Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Angry

Hillsborough-96 victims unlawfully killed

Recommended Posts

[quote user="CANARYKING"]Anybody else remember the cup game away at West Ham, if I''m correct everybody had to enter up a set of steps about eight feet wide to gain entrance to the whole stand behind the goal. The game ended 0 - 0 and we beat them in the replay at CR. At the end of the game there was a terrible crush to get out, an accident waiting to happen.[/quote]
Was that the away game at West Ham that was played at Hillsborough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoareyou

"Lying to cover up evidence and changing witness statements was an offence then too though.

That should not go unpunished."

Yep👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m really not convinced that those without a ticket made any significant contribution Morty, the major factors were that the police didn''t follow the previous years lane control measures at the lepping lane turnstiles, the pen style of that stand where the main gate came through the middle with only the top of each barrier open to allow the crowd to spread across the entire stand, the reluctance and from what I read pad locked gates to the pitch being released by the squares but what the police commander in charge is to blame for is not taking advice from others to delay the game to allow controlled entrance to the fans and not just open the gate.

It was an outdated stand, it was a poor assessment of risk by the police and it was the fan mentality at the time which all had some contribution to a very sad event.

There''s no doubt that there has been a major cover up over the past 27 years and it''s good to finally have the truth out. Why some on here feel the need to still put blame on the fans is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]I''m really not convinced that those without a ticket made any significant contribution Morty, the major factors were that the police didn''t follow the previous years lane control measures at the lepping lane turnstiles, the pen style of that stand where the main gate came through the middle with only the top of each barrier open to allow the crowd to spread across the entire stand, the reluctance and from what I read pad locked gates to the pitch being released by the squares but what the police commander in charge is to blame for is not taking advice from others to delay the game to allow controlled entrance to the fans and not just open the gate.

It was an outdated stand, it was a poor assessment of risk by the police and it was the fan mentality at the time which all had some contribution to a very sad event.

There''s no doubt that there has been a major cover up over the past 27 years and it''s good to finally have the truth out. Why some on here feel the need to still put blame on the fans is beyond me.[/quote]We won''t go round and round in circles here, there were lots of factors, some more important than others. But if you have more people trying to fit into an area designed, or licenced (or not as it transpires) for a certain amount of people, well its not going to help, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- The 96 Liverpool fans who died in the Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, jurors concluded by a 7-2 majority.
-- Match commander Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield''s actions amounted to "gross negligence" due to breach of his duty of care to fans.
-- Police planning errors caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the disaster.
    -- The 96 victims were killed due to crushing following the admission of a large number of fans through an exit gate.
    -- Fan behavior did not cause or contribute to the tragedy.
    -- Both the police and the ambulance service caused or contributed to the loss of life by error or omission after the crush had begun to develop
    -- The UK Crown Prosecution Service will now consider criminal charges.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Now clearly a jury''s verdict is opinion based on the balance of evidence rather than a factual statement.
    However, I would suggest they have been better informed than anyone else.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I didn''t mention "fan behaviour", did I?That, I suspect is answering the allegations that fans were drunk and violent.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [quote user="morty"]I didn''t mention "fan behaviour", did I?That, I suspect is answering the allegations that fans were drunk and violent.[/quote]
    Well, while we are dealing with our own opinions on things, I suspect the inquest would have considered the number of fans at the ground -with and without tickets - and attempting to enter the ground as a contributing factor to the disaster.  The fact that football fans have been exonerated suggests to me that this was not a material issue.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Like any disaster not one thing but a number of things anyone of which could have been put in place to prevent this.

