Jump to content

Hillsborough Disaster Verdict


shull

Recommended Posts

As the media starts to smell blood I have a worrying suspicion that what began as a noble quest for truth and justice will disintegrate into an unseemly clamour for revenge and retribution which will ultimately not serve to pay tribute to those who were tragically killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Based on our pre season visit last year, I still find it a horrible set up from the road to the front of the stand. There's still so much of the design that looks the same.

Well, due to the fact I came traipsing in on my todd about ten minutes after kick off, and there weren't that many of us there in the first place, it wasn't something that bothered me a great deal. However, I did find it a bit of a pain in trying to actually locate the flipping entrance to which we were supposed to be allocated, so I get where you're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear. Many on duty officers did tell the truth in their witness statements. The doctoring and cover up was performed at a higher level.

The higher level "doctoring" and "rewriting of truth" wasn't just within the police force, it went on through "government" too.

In fact it was still going on at government level as recently as 2011 and possibly even more recently than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this wasn't unlawful killing why were the police covering things up? They were well aware that if the truth came out this would be the result.

The only people covering the truth were the police, not the fans but the police.

Well look at the facts surrounding this. Prior to Hillsborough Liverpool fans were notorious for their travelling band of hooligans right throughout Europe. Four years before Hillsborough 39 football fans died at Heysel - in a riot caused in most part by Liverpool fans. Indeed such was the situation at that game the authorities took the decision that rather than postpone the match and risk further trouble they'd play the game out despite there being 39 dead bodies lying in the car park. The events of that day led to the banning of all English clubs from European competition, and it led to an extended ban for Liverpool themselves.

Now we're supposed to believe that four years later the same group of fans all behaved in a completely angelic manner; that their behaviour on the day was exemplary; that no-one tried to enter the ground without a ticket - something many Liverpool fans boast of having done right across England and Europe prior to this match; that everyone of them was sober; and that all of the problems on the day were caused by other people because the totality of those fans was utterly blameless. I can't buy into that. Lets face it you can't put 200 St Mirren fans in an away end of a football ground without there being at least a handful of knobheads amongst them. What chances are there that there's no knob heads in a crowd of 24,000+ Liverpool fans?

Fans will have lied. They'll have rewritten their history. Why? Because many of them will have done something that day that in some small way they aren't proud of. For example - on the CCTV footage prior to the gate being opened there are three young lads on the roof of the building housing the turnstiles. They go up onto the roof on one side, and down the other. Are we to believe they were in possession of tickets for this game and just couldn't be bothered waiting? On the BBC footage, on the pitch with treatment being administered to a number of fans captured in amongst it is one Liverpool fan who is delivering several two fingered gestures to the Nottingham Forest fans in the opposite end and goading them. He's quickly stopped by a policeman who runs onto the pitch from right in front of the pens. Do you think his behaviour was exemplary?

Besides anyway, your statement is factually incorrect. It wasn't only the police lying and covering up. The ambulance service is accused of exactly the same lies and cover up behaviour when detailing why fleets of ambulances stayed - parked up - outside the stadium when a volunteer ambulance service - St Johns - was able to gain entry, drive across the pitch and to ferry injured people to hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to disagree with Stuart on his point about fans going up the tunnel having a choice.

As Hendo pointed out, they were in a big crowd. A choice wasn't really on the cards.

The behaviour of some football fans over many years however was definitely a factor in the decisions made by the police that day. It was definitely a factor in the fences and pens at Hillsborough.

And the reputation of Liverpool fans in particular was definitely a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very interesting, and eerie, video in the context of this discussion and shows how easy it would have been for everyone to head to that tunnel since the other tunnels are not visible from the gate. It also shows how the design of the stadium contributed to the disaster. Although, it is easy to look at that part of the stadium in hindsight and say it was badly designed but, back then, lots of places were "badly" designed.

