Hillsborough-96 victims unlawfully killed

[nutty nigel 7,554]

I''m sure there are some who retort with report and I find it a shame. I have never repoorted a post and feel disadvantaged when stuff is removed at the request of others. I guess we all have different tolerance levels but I am a live and let live kind of person.

 

Great to see Pete reinstate the doctors thread. Rickyyy is right about non-football killing good discussion. The old boy isn''t often right though [sn]....maybe "often" should read "always" [;)] 

 

Why was the other justice thread removed?

[hogesar 9,708]

[quote user="morty"]Perhaps the traditional convention of starting a thread with the prefix "OT" ( off topic) when it isn''t Norwich City related would mean that the people who have issue with non Norwich City threads, would have no need to look at it. And no need to go running to Pete about it.[/quote]

Haha, shouldn''t be necessary though. If a thread is entitled "Junior Doctors" it should speak for itse.....oh wait, this forum''s full of Normal For Norfolkers....

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m sure there are some who retort with report and I find it a shame. I have never repoorted a post and feel disadvantaged when stuff is removed at the request of others. I guess we all have different tolerance levels but I am a live and let live kind of person.

 

Great to see Pete reinstate the doctors thread. Rickyyy is right about non-football killing good discussion. The old boy isn''t often right though [sn]....maybe "often" should read "always" [;)] 

 

Why was the other justice thread removed?

[/quote]More often than not, Nigel[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="morty"]Perhaps the traditional convention of starting a thread with the prefix "OT" ( off topic) when it isn''t Norwich City related would mean that the people who have issue with non Norwich City threads, would have no need to look at it. And no need to go running to Pete about it.[/quote]

 

Yeah, because "So... who''s supporting the Junior Doctor strike?" isn''t self-explanatory [:)]

[Katie Borkins 1]

Interesting to see the findings point to an institutionally corrupt police force.

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="morty"]Perhaps the traditional convention of starting a thread with the prefix "OT" ( off topic) when it isn''t Norwich City related would mean that the people who have issue with non Norwich City threads, would have no need to look at it. And no need to go running to Pete about it.[/quote]

 

Yeah, because "So... who''s supporting the Junior Doctor strike?" isn''t self-explanatory [:)]

[/quote]I don''t understand why they do it either mate.[:)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"]Interesting to see the findings point to an institutionally corrupt police force.[/quote][:D]

[Guest]

Surely with the original thread it would be better to remove offending posts rather than the entire thread?

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="king canary"].

I confess to being a bit of a lurker on the TWTD forum.

The moderation seems to be quite light-touch and threads are only pulled if they get personal. It is in my mind a pretty well run forum.[/quote]Not if you''re a Norwich fan it''s not.Apart from giant ullaa and one or two other old lags on there Phil the moderator hunts you down and shows you the exit door pretty sharpish.

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="king canary"]......I confess to being a bit of a lurker on the TWTD forum...... The moderation seems to be quite light-touch and threads are only pulled if they get personal. It is in my mind a pretty well run forum.[/quote]Not if you''re a Norwich fan.Apart from giant ullaa and one or two other seasoned old lags on there in my experience Phil the moderator hunts you down and escorts you to the exit door pretty sharpish.  [:D]

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="king canary"]......I confess to being a bit of a lurker on the TWTD forum...... The moderation seems to be quite light-touch and threads are only pulled if they get personal. It is in my mind a pretty well run forum.[/quote]Not if you''re a Norwich fan.Apart from giant ullaa and one or two other seasoned old lags on there in my experience Phil the moderator hunts you down and escorts you to the exit door pretty sharpish.  [:D] [/quote]Don''t go on there and gee them up. Stirring up a bees nest is bound to provoke a response, Ive seen Wiz and one or two others get involved and you can''t win on their Board. Having said that, if you just lurk there are always some interesting threads.I admit to being tempted to comment but I think they would soon find me out[:D]

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="ricardo"]....Don''t go on there and gee them up. Stirring up a bees nest is bound to provoke a response, Ive seen Wiz and one or two others get involved and you can''t win on their Board. Having said that, if you just lurk there are always some interesting threads.I admit to being tempted to comment but I think they would soon find me out[:D][/quote]What is a tad annoying is that our board is infested with that lot but not the other way round.You could always try and double bluff Phil and call yourself '' Norwich City Forever ''''......[;)]