    I have to agree with the conclusion that the police have to accept responsibility, but the extent of the coverup is concerning.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="Katie Borkins"][quote user="morty"]I didn''t mention "fan behaviour", did I?That, I suspect is answering the allegations that fans were drunk and violent.[/quote]
    Well, while we are dealing with our own opinions on things, I suspect the inquest would have considered the number of fans at the ground -with and without tickets - and attempting to enter the ground as a contributing factor to the disaster.  The fact that football fans have been exonerated suggests to me that this was not a material issue.
    [/quote]Thanks for the link, but I''ll not bother.I am frankly overloaded on the whole thing.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I went to the Norwich v Everton semi final the same day at Villa Park with a work colleague Everton fan. I was with him in an Everton pub beforehand with his mates. It was a good craic and we must have all had a good half dozen pints leaving it until the last minute to leave for the ground. He went into the Everton end I went into our end. Loads of other people had the same idea and as a consequence there was lots of pushing and shoving on entering the Norwich stand, par for the course at the time. This was just how it was. Then more so than now the average fan democratic was male adult and pre match drinking was a part of the ritual.

    Therefore I for one cannot understand how the jury decided that alcohol played no part. It must have done even if only a minor one. It was the culture at the time and anyone who reguRly went to matches at the time can attest to that. I''m absolutely not saying that there was any truth in the pick pocketing and urinating allegation,s, merely that alcohol consumption must have played a part. In what unfolded Also I''m not suggesting that Liverpool fans consumed more or less than other fans, it was of its time. It is perhaps re-writing history to suggest it didn''t and anyone who was 18 or older on 1989 will know this is how it was.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="Funny old game"]I went to the Norwich v Everton semi final the same day at Villa Park with a work colleague Everton fan. I was with him in an Everton pub beforehand with his mates. It was a good craic and we must have all had a good half dozen pints leaving it until the last minute to leave for the ground. He went into the Everton end I went into our end. Loads of other people had the same idea and as a consequence there was lots of pushing and shoving on entering the Norwich stand, par for the course at the time. This was just how it was. Then more so than now the average fan democratic was male adult and pre match drinking was a part of the ritual.

    Therefore I for one cannot understand how the jury decided that alcohol played no part. It must have done even if only a minor one. It was the culture at the time and anyone who reguRly went to matches at the time can attest to that. I''m absolutely not saying that there was any truth in the pick pocketing and urinating allegation,s, merely that alcohol consumption must have played a part. In what unfolded Also I''m not suggesting that Liverpool fans consumed more or less than other fans, it was of its time. It is perhaps re-writing history to suggest it didn''t and anyone who was 18 or older on 1989 will know this is how it was.[/quote]Agreed[Y]What can''t be denied is that there must have been a lot of pushing and shoving in the tunnel by the latecomers when the gate was opened. I think all of us who attended games in those days would have to admit that we were often involved in that. What turned it into a tragedy was poor distribution of the numbers in the four pens and to my mind that issue is misadventure. What made the police culpable was the amateurish response and the cover up.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Barclaywazza, nobody is forcing you to believe anything but if you''ve spent the last 27 believing the Police''s lies that the disaster was caused by the Liverpool fans being a ''tanked-up mob'' then perhaps you need to read some of the reports.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="Funny old game"]I went to the Norwich v Everton semi final the same day at Villa Park with a work colleague Everton fan. I was with him in an Everton pub beforehand with his mates. It was a good craic and we must have all had a good half dozen pints leaving it until the last minute to leave for the ground. He went into the Everton end I went into our end. Loads of other people had the same idea and as a consequence there was lots of pushing and shoving on entering the Norwich stand, par for the course at the time. This was just how it was. Then more so than now the average fan democratic was male adult and pre match drinking was a part of the ritual.

