Hillsborough-96 victims unlawfully killed

[ricardo 7,757]

[quote user="morty"][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.

[/quote]I think you will find that the terrace was fenced into pens and the late comers were not distributed by the police and as Bor says, all tried to get into the central pen through the central tunnel.

[Mr Angry 1,763]

The book I read some time ago claimed that when the gate was opened, the fans should have been directed into less crowded parts of the terraces but instead were sent into the 2 pens that were already overcrowded.

The fact that they were overcrowded doesn''t necessarily mean that there were more fans than tickets, just that they weren''t properly distributed.

Perhaps this will be cleared up in the official documents.

[morty 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="morty"][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.

[/quote]I think you will find that the terrace was fenced into pens and the late comers were not distributed by the police and as Bor says, all tried to get into the central pen through the central tunnel.[/quote]Yup, I get that,the police made terrible errors. But at the risk of labouring the point, had there not been more fans there, ticketless, than there should have been, we might not be having this conversation.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]The book I read some time ago claimed that when the gate was opened, the fans should have been directed into less crowded parts of the terraces but instead were sent into the 2 pens that were already overcrowded.

The fact that they were overcrowded doesn''t necessarily mean that there were more fans than tickets, just that they weren''t properly distributed.

Perhaps this will be cleared up in the official documents.[/quote][Y]

[Mr Angry 1,763]

Not sure that we have the book any more or else I would check.

[militantcanary 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 be seen as a factor 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.  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.

I think the difference between what you are saying and the verdict is that the verdict is a legal ruling not a ruling on practical factors.

Of course it didn''t help there was too many fans outside but legally this should have been forseen as this was normal in the 80s for a big match and had I think happened in a no of previous years at the venue.

Also the Liverpool fans were put in the smaller area despite having a larger no of fans which I clearly recall before the match was a contraversal decision on its own.

Duckenfield opened the turnstiles but did not close the tunnel which caused a difficult manageable situation to go out of control.

[Katie Borkins 1]

No, he didn''t "open the turnstiles".  He ordered that a GATE be opened.  Get your facts right before spouting off.

[Katie Borkins 1]

This may prove helpful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767

[e10_yellow 0]

There WERE NOT more fans in the terrace than had tickets. The Leppings Lane terrace was split into four pens which it was almost impossible to move between laterally once you were in due to the high fences. Before the exit gate was opened, the two central pens were already full, while the ones either side were almost empty (watch video footage from the day and you will see, John Motson mentions it in his commentary). What the police should have done was close off the entrance to the two central pens and direct the fans into the side pens where there was plenty of space. They failed to do this and so when the exit gate was opened the crowd naturally headed for the nearest access point to the terrace, directly in front of them, not realising it was already full inside. Once they were in, they were unable to turn back, and the crush built up.

There were not more fans than had tickets on that terrace. The issue was that they were not evenly distributed across the terrace due to the bad design of the stadium and the mismanagement of the situation by the South Yorkshire Police, as has been evidenced in this latest ruling.

There are plenty of explanatory reports and videos on news websites today (Guardian and BBC particularly good) which explain visually what I''ve stated above and what is describe below from the official report.

''202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club''s electronic monitoring system and from analyses

by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed

through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of

10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club''s record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G.

However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film

and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644

passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst

gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE''s best estimate of the total entering

through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be

rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there

would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do

suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.''

[militantcanary 0]

]No, he didn''t "open the turnstiles".  He ordered that a GATE be opened.  Get your facts right before spouting off

Sorry on reflection I think you are right but that does not alter the general thrust of what I am saying, it was a totally flawed and in fact criminal decision.

The thing I find most shocking is the immediate attempt at a cover up at the top of South Yorks Police and to attempt to smear the victims by ordering an alcohol test of their blood, to perpetrate the myth of drunken fans causing it all.

The difference between gross negligence originally and I am sorry to say, evil after the event.

[Jacko 0]

That''s a comprehensive and detailed explanation E10. Thanks very much for that.