[Herman 9,798]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][quote user="king canary"]Seriously what is going on with the deleted threads today? I thought the jr doctors one was generally pretty civil and interesting.[/quote]That can now be found here[/quote]Why bother with it Pete, its virtually impossible to have a conversation on the Non Football thread because so few of us use it.[/quote]Indeed, but so many complain when a non-football post appears in this section...[/quote]

Maybe, but all you''ve done is kill to two or three most popular threads of the day. If they weren''t popular they would soon drop off. The Non Football thread is where they are sent to die.[/quote]I take your point Ricardo and in that spirit, and to prove I''m willing to listen, I''ll move it back.[/quote]Thank you Pete, a very sensible and if I may say, a gracious move.[Y][/quote][Y]Well done. The non-football side is terribly quiet and you can only have a multi-voiced discussion on this side.

[? 20]

Regarding Hillsborough, can someone help with a genuine question?I feel before i ask i should state that this is indeed a genuine question, and something that despite trawling the internet for, i''ve struggled to find an adequate explanation for. Hence why i''m turning to the esteemed posters of the Pinkun forum for help. I hope i''m not starting anything that could be considered inflammatory - honestly this is a genuine inquiry born of my own ignorance.I''m too young to remember Hillsborough well, and most of the early discussion of it passed me by. Yet i''ve come across many online discussions and heard many a person say to me that despite all the police mistakes and dodgy behaviour, there was undoubtedly a large number of ticketless fans at the game in the Liverpool section.Counter to that, i''ve heard many times that the ticketless fans issue is a myth. I was hoping that today''s report would clarify this one, though from my perusal of the reports on it in the media, that''s seemingly not the case.Is it a case of the ticketless fans issue has already been demonstrated to be false and i''ve somehow missed it amongst all the tribal bleatings of the internet? Or did the inquiry merely decide that despite ticketless fans, they didn''t contribute to the horrible events of that day?Thanks.

[im spartacus canary 0]

The police are so sorry they sent Paul o''grady on TV to read there apology .... disgraceful

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user=""]Regarding Hillsborough, can someone help with a genuine question?I feel before i ask i should state that this is indeed a genuine question, and something that despite trawling the internet for, i''ve struggled to find an adequate explanation for. Hence why i''m turning to the esteemed posters of the Pinkun forum for help. I hope i''m not starting anything that could be considered inflammatory - honestly this is a genuine inquiry born of my own ignorance.I''m too young to remember Hillsborough well, and most of the early discussion of it passed me by. Yet i''ve come across many online discussions and heard many a person say to me that despite all the police mistakes and dodgy behaviour, there was undoubtedly a large number of ticketless fans at the game in the Liverpool section.Counter to that, i''ve heard many times that the ticketless fans issue is a myth. I was hoping that today''s report would clarify this one, though from my perusal of the reports on it in the media, that''s seemingly not the case.Is it a case of the ticketless fans issue has already been demonstrated to be false and i''ve somehow missed it amongst all the tribal bleatings of the internet? Or did the inquiry merely decide that despite ticketless fans, they didn''t contribute to the horrible events of that day?Thanks.[/quote]The police opened a gate and since nobody took their tickets we will never know who had one and who didn''t.

[Herman 9,798]

[morty 0]

[quote user=""]Regarding Hillsborough, can someone help with a genuine question?I feel before i ask i should state that this is indeed a genuine question, and something that despite trawling the internet for, i''ve struggled to find an adequate explanation for. Hence why i''m turning to the esteemed posters of the Pinkun forum for help. I hope i''m not starting anything that could be considered inflammatory - honestly this is a genuine inquiry born of my own ignorance.I''m too young to remember Hillsborough well, and most of the early discussion of it passed me by. Yet i''ve come across many online discussions and heard many a person say to me that despite all the police mistakes and dodgy behaviour, there was undoubtedly a large number of ticketless fans at the game in the Liverpool section.Counter to that, i''ve heard many times that the ticketless fans issue is a myth. I was hoping that today''s report would clarify this one, though from my perusal of the reports on it in the media, that''s seemingly not the case.Is it a case of the ticketless fans issue has already been demonstrated to be false and i''ve somehow missed it amongst all the tribal bleatings of the internet? Or did the inquiry merely decide that despite ticketless fans, they didn''t contribute to the horrible events of that day?Thanks.[/quote]I think thats pretty much the gist. The trouble is though that even if they did contribute (which to me is possibly likely) the lies and cover ups that followed very much over shadowed and blame that could be apportioned to ticketless fans.