    Therefore I for one cannot understand how the jury decided that alcohol played no part. It must have done even if only a minor one.
    It was the culture at the time and anyone who reguRly went to matches at the time can attest to that. I''m absolutely not saying that there was any truth in the pick pocketing and urinating allegation,s, merely that alcohol consumption must have played a part. In what unfolded Also I''m not suggesting that Liverpool fans consumed more or less than other fans, it was of its time. It is perhaps re-writing history to suggest it didn''t and anyone who was 18 or older on 1989 will know this is how it was.[/quote]This is what the inquest report says:The weight placed on alcohol levels, particularly in the Coroner''s

    summing up at the inquests, was inappropriate and misleading. The

    pattern of alcohol consumption among those who died was unremarkable and

    not exceptional for a social or leisure occasion.
    A

    document disclosed to the Panel has revealed that an attempt was made to

    impugn the reputations of the deceased by carrying out Police National

    Computer checks on those with a non-zero alcohol level.The

    disclosed documents show that blood alcohol levels were tested in some

    survivors who attended hospital, as well as in all those who died. There

    is no record of these tests or their results in the medical notes of

    survivors, and in some there was no apparent medical reason for the

    test. The extent of this testing remains unknown.There was

    no evidence to support the proposition that alcohol played any part in

    the genesis of the disaster
    and it is regrettable that those in

    positions of responsibility created and promoted a portrayal of

    drunkenness as contributing to the occurrence of the disaster and the

    ensuing loss of life without substantiating evidence.This is based on the blood tests carried out, which in most cases were negative, and on photos of rubbish bins outside the ground, which showed them mainly filled with soft-drink cans plus a few beer bottles. The point is that if those who died had either not been drinking or had consumed only a moderate amount then it is a reasonable assumption that also applied generally to the fans. You may have drunk at least six pints beforehand, but these Liverpool fans had not.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    The trouble with all this, is that the massive cover up and lies told by the police has diluted a few things. And the depth of the ineptitude has rightly influenced the jury.As a poster says above, football was a very, very different thing than it is now. You only need to look at other incidents in and around the time of Hillsborough to see the general demeanor of a lot of football fans. And the, justifiable in some cases, reasons the public had a certain perception of fans, resulting in them being caged like animals.Yes, blame has been taken away from the fans, but lets not pretend they were all angelic young chaps, quietly filing into the match, ticket in hand, slightly burpy after one bottle of panda pop cola. That, of course, doesn''t mean that they somehow deserved to die, of course it doesn''t, but there are good reasons as to why fans were treated in a certain way, lets not try and erase that from history.And I still think that "Death by unlawful killing" is slightly over dramatic, and tantamount to "culpable manslaughter" and could have, perhaps been worded a bit better. It was a terrible accident, but I doubt anyone had the intention of killing anyone.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    This is full of emotion and was a terrible tragedy and the police made significant failings and thereafter made things worse with telling lies in particular the circumstances as to how the gates were opened. It is clear that there were many Liverpool supporters who turned up without tickets, but if the gates had not been opened in the manner that they were and if there had been better ticketing checks at barriers approaching the ground this would not have had an impact. The South Yorkshire Police in a corporate sense have much to answer for as they put an inexperienced commander in charge of one of the biggest games of the season, when things went wrong he was out of his depth and panicked as many may have done in the same position. It should not be forgotten that Hillsborough in those days regularly staged Semi finals and as such should have had the experience to have planned and prepared far better. As in many tragedies a number of adverse factors come together at the same time and create the perfect storm. South Yorkshire Police have handled this badly from start to finish and dont forget they are still under the microscope for the child abuse scandals that were not addressed something has gone badly wrong in that force from many points of view.

    For the families i hope this is a start of closure, some criminal trials will follow it will be interesting how they pan out

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    As I have said above, I think most people who have been attending matches for a long time (particularly back in the days of terracing) would raise an eyebrow at the inquest conclusion that supporter behaviour was not even possibly a contributory factor (not the cause of) to what happened, both in terms of on the day or in the decade leading up to it. But the recent verdict is the culmination of a chain of events that have been unfolding ever since the police cover up came to light and is not surprising when you consider the evidence that the jury heard about the police errors, the admissions from Duckenfield, very moving testimony from the families and also that this inquest came after the report of the "independent" panel a couple of years ago. Just as there was a concerted effort amongst those in authority to smear the fans post the event, since it became clear that many in authority were lying then there has been a momentum in the other direction and it became pretty inevitable that the evidence given by police officers would be disregarded by a jury and that they would be more inclined to accept the testimony of the fans because the police had already been discredited.

