of the Liverpool fans where drunk adult males :rolleyes:

cm1179 · 17 Sep 2012 at 15:05

freaky. i share the same surname as someone who died at hillsborough and 7/7 and it's not that common a surname

No1newts · 17 Sep 2012 at 20:08

Really touching tribute from Everton/Toon game. I haven't got involved in the whole hillabrough thing but that brought a lump to the throat.

Jimbeam3678 · 17 Sep 2012 at 22:31

http://www.thickaccent.com/2012/09/...to-the-96-before-newcastle-united-game-video/ for anyone to who wants to watch it.

The disaster aside I for one think its refreshing that football shows its human side and not just the multi million pound side.

Really really classy touch (if thats the right words) by Everton

atomic7431 · 18 Sep 2012 at 10:46

divaboy said:
http://www.thickaccent.com/2012/09/...to-the-96-before-newcastle-united-game-video/ for anyone to who wants to watch it.

The disaster aside I for one think its refreshing that football shows its human side and not just the multi million pound side.

Really really classy touch (if thats the right words) by Everton

watched the video and so thanks for the link, its truly great how so many have responded to all the recent findings and shocking cover ups, i now hope for justice for the families and closure for the 96 RIP YNWA.

BaZ87 · 18 Sep 2012 at 13:38

Great tribute by Everton. You always see plenty of Everton shirts in the crowd at the rememberence service too.

Weebull · 18 Sep 2012 at 23:28

grimm said:
The proper analogy would be if you were driving your friend's car, and there was some sort of accident, then your friend paid for the legal costs. It implies that there may have been a problem with the car in the first place or something along those lines, hence the admission (of sorts) of liability.

In that analogy you would be the fans, and the friend would be LFC.

Except that Liverpool football club were never, at any point, implicated at fault for the tragedy. So quite how it was "their" car in the first place doesn't make sense.