I believe that the unlawful killing verdict is correct but for some people to try and lay all the blame at the feet of one person is wrong. As I have said, it was the result of a series of decisions and events. If there are prosecutions resulting from the verdict then they should include (for starters):-

1. If there was no safety certificate (as some have said), the person(s) at the FA who awarded the tie to Hillsborough.

2. If there was no safety certificate (as some have said), the board of Sheffield Wednesday for accepting the tie.

3. If there was no safety certificate (as some have said), the person and/or local council who denied the safety certificate, if they never informed the relevant football/police authorities of the fact after the tie was awarded.

4. If there was a safety certificate, the person who awarded the certificate (if they awarded it incorrectly, depending on the safety guidelines at the time).

I think a lot of people are looking for a scapegoat here and the obvious one is the match commander.

As I have said, anyone who was involved in the lies and cover up afterwards should be punished but that is a totally separate matter to holding a person or persons responsible for the deaths, and the unlawful killing verdict does not necessarily mean that anyone should be.

In law, you are liable for your omissions as well as your acts. Given that every police officer had taken an oath to uphold the law and protect the public, then the acceptance of superior rank becomes an acceptance of all of the responsibilities that go with it. taking on a job, where the lives of others depend upon you, that you are simply not up to is an act of criminal negligence, gross criminal negligence on the part of someone as senior and as well informed as the match commander and his direct reports. All of the points you raised were in the domain of the match commander to analyse and make decisions upon that analysis. This indicates a level of arrogance and of disregard for the supporters that is indeed criminal.

You can't accept that level of responsibility and not accept that you are legally accountable for both your acts and omissions.

for everyone who says that the cover-up is the greater offence, i say that the actual events of the day tell a different story, there was only a need for a cover-up because the consequences of being found out were so dire for so many people.

Having spent the last 26 years in health and safety, it worries me that there are so many people in positions of power and responsibility who don't think it is their job to protect lives or who think it is not their fault, at least in part, when someone is harmed. I once heard the current chief exec of a major organisation state that he had employed legal advice to re-assure him that that he was not liable for the actions and in-actions of his staff, he spent more money on that exercise than he did on the budget for his entire safety team that year. That indicates to me that he pays only lip-service to the notions of safety and responsibility. No doubt, the lives of some of your family and friends are in the hands of that man, who is responsible for ensuring that everything is right in his business.

Every arrogant, lazy or penny-pinching decision that has an impact on the safety of people is a potential act of criminal negligence and focusing on the cover-up serves only to divert attention away from those responsible

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheffield City Council are just as culpable for not reviewing a safety certificate that was years out of date, particularly where SWFC's engineers had removed and part removed barriers in pen 3.

The bus conveyors are culpable too for not ensuring only ticket holders got on their buses and that they arrived with plenty of time to spare. Similarly any Liverpool fan who travelled to the game without a ticket with a view to gaining access was culpable. The FA are culpable for arranging the fixture at a stadium with previous - particularly in the 1981 Cup Semi Final. Football Hooligans anywhere in the UK were culpable too - after all it was their behaviour that led to the installation of pens and crowd barriers erected around pitches everywhere to stop incursions and which shaped police match day strategy on the day.

The list of who or what is culpable could go on and on. The one thing that is certain it wasn't just Duckenfield whose decisions caused death.

I'm certainly not comfortable with the blanket condemnation of South Yorkshire Police and the blanket exoneration of Liverpool fans. Just as some police officers did an exemplorary job that day....some Liverpool fans will have contributed to the deaths of 96 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

In law, you are liable for your omissions as well as your acts. Given that every police officer had taken an oath to uphold the law and protect the public, then the acceptance of superior rank becomes an acceptance of all of the responsibilities that go with it. taking on a job, where the lives of others depend upon you, that you are simply not up to is an act of criminal negligence, gross criminal negligence on the part of someone as senior and as well informed as the match commander and his direct reports. All of the points you raised were in the domain of the match commander to analyse and make decisions upon that analysis. This indicates a level of arrogance and of disregard for the supporters that is indeed criminal.

You can't accept that level of responsibility and not accept that you are legally accountable for both your acts and omissions.

for everyone who says that the cover-up is the greater offence, i say that the actual events of the day tell a different story, there was only a need for a cover-up because the consequences of being found out were so dire for so many people.