    The truth is that a terrible incident like this is almost always the culmination of lots of factors and supporter behavior is one of them but on that day it was probably not out of the ordinary or in any way unforeseeable for a big match like that involving those teams and I am sure it was not markedly different to the year before when the same sides played at the same venue. the difference was that the police on this occasion made big mistakes and those were the difference between the match passing off safely as it did 12 months before and what happened on that awful day. So it is right that they are held accountable, particularly for the subsequent lies and cover up. I look at the jury''s conclusion on the supporter behavior point as being (i) the natural flipside to them having decided the police were primarily to blame (ii) the natural conclusion of the chain of events/momentum since the original inquest verdict was quashed and (iii) more a finding that the behavior on the day was not abnormal for a big football match and thus should have been policeable. Juries don''t tend to believe evidence from proven liars and will then naturally believe accounts which contradict those lies. These days there always seems to be a clamour to blame one individual or organization when in my view sometimes its not that simple but in this case it appears that the main mistakes on the day and those who made them have been correctly identified.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Many of the unfortunate individuals who died would have been at the front and, therefore, likely to have arrived early at the ground. The late arrivals, those pushing from the back, are more likely to have those drinking. It is therefore unsurprising that those who died had low readings for alcohol. Equally the contents of the bins is a bit of a red herring as the drinking would have occurred in trains and coaches on the way there and then in the local pubs.

    I reiterate that the principle blame lies with the police planning and the response. However I do not accept that consumption of alcohol played absolutely no part, even if only a very minor one. It Is simply not credible to suggest ''these Liverpool fans had not'' - that is to say not one person in the Leppings Lane end - consumed a level of alcohol which had the potential to impact on their actions.

    It was the culture of the time. The tragedy was terrible and avoidable, the subsequent cover up a disgrace. However it does no good to anyone to pretend that the prevailing culture of alcohol and football did not exist at the time. It did at every ground especially with await fans and semi finals are unique in that you have two sets of away fans, heightened excitement for a special day out = higher alcohol intake than normal - which with the police and organisational failings added added up to a toxic cocktail. Fortunately, and partly because of this, we now live in safer and more enlightened times but let''s not airbrush out how it was as It does everybody a disservice.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="morty"]The trouble with all this, is that the massive cover up and lies told by the police has diluted a few things. And the depth of the ineptitude has rightly influenced the jury.As a poster says above, football was a very, very different thing than it is now. You only need to look at other incidents in and around the time of Hillsborough to see the general demeanor of a lot of football fans. And the, justifiable in some cases, reasons the public had a certain perception of fans, resulting in them being caged like animals.Yes, blame has been taken away from the fans, but lets not pretend they were all angelic young chaps, quietly filing into the match, ticket in hand, slightly burpy after one bottle of panda pop cola. That, of course, doesn''t mean that they somehow deserved to die, of course it doesn''t, but there are good reasons as to why fans were treated in a certain way, lets not try and erase that from history.And I still think that "Death by unlawful killing" is slightly over dramatic, and tantamount to "culpable manslaughter" and could have, perhaps been worded a bit better. It was a terrible accident, but I doubt anyone had the intention of killing anyone.[/quote]

    i think the wording is dictated by statute Morty, I believe they had three options here namely Unlawful Killing, Accidental Death and an open verdict. I don''t think its open to the jury to come up with their own form of wording.