[vos 165]

I was once involved in a serious crush outside the River End terraces some 30 years ago. It is a terrible situation because the pressure just gradually builds until you are barely able to open your lungs and breath. And of course it follows you are unable to shout and warn. It was a total "one off" and could not have been predicted. I will never know what the problem was. It could have been a fluke in that too many people queued at the same turnstile, a slow operator, or possibly some sort of dispute. I can assure readers that if the police had called and opened a gate many would have been very relieved. But the facts are that you will never be able to cover every conceivable contingency.

At Hillsborough there was some monitoring in place but it was clear that it was not as comprehensive as it could have been, but this was a "one off" which the police really did not have adequate plans and training to handle. This was yet another example in life when sadly it takes an accident to pinpoint a problem. Or put another way the glorious benefit of hindsight. Nowadays we have turned full circle and we now see some six paramedics fully kitted on the touchline ready to treat a bad knock.

I fully accept that the police tried to cover their backs, a situation we commonly see today in all walks of life. We may not like it, but we are human beings after all. Of course I have every sympathy with the victims and their relatives but I have to honestly say I find it difficult to describe this terrible incident as an "unlawful killing".

[Legend Iwan 30]

For those wanting to read what actually happened that day, you can here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

Or watch this: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-inquiry-anatomy-of-a-disaster-video?

[morty 0]

I get where you''re coming from Vos, "Unlawful killing" almost sounds like another way of saying "Murder" and almost implies some kind of pre meditation.

[militantcanary 0]

So the Stadium was a death trap

The fans were allocated to the wrong end

The Police Commander had a clear line of sight and Ordered a gate to be opened and not a tunnel I am simplying here.

It was not a one off there had been a no of instances of dangerous overcrowding which had not resulted in a fatal occurance

The Police knew its was a massive problem but made no effort to help the dying but formed a line in the middle of the pitch

One ambulance got onto the pitch due to massive incompetence

It was an accident, was it?

They didn''t cover their back, they perverted the course of fucking justice

Words fail me, I could express myself but I won''t

[Thirsty Lizard 3,197]

It''s strange how over the course of time people forget things. Liverpool played Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup semi-final the season before - at Hillsborough - with the clubs allocated the same ends.

There were concerns expressed over crushing at that match - and there had been concerns expressed over previous matches played at Hillsborough.

This article is interesting: (sorry can''t make it a link).

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/fa-ignored-warning-of-crushing-at-1988-semi-final-8135609.html

[Indy 3,413]

I''m pleased the outcome has finally been put right, for the families and friends of those who were sadly effected by this terrible tragedy.

The football grounds back in the mid 80''s were all potential death traps, I remember being crushed as a youngster away at Luton, it was a nice city supporter who put his arms round me on each side and pushed back to give me some space.

On a side note, the fans of all clubs should all feel a little remorse as if it wasn''t for those fans who caused the barriers to segregate them from each other and the pitch this wouldn''t of happened.

On the day given the ground the large amount of fans and the control, it''s clear that no one carried out any real risk assessment otherwise better control would have been put in place.

My thoughts with all those effected.

[......and Smith must score. 1,496]

There may not have been ticketless fans in the Leppings Lane end that day but it certainly did occur before top grounds were made all-seater.I remember watching the 1995 FA Cup Final between Man Utd and Everton at the old Wembley on TV. The crowd behind each goal was packed solid and swaying due to the sheer weight of numbers. This didn''t normally didn''t happen at Wembley and it looked dangerously overcrowded. After the match it was estimated that around 110,000 were in the 100,000 capacity stadium so there must have been an awful lot of forgeries around that day.

[Funny old game 0]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had anybody heard of the concept of ''duty of care'' in 1985. It is bandied around everywhere today and the jury was specifically asked whether the officer in charge had discharged his duty of care.

IMO it is a dangerous precedent to judge events in another era. Things change and standards adapt. For example the Herald of Free Enterprise sunk in Zeebrugge because the bow doors were left open. The Kings Cross fire was caused by the build up of grease on wooden escalators and set off by a discarded cigarette in an era where people could smoke anywhere. Looking at it from 2016 standards it us hard to believe that any iof these incidents ever happened. But they did and standards and procedures changed as society learned from them.