[morty 0]

*Any blame

[Mr Angry 1,570]

This was one of the questions that the jurors had to answer:

Question 7

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppingd Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answer to the above question is ''No'', please answer the following question. Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters that MAY HAVE caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answers to either of the questions above is ''Yes'', please answer the following question. Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer ''yes'' or ''no''.

In answering Question 7, you may wish to bear in mind the following considerations:

Whether or not some supporters at the Leppings Lane turnstiles behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control.

If so, whether or not such behaviour of supporters had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

Whether or not there were significant numbers of supporters without tickets in the area of the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

If so, whether or not their presence or behaviour there had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

The jurors'' decision on this question was No. It doesn''t mean thst there weren''t supporters without tickets but it does mean that even if there were, the jurors didn''t think that they contributed to the situation.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]This was one of the questions that the jurors had to answer:

Question 7

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppingd Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answer to the above question is ''No'', please answer the following question. Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters that MAY HAVE caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answers to either of the questions above is ''Yes'', please answer the following question. Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer ''yes'' or ''no''.

In answering Question 7, you may wish to bear in mind the following considerations:

Whether or not some supporters at the Leppings Lane turnstiles behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control.

If so, whether or not such behaviour of supporters had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

Whether or not there were significant numbers of supporters without tickets in the area of the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

If so, whether or not their presence or behaviour there had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

The jurors'' decision on this question was No. It doesn''t mean thst there weren''t supporters without tickets but it does mean that even if there were, the jurors didn''t think that they contributed to the situation.[/quote]Yeah, thats fair enough.In my opinion, having far more fans there, than should have been, is obviously a factor in itself.But as I said, massively overshadowed by other factors.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]This was one of the questions that the jurors had to answer:

Question 7

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppingd Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answer to the above question is ''No'', please answer the following question. Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters that MAY HAVE caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answers to either of the questions above is ''Yes'', please answer the following question. Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer ''yes'' or ''no''.

In answering Question 7, you may wish to bear in mind the following considerations:

Whether or not some supporters at the Leppings Lane turnstiles behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control.

If so, whether or not such behaviour of supporters had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

Whether or not there were significant numbers of supporters without tickets in the area of the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

If so, whether or not their presence or behaviour there had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

The jurors'' decision on this question was No. It doesn''t mean thst there weren''t supporters without tickets but it does mean that even if there were, the jurors didn''t think that they contributed to the situation.[/quote]

Well said.

BBC News 24 running this in detail if anyone needs further enlightening.

Police officers now to be interviewed under police caution.  I am not holding my breath.  They look after their own, don''t they?

[Jacko 0]

The first thing to say is that it''s a great day for the victims and their families. The lies, the inadequacy of the policing and the cover ups by the police and the authorities have been exposed.

However, I think the issue raised about supporters and tickets is a valid one and it was the only concern I had about the verdict which was returned today.

As we know there was horrendous crushing in what were horribly overcrowded pens. The fact that hundreds of fans spilled onto the pitch and there was still mass overcrowding in the pens is testament to that. Now the question surely needs to be asked. How did this overcrowding occur?

From a logical standpoint it can''t just be a byproduct of bad policing and ground design. If the correct number of fans were in that end of the ground there would have been a horrible initial bottle neck but that pressure would have eventually eased. As the fans would have found space eventually.

The fact they didn''t suggests there were too many fans in those pens. There are only two plausible explanations for that. Either that overcrowding was caused by the fact that the authorities and Sheffield Wednesday sold too many tickets. Or there were fans there without tickets who shouldn''t have been there.

If it was indeed the latter, whilst it was not the main reason this tragedy happened it''s a contributory factor nonetheless, which when added to the other 12 factors caused the horrible disaster that led to 96 people losing their lives.

I don''t aim to crass with this post. My aim is to understand and I don''t understand how the jury logically returned that verdict in relation to the supporters.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Jacko"]The first thing to say is that it''s a great day for the victims and their families. The lies, the inadequacy of the policing and the cover ups by the police and the authorities have been exposed.

