You've hit the first point spot in. Those people who were penned in couldn't have done a thing. They were sadly doomed by the actions of those around them, as was baz in my example. Let that sink in though. The actions of those around them. Conscious actions. They didn't set out to cause the damage they did but they undeniably caused it.
Hillsborough police chief David Duckenfield cleared of manslaughter
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
You've hit the first point spot in. Those people who were penned in couldn't have done a thing. They were sadly doomed by the actions of those around them, as was baz in my example. Let that sink in though. The actions of those around them. Conscious actions. They didn't set out to cause the damage they did but they undeniably caused it.
The innocent person crossing the road at a set of traffic lights is making a conscious decision too, they're therefore at fault for a drink driver jumping a red light and killing them. Supporters entered those central pens because they believed it was safe to do so - they weren't closed off, no officers were directing them to the outer pens. Your attempt to apportion blame to supporters that entered a football stadium the exact same way they would have done countless times before is pathetic.
The debate on this went on far too long in the previous thread and there is no point in continuing it further, you won't change your views and neither will anybody else so that's the end of it.
I'm confused why you have this on going focus with those at the front. They are not the cause. Those behind are. Just because you've done something countless times before doesn't make it right. It just means you did it wrong every time but, as I pointed out earlier, a particular set of circumstances never aligned leading to a particular outcome.
That stadium hosted fans countless times before. Was its design therefore correct? I'll give you a clue, the answer is no.
The police had directed fans countless times before. Was their behaviour correct? I'll give you another clue...no.
Now can you see where this is going?
Do you think something similar could happen again and that no lessons were learned? I can tell you now as a football fan that things changed a lot after Hillsborough, the only positive thing that came out of a terrible tragedy.
I haven't focussed on those at the front, my comment applies to all those that entered or attempted to enter the stand. They believed it was safe to enter the stand, it would have appeared no different to countless time before, the same way that person who crossed the street would have believed it was safe.
Now as I've said, there's no point in continuing this as it's clear that neither are going to change our views.
I think you know the 'answer' is far more nuanced than you might be trying to suggest and includes fenced of terraces whoose capacity was vastly overestimated by the club, poor signage and other features of poor design that were largely the result of issues in football at the time where serious disorder had lead to some rash measures being implemented at a far higher level than a police match day commander.
Not at all surprised that the the prosecution failed to convince a jury to the required level of culpability /evidence in this case.
The crush on the terraces was caused when gates were opened. The gates were opened because there was another crush occurring on the other side of them and the police officers at the gates had pleades for the gates to be opened to avert serious injury/ death there.
Duckenfield was placed in a position were he could not at all reasonably of been expected to avert a tradegy on the day.
There were numerous things he could have done to prevent the crush and then further things to have minimised the consequences of the crush once it happened. He could have delayed the kick-off, he could have closed the entrance to the central pens, he could have ordered officers to open the gates at the front of the central pens. He didn't though, he instead allowed the game to go ahead as scheduled despite the issues at the turnstyles, he then took the decision to open the exit gate combined with not closing the entrance to the full, central pens and then, while people were dying, he began a self-preservation exercise, painting a picture of hooliganism being the cause, spreading lies that it was supporters that had forced the exit gate open, instead of taking action to save lives.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, a very similar crush took place a few years earlier in the same stand. It was only because of the decisions by the police that day that 96 Spurs supporters didn't die.
Your last line betrays the problem you are trying to claim doesn't exist.
Football stadiums in the 1980's were death traps/ accidents waiting to happen.
I note you also completely ignore the potential consequences of the alternate decisions you put forward like delaying a kick off which would be far from consequence free in of themselves.
Last edited:
Where on earth have I ever tried to claim stadiums weren't an issue? Hillsborough and the Leppings Lane stand in particular was unsafe - Sheffield Wednesday and the FA were also hugely responsible for the disaster. That doesn't change the fact that decisions made by Duckenfield that day were both a cause of the crush to begin with and led to 96 supporters dying.
The design of the stand and entrance to the stand was a huge problem - Duckenfield chose not to delay the kick-off though. His decision to open the exit gate and not close the entrance to the central pens were entirely his dooing and fault. Once the crush in the stand begun he then took the cold, calculated decision to lie and treat the incident as hooliganism, instead of ordering his officers to open the gates at the front of the pens. Hillsborough being unsafe didn't force Duckenfield to lie, in an attempt to cover up the previous mistakes he made. It was that lie and the decisions that followed that meant many (maybe even all) of the 96 supporters died, when they could have been saved.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
You have made it quite clear that you think the blame for this can be attributed (criminally) to Duckenfield. And you have only accepted the other factors when pushed on the matter in this thread.
In reality such distater are regularly the result of a sequence of bad decisions and or unfortunate chance events.
Hence why it is often so difficult to criminally prosecute individual parties because it is only cumulatively that their decisions result in the problem.
Let's say I hand you a (not to your full knowledge) defective product it goes wrong and kills some people and then you are up for prosecution. And I start coming out with a list of things that you could have done that might have averted the particular distater that occurred (but might not have averted an alternate disaster in of themselves.)
I'm not at all surprised that a jury, presented with the scenario on the day, decided they could not be sure that Duckenfield was guilty and so did the only thing they are allowed to do.
Duckenfield' actions after the crush are a separate matter and if the CPS thought there was the evidence to support it they would have charged him with with perverting the course of justice as they did with Donald Denton and Alan Foster or alternatively misconduct in a public office.
I absolutely do believe Duckenfield should be held responsible for his part. As for only accepting other factors when pushed, this is complete and utter nonsense. This thread relates to Duckenfield and his trial however if you read previous posts of mine on the disaster you will see that I also believe Sheffield Wednesday and the FA are also partially responsible. Hillsborough didn't even have a valid safety certificate and the FA were made aware of concerns relating to safety prior to the game.
I quoted and disputed your post that it was unreasonable to expect Duckenfield to have been able to avert the disaster, you've then twisted and changed your argument since.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
Why not go after Duckenfield's bosses for not assessing his aptitude to make judgement calls in pressures situations and/or providing him with the necessary training to handle the situation?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
Exactly... and while Duckenfield is a name (and living person) to attribute all of the blame to, Peter Wright (who may well be equally culpable in the grand scheme of things) is hardly even a footnote in the tragedy. But yet the victims need a target.....
A related trial, this is a bit of a strange one, two police officers and a solicitor, the judge ruled they have no case to answer - begs the question of what the CPS was doing here or if there was another charge that might have been appropriate?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57172900
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57172900
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Because with blame comes a claim.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You reckon that a Judge ruled that two police officers and a solicitor have no case to answer in order to prevent victims' families having any basis for a claim then
Because some people have already firmly made their mind up in spite of evidence, or lack thereof.