It is for this reason that I am less than comfortable with any prosecution for unlawful killing . What I would be comfortable with is charges of corruption./malfaisance in public office if the evidence supports it.

[Indy 3,413]

FOG that''s a very good point and agree.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="Funny old game"]Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had anybody heard of the concept of ''duty of care'' in 1985. It is bandied around everywhere today and the jury was specifically asked whether the officer in charge had discharged his duty of care.

IMO it is a dangerous precedent to judge events in another era. Things change and standards adapt. For example the Herald of Free Enterprise sunk in Zeebrugge because the bow doors were left open. The Kings Cross fire was caused by the build up of grease on wooden escalators and set off by a discarded cigarette in an era where people could smoke anywhere. Looking at it from 2016 standards it us hard to believe that any iof these incidents ever happened. But they did and standards and procedures changed as society learned from them.

It is for this reason that I am less than comfortable with any prosecution for unlawful killing . What I would be comfortable with is charges of corruption./malfaisance in public office if the evidence supports it.[/quote]Lying to cover up evidence and changing witness statements was an offence then too though. That should not go unpunished.

[AJ 1,306]

I think certainly that yesterdays findings will certainly give a good level of justice for the 96, where the fans were previously blamed. The cover up is perhaps a whole different ball game. So many things were wrong that day, but football has learnt from it. I certainly feel a lot safer being seated, the experience is a lot more pleasant as well. As humans we are also reactive rather than proactive, and whilst this was a terribly tragedy and still is the worst in British sporting history, it did a lot to improve safety at sporting events around the country and stop further tragedies of a similar nature from occurring.

Funny old game - I agree completely. Even looking back at the Titanic disaster is a good example - everything that happened then was completely normal for the times. Laws and regulations have changed because of it.

As for the cover up, yes, I do believe punishments should be given for that, but the unlawful killing should be treated completely separately. Whilst mistakes were made there were so many factors that caused it, the grounds were simply unsafe which is so very clear to us now, but wasn''t at the time. Nobody wanted anyone to die, they were just naive as to the fact it could actually happen.

[Jim Smith 2,436]

One of the biggest mistakes seems to have been the replacement of the experienced match day commanding officers who dealt with Hillsborough games just 20 days before the semi final. if you read the evidence and articles that seems to have had a massive bearing on what happened because the previous commanding officer and the officer who was usually in charge on the tunnel areas at the Leppings lane end of the ground were aware of the safety issues in those areas and had systems in place to deal with them by controlling the flow of fans to the Leppings Lane turnstile area and then also closing off that central tunnel once the central pens reached capacity. Neither of these things appear rocket science to be honest and it seems that the ground was still an accident waiting to happen (and issues did occur at previous matches) but due to the experience and common sense of those officers serious incidents were averted. With those officers being replaced for this match with officers who did not know the ground or have experience then it appears that this tragedy followed. Even with the gate being opened, had someone had the common sense to shut that middle tunnel and divert fans to the outer pens it probably would have all been avoided.

As for whether there were ticketless fans there I don;t see how anyone can ever really know. Based on my experiences i suspect there probably were and I am sure there were drunk fans too. I''m sure that not all were fully cooperative with the police when asked to move back. Show me a major football match around that era involving any of the big clubs with no drunk fans or where fans did not turn up at the last minute with a scrum at the turnstiles or where all the supporters did as asked by the police and i would be amazed. it was part of the culture (particularly with a few clubs of which Liverpool was one) and still is to this day (other than large numbers travelling without tickets) and the police''s attitude was predominantly shaped by the fact that they were concerned with preventing trouble not ensuring safety. I think that if you answer the question 7 referred to above literally then on the face of it its difficult to see how a no answer was arrived at because such matters (and arguably the conduct of fans of various clubs over a decade or so leading up to this tragedy) would appear factors in what happened but that is not to say that they were the cause of the deaths that this inquest was concerned with. Q7 appears to have been approached more along the lines of "was there any unusual or unforeseeable" behaviour amongst supporters etc." You also have to bear in mind that jurors are human, they had spent 2 years listening to evidence of a catalogue of errors and lies from the authorities and also several weeks hearing what must have been very emotional testimony from the families of those who were killed. once the negligence of the police became so apparent it is perhaps not surprising that jurors, having decided the police were the culpable party here, would not want to dilute that finding by implying an element of blame on the part of the supporters. Ultimately, the police still should have been able to manage the crowd as they had managed to do the year before. a safe ground, adequate planning and decisions on the day and it doesn''t happen, ticketless fans or not.