However, I think the issue raised about supporters and tickets is a valid one and it was the only concern I had about the verdict which was returned today.

As we know there was horrendous crushing in what were horribly overcrowded pens. The fact that hundreds of fans spilled onto the pitch and there was still mass overcrowding in the pens is testament to that. Now the question surely needs to be asked. How did this overcrowding occur?

From a logical standpoint it can''t just be a byproduct of bad policing and ground design. If the correct number of fans were in that end of the ground there would have been a horrible initial bottle neck but that pressure would have eventually eased. As the fans would have found space eventually.

The fact they didn''t suggests there were too many fans in those pens. There are only two plausible explanations for that. Either that overcrowding was caused by the fact that the authorities and Sheffield Wednesday sold too many tickets. Or there were fans there without tickets who shouldn''t have been there.

If it was indeed the latter, whilst it was not the main reason this tragedy happened it''s a contributory factor nonetheless, which when added to the other 12 factors caused the horrible disaster that led to 96 people losing their lives.

I don''t aim to crass with this post. My aim is to understand and I don''t understand how the jury logically returned that verdict in relation to the supporters.[/quote]

If your aim is to understand then I would suggest you use the internet to research your questions and then perhaps you will find your answers.  I doubt you will find them here on a Norwich City message board which is populated by people with opinions on the subject but no actual facts.

[Mr Angry 1,570]

It''s previously been reported that officers who made statements had alterations made without their knowledge or consent if there was any kind of criticism or suggestion that policing was at fault. I doubt that the rank and file had anything to hide, it''s probably the senior officers who were behind the cover up. Having said that, the pictures on the TV showing PCs lined across the pitch to make sure there was no violence, rather than actually helping the victims, was pretty hard to understand.

[morty 0]

Whilst not blaming fans, in this terrible case where people lost their lives, due to too many fans being in the stand, I don''t understand how more fans being there than had tickets can''t be seen as a factor?

[Van wink 2,994]

Mr Angry

"It''s previously been reported that officers who made statements had alterations made without their knowledge or consent if there was any kind of criticism or suggestion that policing was at fault. I doubt that the rank and file had anything to hide, it''s probably the senior officers who were behind the cover up. "

I thinks that''s probably the case Mr Angry

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]This was one of the questions that the jurors had to answer:

Question 7

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppingd Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answer to the above question is ''No'', please answer the following question. Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters that MAY HAVE caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer Yes or No.

If your answers to either of the questions above is ''Yes'', please answer the following question. Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer ''yes'' or ''no''.

In answering Question 7, you may wish to bear in mind the following considerations:

Whether or not some supporters at the Leppings Lane turnstiles behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control.

If so, whether or not such behaviour of supporters had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

Whether or not there were significant numbers of supporters without tickets in the area of the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

If so, whether or not their presence or behaviour there had any effect on the dangerous situation which developed at the turnstiles.

The jurors'' decision on this question was No. It doesn''t mean thst there weren''t supporters without tickets but it does mean that even if there were, the jurors didn''t think that they contributed to the situation.[/quote]Perhaps those questions should have been asked about the tunnel rather than the turnstiles. After all it was the congestion here that caused the spill out onto the terrace. From the news film available it looked like there was a big build up just before kick off.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="morty"]Whilst not blaming fans, in this terrible case where people lost their lives, due to too many fans being in the stand, I don''t understand how more fans being there than had tickets can''t be seen as a factor?[/quote]

I am sure this will come out.  Some of it may be to do with the police decision to open a gate at one end which didn''t distribute fans equally into different areas, something the Police Officer in charge had claimed was due to fans "forcing the gate open" before admitting 25 years after the event that it was his decision.  #awkward

[morty 0]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"][quote user="morty"]Whilst not blaming fans, in this terrible case where people lost their lives, due to too many fans being in the stand, I don''t understand how more fans being there than had tickets can''t be seen as a factor?[/quote]

I am sure this will come out.  Some of it may be to do with the police decision to open a gate at one end which didn''t distribute fans equally into different areas, something the Police Officer in charge had claimed was due to fans "forcing the gate open" before admitting 25 years after the event that it was his decision.  #awkward

[/quote]Like I said, I am not blaming fans.But if you have a stand that holds, say, 5000 fans, and 7000 turn up, then that has to be a factor.