Hillsborough Inquest

[carinaman]

saaby93 said:

carinaman said:

Red 4 got there before me. Former SYP Media woman ordered to spin Inquest news reported on Radio 4 Midnight news.

Perhaps the College of Policing will award her a Code of Ethics medal?

desolate got there before me too.

It's here too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36...
If youre in that type of job, it's to make sure your company is given a fair crack of the whip in the media. This sentence explains it best

article said:

Hayley was asked to encourage the media to report on the positives (as well as accepting that they would report the negatives).

One of the points that came out is useful for us

article said:

In July 2014 Ms Court sent a BBC reporter covering the inquests a text message saying: "Sorry to text late - is there going to be any mention of the new evidence which came to light from SYP on the BBC at some point tonight?"

It was sent at 21:28, following a day at court when a SYP barrister had argued CCTV footage appeared to show supporters forcing open perimeter gates in Leppings Lane.

Up till now we only knew that the as it happened reporting on the day said the gates may have been broken by the fans. The police didnt say anything about it they were reported as opening the gates to avoid a serious incident outside the ground, but the inference was as you know.
If the CCTV can be construed that way - it may help explain the reporting.

I asked before if anyone know why the inquest jury weren't asked to make an assessment about the way the tragedy unfolded in the media

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 6th May 08:52

Thanks saaby93.


Regarding Red 4 referring to himself as one of those awkward people that likes to see some evidence to back up opinions. Some Universities have courses in Evidence Based Policing. I wonder what the other forms of policing are based on?

[85Carrera]

Kaj91 said:

hil Scraton – the main author of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report and author of Hillsborough – The Truth.

This guy seems to have done very well out of Hillsborough. I wonder if it's enough to retire on, or what he will do next ...

[anonymous-user]

I thought it was first-rate work from the BBC that allowed the story to be told.

I probably wouldn't agree with Phil Scraton on everything (a lot of INQUEST stuff that he part-founded), but he came across as someone of great integrity, tenacity, and as someone fundamentally driven to find the truth and obtain justice.

[JNW1]

An interesting documentary last night. The potted version appears to be SYP had the wrong man in charge of policing at Hillsborough on the day, he got some key decisions wrong and rather than admit it he lied and SYP then embarked on a truly remarkable cover-up to try to absolve him and themselves from any blame. However, I did get the impression that Taylor had seen through a lot of that when he did his report immediately after the disaster and, while he had the bit about supporters affected by alcohol wrong, it's surprising it's taken so long for the truth to come out. Seemed clear that the problem didn't lie with the ordinary police who were on duty that day, it was the people above them who were at fault (not least the person who thought it would be a good idea to put a non-fotball person in charge of a major game when he had no real knowledge of the stadium). Have to say I'd forgotten about the crowd problems at the Spurs/Wolves semi-final a few years earlier, clearly a warning about the state and layout of the ground which simply wasn't heeded.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

In common usage, the taxpayer can be singular or plural. You're flailing if you have to resort to the pedantic spellingism used by other PHers, and I'll not be wasting my time commenting on your speeling or grameer.

No, you'd probably be quite busy

Instead, why not spend you time answering the this question you've repeatedly scuttled and flailed away from?

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere?

It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.

V8 Fettler said:

The relevance of Crompton's statutory pension age is that previously you stated that he had no control over his retirement aged 52, yet clearly he does. There's no statutory impediment to prevent Crompton staying on to use his experience to serve the public. Scuttling is more convenient though, except for the taxpayer.

No, I said retirement is based upon length of service. He doesn't have a choice if he doesn't receive another contract.

V8 Fettler said:

From the information available, is it not more likely that the primary driver for the suspension of Crompton was incompetence rather than political machinations? That could include incompetence by Crompton in placing himself in a position where suspension was likely, incompetence by the SYP PCC in failing to avoid knee-jerk management and incompetence at GMP, SYP, the SYP PCC and Kent in failing to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC were made aware of the ongoing status of the inquiry into Copley.

Knee-jerk management based upon centralised political sentiment and pressure, it would seem.

V8 Fettler said:

Again, the primary responsibility for ensuring that SYP and the SYP PCC were frequently updated re the status of the investigation into Copley should have sat with GMP; the complaint centred around Copley's employment by GMP, therefore the risks arising from that complaint should have been managed effectively by GMP.

Perhaps they did. Do you know otherwise? Perhaps it's just the fact there's an investigation per se that has caused the issue for the PCC - do you know otherwise?

No, you're preaching about things you have no idea whether or not they occurred.

V8 Fettler said:

Was not the failure to ensure that the SYP PCC was made aware of the risks of placing Copley into the CC position an ambush by omission?

The PCC knew there was an investigation on-going (remember the correct reporting of the matter?). Therefore he could have assessed risks at the time. Who is to say he didn't?

Where's the omission when he knew she was under investigation at the time of appointment and at the time of temporary promotion?

V8 Fettler said:

I'm surprised at your level of trust in the content of the SYP PCC's website, given your insinuations re the political basis for the sacking of Crompton

And the correct BBC website - did you miss that one, too?