Having spent the last 26 years in health and safety, it worries me that there are so many people in positions of power and responsibility who don't think it is their job to protect lives or who think it is not their fault, at least in part, when someone is harmed. I once heard the current chief exec of a major organisation state that he had employed legal advice to re-assure him that that he was not liable for the actions and in-actions of his staff, he spent more money on that exercise than he did on the budget for his entire safety team that year. That indicates to me that he pays only lip-service to the notions of safety and responsibility. No doubt, the lives of some of your family and friends are in the hands of that man, who is responsible for ensuring that everything is right in his business.

Every arrogant, lazy or penny-pinching decision that has an impact on the safety of people is a potential act of criminal negligence and focusing on the cover-up serves only to divert attention away from those responsible

Good post.

Did the police still have crown immunity with regards to health and safety law in 1989?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The condemnation of South Yorks police is completely justified at the most senior levels, not the rank and file officers. And Stuart, for the last time , a senior judge, Lord Justice Taylor at a public enquiry was satisfied that fan bwhaviour was not a contributory factor in this tragedy. What bit of that can you not grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The condemnation of South Yorks police is completely justified at the most senior levels, not the rank and file officers. And Stuart, for the last time , a senior judge, Lord Justice Taylor at a public enquiry was satisfied that fan bwhaviour was not a contributory factor in this tragedy. What bit of that can you not grasp?

What can I not grasp? Well first of all I can't grasp where you are getting your information from. The Taylor Report was published in 1990. Had he exonerated Liverpool fans like you claim he did then surely we'd have been spared the spectacle of seeing the victims families fight 26 more years to try to get the "truth" they wanted to hear.

The jury this week were asked to consider if fan behaviour at the TURNSTYLES was a contributory factor in the deaths. There's no mention made of fans behaviour in the tunnels, or in the pens. The Jury considered the evidence and decided to answer that fan behaviour at the turnstyles was not a contributory factor. As I've said repeatedly that even at that I believe their verdict is wrong.

Consider this analogy Zippy. Lets say tomorrow you pick up your newspaper and you read that 9 people crashed to their deaths last night in a lift shaft where the lift cable snapped and where they plummeted 20 floors down a high rise tower to their deaths. Then it transpires that the maximum capacity on the lift was 8. Wouldn't you automatically consider that the overloading of the lift may well have been a contributory factor? Now consider this - if pre match planning deemed that the safe allocation of tickets meant that Liverpool were given 24,000 tickets to sell, isn't it just as reasonable to conclude that since the pen was clearly over crowded that those there who hadn't purchased valid match day tickets but were in the stadium anyway contributed to the the 96 deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Taylor Report is 26 years old is a complete moot point. Its there for all to see - a senior judge concluded that the Liverpool fans behaviour did NOT play a part in this tragedy. And a jury 26 years later has arrived at at same conclusion

And has Stuart not quite grasped the reason that the families have been fighting for the truth is due to the lies and smears that the Establishment concocted to cover up their own failings?

Dear oh dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Taylor Report is 26 years old is a complete moot point. Its there for all to see - a senior judge concluded that the Liverpool fans behaviour did NOT play a part in this tragedy. And a jury 26 years later has arrived at at same conclusion

And has Stuart not quite grasped the reason that the families have been fighting for the truth is due to the lies and smears that the Establishment concocted to cover up their own failings?

Dear oh dear.

Well show me it then. The full Taylor report is online. Show me where Lord Justice Taylor completely exonerated Liverpool fans in the deaths of 96 people? Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Well show me it then. The full Taylor report is online. Show me where Lord Justice Taylor completely exonerated Liverpool fans in the deaths of 96 people?

Ignore the like for this post, it really was a mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that he made no mention of any misbehviour whi ch led to the tragedy occurring does exonerate them. The finger is clearly pointed at South Yorks police in their failure to manage that event. There would have been clear mention in the report if the fans were at fault. Case closed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...