Personally i hope that any efforts to prosecute individuals are focused more on the cover up and the lies that followed.

[BarclayWazza 93]

[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]

For what I think is the first time ever, I agree with Morty. Fans turning up ticketless happened all the time back then - Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. I refuse to believe that this wasn''t a contributing factor.

I also struggle to blame the police for what happened on the day as well. Some will recall 70''s and 80''s football violence and pitch invasions, again with Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. In a time before CCTV cameras and other technology, I can only imagine the pressure the police were under to identify it as a deadly situation rather than football hooliganism.

It just irritates me that this now all goes down as the responsibility of the police and people under huge pressure are now likely to face prosecution for something that wouldn''t have happened if fans without tickets had stayed away.

Always the victims...

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="BarclayWazza"] It just irritates me that this now all goes down as the responsibility of the police and people under huge pressure are now likely to face prosecution for something that wouldn''t have happened if fans without tickets had stayed away.

Always the victims...[/quote]

If you want to be irritated by something that the inquest threw out as "not relevant", that''s up to you.

There will always be a small minority of people who think they know better than the jury, the QCs etc etc.   I doubt the illuminati are occasional visitors to Norwich City football message boards.

[militantcanary 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

For what I think is the first time ever, I agree with Morty. Fans turning up ticketless happened all the time back then - Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. I refuse to believe that this wasn''t a contributing factor.

I also struggle to blame the police for what happened on the day as well. Some will recall 70''s and 80''s football violence and pitch invasions, again with Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. In a time before CCTV cameras and other technology, I can only imagine the pressure the police were under to identify it as a deadly situation rather than football hooliganism.

It just irritates me that this now all goes down as the responsibility of the police and people under huge pressure are now likely to face prosecution for something that wouldn''t have happened if fans without tickets had stayed away.

Always the victims.

You really are a nasty excuse for a human being aren''t you

The utter lies from the Police have been totally exposed.

They were the fucking victims you low life they were treated in the most appalling fashion possible, first at the mercy of total and utter incompetence that was in flagrant disregard of basic safety. The authorities then flounderedd in the most most reprehensible way preventing lives being saved. Then even more appallingly they immediately set an alternative narrative in place that there had been drinking, pilfering and obstruction. All this was utter lies.

I hate you the fact you are a fellow Norwich fan, I hate the fact you are a fellow Football fan as well. Utter shame on you.

[ricardo 7,757]

[quote user="BarclayWazza"][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]

For what I think is the first time ever, I agree with Morty. Fans turning up ticketless happened all the time back then - Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. I refuse to believe that this wasn''t a contributing factor.

I also struggle to blame the police for what happened on the day as well. Some will recall 70''s and 80''s football violence and pitch invasions, again with Liverpool fans amongst the worst culprits. In a time before CCTV cameras and other technology, I can only imagine the pressure the police were under to identify it as a deadly situation rather than football hooliganism.

It just irritates me that this now all goes down as the responsibility of the police and people under huge pressure are now likely to face prosecution for something that wouldn''t have happened if fans without tickets had stayed away.

Always the victims...[/quote]Obviously when the gate was opened some ticketless fans got in but not enough to make a difference. There were just too many people trying to push in through the central tunnel into the two middle pens when the gate was opened. Perhaps they shouldn''t have pushed but as anyone knows who''s been in a crowd you just get carried along in the rush.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[img]http://i.giphy.com/ftXvsSyRzKXXG.gif[/img]

[morty 0]

Before the torch burning mob saddles up, can I just point out that I didn''t blame fans, but pointed out if there was fans there without tickets, it would be a contributing factor, in my opinion.*slowly backs away....

[CANARYKING 689]

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.