Your obsession with post dissection is causing you to miss several key points, this is an endemic problem with managers who feel that they must have control over detail yet miss the bigger, more important picture. Good box tickers but poor performers.

I've already covered the ambush, but here we go again in more detail: if the primary cause of Copley's removal after one day as CC was the status of the inquiry into her activities and those of her team at GMP then it's likely that the ambush was by omission (failure to flag concerns as the inquiry proceeded) and commission (flagging concerns at a late date). In the absence of a national management structure, one of the local forces should have managed and coordinated the inquiry into Copley; the logical choice being GMP.

Crompton won't receive another contract because it's convenient for the SYP and the SYP PCC for Crompton to retire at 52. Convenience at the expense of taxpayer's money.

This whole sorry saga features knee-jerk flailing management by several parties primarily as a result of incompetence.

I've stated that the inquiry into Copley centred around her employment at GMP, you've responded that I'm preaching about things I know nothing about. Was the inquiry into Copley about her employment elsewhere then?

How do you know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP? Either way, the PCC's competence has be to questioned. If he knew of the inquiry into Copley then he should have ensured that this did not interfere with risk management and damage limitation arising from the Hillsborough inquest, he failed. If he didn't know of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment then he also failed.

[chow pan toon]

JNW1 said:

An interesting documentary last night. The potted version appears to be SYP had the wrong man in charge of policing at Hillsborough on the day, he got some key decisions wrong and rather than admit it he lied and SYP then embarked on a truly remarkable cover-up to try to absolve him and themselves from any blame. However, I did get the impression that Taylor had seen through a lot of that when he did his report immediately after the disaster and, while he had the bit about supporters affected by alcohol wrong, it's surprising it's taken so long for the truth to come out. Seemed clear that the problem didn't lie with the ordinary police who were on duty that day, it was the people above them who were at fault (not least the person who thought it would be a good idea to put a non-fotball person in charge of a major game when he had no real knowledge of the stadium). Have to say I'd forgotten about the crowd problems at the Spurs/Wolves semi-final a few years earlier, clearly a warning about the state and layout of the ground which simply wasn't heeded.

I thought it was astonishing that the Taylor Report had pretty much nailed SYP in the "immediate" aftermath. I was only 11 at the time but the only result of the Taylor report that I was ever aware of was that all-seater stadiums became compulsory.

[Vaud]

I dipped out of this debate, but this popped up on my Facebook feed and though it worth sharing in the spirit of debate:

This is copied from Andy Frith's public post -
This link might work: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=...

"I have considered carefully what I want to say here about Hillsborough. The media coverage over the past few days, comments in the House of Commons and the suspension of the South Yorkshire Chief Constable all persuade me to post my thoughts.

I was a Constable, Sergeant and Inspector in South Yorkshire Police and served 17yrs before leaving to run a family business. I was there on the pitch at Hillsborough when the tragedy occurred working as a PC in a public order serial which had been called into the ground when the shout went up for assistance.

I witnessed the lack of command. The almost complete radio silence from the control room at the ground and the ridiculous decision to line up our serial in front of the Notts fans to prevent a pitch invasion whilst people at the Leppings Lane end were in obvious trouble.
I broke ranks at that moment with several other officers and began helping the injured from the pitch because it was obvious that senior commanders were not reacting to the situation as they should have been.

There is no doubt in my mind that poor policing decisions led to the deaths that day and it comes as no surprise that those in charge tried to deflect the blame. The culture in the force at that time was demonstrated in person by the majority of the Chief Superintendents and senior Command team. I have never come across a more arrogant, pompous and unlikeable group of individuals. They had absolute power over their Divisions (Districts now) and were completely unaccountable. What they said went and they were completely but mistakenly self assured in their ability.

That it took so long to discover the depth of the cover up from the then Chief Constable Peter Wright to the Chief Superintendents and those under their direct command is no surprise to me as no one would have dared to speak out.

What does offend me however is the headline in todays edition of “i” which screams ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Well that's not true either. The huge majority of officers on duty that day did just that – their duty. They helped where they could, used initiative when the chain of command failed and should be commended for their work.

The current Chief Constable David Compton has been suspended by the Police and Crime Commissioner Dr Alan Billings. Yes he takes responsibility for the force but he wasn't there 27 years ago. It looks as though he was suspended because he tried to defend his force during the inquest proceedings. I think our Dr Billings is coming up for re election and needs to be able to say to the electorate “look how tough I am”. This has nothing to do with proportionality.

And the fans – yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual. This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces.

Yes, let the people responsible face the music. Yes let Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and his immediate team be called to account but please don't call South Yorkshire Police rotten to the core. It wasn't then and I don't believe it is now.

It's me on the right by the way."

[Jockman]

chow pan toon said:

I thought it was astonishing that the Taylor Report had pretty much nailed SYP in the "immediate" aftermath..

Ahead of his time on so many levels. Then Dr Popper seems to have dragged us all back in time. The Police Federation guy seemed happy emphasising the old narrative too.

[anonymous-user]

chow pan toon said:

I thought it was astonishing that the Taylor Report had pretty much nailed SYP in the "immediate" aftermath. I was only 11 at the time but the only result of the Taylor report that I was ever aware of was that all-seater stadiums became compulsory.