    Unlawful killing in this instance equates to "gross negligence" but of course this was an inquest into the deaths and not a criminal trial so if charges are brought against high ranking officers for gross negligence manslaughter it will be interesting to see if the same outcome is reached given the legal tests for such an offence and the fact that there would no doubt be much more detailed legal argument over the matter.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Funny old game-30 of those who died were let into the ground through the gate that had been opened. Of course, they might not have been the ones pushing from the back that forced Duckenfield to make the decision to open the gate.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    It''s sad that there are people on here continuing to blame supporters when the evidence states otherwise. This is an easy-to-read BBC article outlining the main mistakes made:Hillsborough disaster - Five key mistakes:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767The evidence shows that Hillsborough, and specifically the Leppings Lane end, had a long and documented history of problems with overcrowding. Former South Yorkshire Police inspector Gordon Sykes stating: "Up to 1989, I''m going to put it bluntly - we got away with it".This was not a one-off unforeseeable problem. Suggesting that it was specific to Liverpool supporters is wrong.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="Pyro Pete"]It''s sad that there are people on here continuing to blame supporters when the evidence states otherwise. This is an easy-to-read BBC article outlining the main mistakes made:Hillsborough disaster - Five key mistakes:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767The evidence shows that Hillsborough, and specifically the Leppings Lane end, had a long and documented history of problems with overcrowding. Former South Yorkshire Police inspector Gordon Sykes stating: "Up to 1989, I''m going to put it bluntly - we got away with it".This was not a one-off unforeseeable problem. Suggesting that it was specific to Liverpool supporters is wrong.[/quote]Who is specifically blaming supporters?Watch that video I posted above as a reminder of the state of English football in the 1980''s. Dilapidated stadia, inadequate policing, and a large hooligan element. I am not blaming fans for Hillsborough, but I am questioning this rewriting of history, that has been largely driven by the shameful cover up by the police.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    If the barriers had not been around the supporters then they would have escaped across onto the pitch.

    Why did the barriers exist ? We all should know the answer but political correctness is now shifting all blame from all football supporters onto authorities.

    It was a tragic accident brought about by circumstances on the day and the police and emergency services should have simply owned up to their failings on the day.

    Lying by authorities etc in court (ie: purjery ) and covering up by amending witness statements for 27 years must entail jail sentences IMO.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="paul moy"]If the barriers had not been around the supporters then they would have escaped across onto the pitch.

    Why did the barriers exist ? We all should know the answer but political correctness is now shifting all blame from all football supporters onto authorities.

    It was a tragic accident brought about by circumstances on the day and the police and emergency services should have simply owned up to their failings on the day.

    Lying by authorities etc in court (ie: purjery ) and covering up by amending witness statements for 27 years must entail jail sentences IMO.[/quote]This is the point I am trying to put across.Football in the 1980''s was in terminal decline, and the behaviour of some supporters played their part in that. Unfortunately what happened at Hillsborough was the sad culmination.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [quote user="Jim Smith"]As I have said above, I think most people who have been attending matches for a long time (particularly back in the days of terracing) would raise an eyebrow at the inquest conclusion that supporter behaviour was not even possibly a contributory factor (not the cause of) to what happened, both in terms of on the day or in the decade leading up to it. But the recent verdict is the culmination of a chain of events that have been unfolding ever since the police cover up came to light and is not surprising when you consider the evidence that the jury heard about the police errors, the admissions from Duckenfield, very moving testimony from the families and also that this inquest came after the report of the "independent" panel a couple of years ago. Just as there was a concerted effort amongst those in authority to smear the fans post the event, since it became clear that many in authority were lying then there has been a momentum in the other direction and it became pretty inevitable that the evidence given by police officers would be disregarded by a jury and that they would be more inclined to accept the testimony of the fans because the police had already been discredited. The truth is that a terrible incident like this is almost always the culmination of lots of factors and supporter behavior is one of them but on that day it was probably not out of the ordinary or in any way unforeseeable for a big match like that involving those teams and I am sure it was not markedly different to the year before when the same sides played at the same venue. the difference was that the police on this occasion made big mistakes and those were the difference between the match passing off safely as it did 12 months before and what happened on that awful day. So it is right that they are held accountable, particularly for the subsequent lies and cover up. I look at the jury''s conclusion on the supporter behavior point as being (i) the natural flipside to them having decided the police were primarily to blame (ii) the natural conclusion of the chain of events/momentum since the original inquest verdict was quashed and (iii) more a finding that the behavior on the day was not abnormal for a big football match and thus should have been policeable. Juries don''t tend to believe evidence from proven liars and will then naturally believe accounts which contradict those lies. These days there always seems to be a clamour to blame one individual or organization when in my view sometimes its not that simple but in this case it appears that the main mistakes on the day and those who made them have been correctly identified.[/quote]

     

    This is very much how I see it.  At the time, the cover-up meant that blame was falsely put on the fans.  It now seems clear the mistakes by the police were mainly to blame, but a disaster like this has many causes and it is now unacceptable to say the fans had any share of the blame.  I think that goes too far.

     

    Also to mention that the key difference between manslaughter and murder is about intention.  Murder is when you intend to kill someone.  You can be guilty of manslaughter where you have no intention to kill someone, but your gross negligence results in their death, in some circumstances.  "Gross" negligence means you showed such a disregard for the life and safety of another as to amount to a crime.  So from the jury''s verdict, the CPS will certainly need to look at the evidence to see if a manslaughter prosecution should be brought.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I think some separation between two key elements here needs to be made.The level of cover up and lies by the police, after the fact, was utterly contemptible, and can not be defended in any way. However the police on the day probably acted in the same way, and deployed the same tactics, that they had previously done at dozens of other football matches. It is very easy to look back on how things were then and spot obvious procedural errors, especially when comparing football now, to how it was then.Thankfully some good came of this terrible event, and it was the catalyst for change.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [quote user="morty"]I think some separation between two key elements here needs to be made.The level of cover up and lies by the police, after the fact, was utterly contemptible, and can not be defended in any way. However the police on the day probably acted in the same way, and deployed the same tactics, that they had previously done at dozens of other football matches. It is very easy to look back on how things were then and spot obvious procedural errors, especially when comparing football now, to how it was then.Thankfully some good came of this terrible event, and it was the catalyst for change.[/quote]

    Morty I think you are I are (for once) agreeing on this in the main (i.e. were many contributory factors) but just to take issue with one comment here the key problem was in fact that the police DID NOT deploy the same tactics as they had in the past because the tactics they employed in the past at Hillsborough involved stemming the flow of fans heading to the turnstiles as they knew it was a bottleneck and also monitoring how full the pens were an closing off the tunnel and guiding fans to the outer pens once the central ones became too full. Those two errors combined with the opening of the gate were key in terms of what happened. They did not do this because the experienced officer in charge of previous Hillsborough matches was moved off the job 20 days before the match and Duckenfield was put in charge who had no knowledge of the ground, layout or these procedures used previously. So its not case of comparing modern practices with what they did that day but actually comparing what they did with their usual practice at the time, including a game 12 months earlier between the same two sides and with the same ticket allocations.

    Hillsborough and that stand were clearly an accident waiting to happen (especially with how fans often behaved in those days) and even with the experienced officers managing it better/properly there were still issues at previous semi finals. It seems quite likely that the only reason there had not been a disaster previously (and why there may well have been one at another match around that time had Hillsborough not happened) was due to the procedures put in place by the police at earlier games that made an inherently unsafe ground (when full/close to capacity) just about safe! Whether that inherent lack of safety coupled with fan behavior/culture at the time provides some kind of mitigation for the errors made on the day is up for debate. I personally regard the mistakes made by the commanding officer on the day as incompetence by a man out of his depth and badly prepared. It doesn''t excuse the cover up afterwards.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Thats fair enough Jim, I didn''t know that.Not defending Duckenfield here, but thats a position he should have never been put in really then, is it?Unfortunately, again largely because of fan''s behaviour as a whole at that time, prevention of football violence became more of a priority than public safety did.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    Sign in to follow this  

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...