I was surprised how the Taylor report was able to be so on-point given the politics surrounding the matter.

JNW1 said:

An interesting documentary last night. The potted version appears to be SYP had the wrong man in charge of policing at Hillsborough on the day, he got some key decisions wrong and rather than admit it he lied and SYP then embarked on a truly remarkable cover-up to try to absolve him and themselves from any blame. However, I did get the impression that Taylor had seen through a lot of that when he did his report immediately after the disaster and, while he had the bit about supporters affected by alcohol wrong, it's surprising it's taken so long for the truth to come out. Seemed clear that the problem didn't lie with the ordinary police who were on duty that day, it was the people above them who were at fault (not least the person who thought it would be a good idea to put a non-fotball person in charge of a major game when he had no real knowledge of the stadium). Have to say I'd forgotten about the crowd problems at the Spurs/Wolves semi-final a few years earlier, clearly a warning about the state and layout of the ground which simply wasn't heeded.

One of the comments at the end, "This could have all been sorted out 27 years ago" was a very pertinent one.

V8 Fettler said:

Your obsession with post dissection is causing you to miss several key points, this is an endemic problem with managers who feel that they must have control over detail yet miss the bigger, more important picture. Good box tickers but poor performers.

A logical extrapolation, those who reply to specific points in forums (the most common form of reply) are naturally managers whom don't see the bigger picture...

What can you extrapolate and generalise about people whom ignore repeated questions because they, presumably, don't like them? Endemic in unaccountable managers; Why did you think the GMP were the source of Copley's investigation?

V8 Fettler said:

I've already covered the ambush, but here we go again in more detail: if the primary cause of Copley's removal after one day as CC was the status of the inquiry into her activities and those of her team at GMP then it's likely that the ambush was by omission (failure to flag concerns as the inquiry proceeded) and commission (flagging concerns at a late date). In the absence of a national management structure, one of the local forces should have managed and coordinated the inquiry into Copley; the logical choice being GMP.

You've not 'covered' anything. You're purely speculating and filling in the unknowns by making things up as you go along.

Can you not see the difference?

You use the word 'likely', I'd speculate it's more likely there were no status changes in the investigation that changed the risk, or needed 'flagging' as the GMP were in possession of nearly all the information when they decided to back Copley to apply for the DCC role. Although you may not see the probability of that, as that's actually thinking about the circumstances rather than making it all up.

V8 Fettler said:

Crompton won't receive another contract because it's convenient for the SYP and the SYP PCC for Crompton to retire at 52.

I expect he wouldn't ever receive one primarily because it was more likely he was never going to apply for another once and he knew this to be the case when he became the CC.

V8 Fettler said:

This whole sorry saga features knee-jerk flailing management by several parties primarily as a result of incompetence.

You have no idea whether or not it's all the PCC or whether it's shared by a greater number of people.

V8 Fettler said:

I've stated that the inquiry into Copley centred around her employment at GMP, you've responded that I'm preaching about things I know nothing about. Was the inquiry into Copley about her employment elsewhere then?

Nice try, except this is the full quote I made that comment about. You're preaching about 'how things should be' without any idea as to whether or not they occurred.

I thought you didn't like key points to be missed:

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Again, the primary responsibility for ensuring that SYP and the SYP PCC were frequently updated re the status of the investigation into Copley should have sat with GMP; the complaint centred around Copley's employment by GMP, therefore the risks arising from that complaint should have been managed effectively by GMP.

Perhaps they did. Do you know otherwise? Perhaps it's just the fact there's an investigation per se that has caused the issue for the PCC - do you know otherwise?

No, you're preaching about things you have no idea whether or not they occurred.

V8 Fettler said:

How do you know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP?

We have to work with the best information we have. Or in your case, if the information's not there, just make it up.

V8 Fettler said:

Either way, the PCC's competence has be to questioned. If he knew of the inquiry into Copley then he should have ensured that this did not interfere with risk management and damage limitation arising from the Hillsborough inquest, he failed. If he didn't know of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment then he also failed.

A politician directly in charge for you.

Although you’re doing a good job of mimicking politicians by ignoring the question about how you knew the source were the GMP.

[Red 4]

I watched the documentary last night.

I thought it was a very powerful piece of film-making. I'm not easily moved but I have to say I had a lump in my throat listening to some of the testimony. It was harrowing.

It was obvious to me that it was not easy for those who were interviewed to relate their stories.
I can only imagine what these people have lived through over the last 27 years.

I found PC Martin McLoughlin's story quite difficult to listen to.
He described how he had a meltdown shortly after the events at Hillsborough - About 3 weeks after the tragedy he began crying uncontrollably and "pissed his pants" whilst on duty.
He also spoke of his disbelief at finding his statement had been altered by South Yorkshire Police, with any criticism of the force removed.

The human cost of Hillsborough can never be forgotten.
96 people died that day and can never be brought back.
It destroyed many more people's lives though ... that much was obvious from the documentary.

[rover 623gsi]

chow pan toon said:

I thought it was astonishing that the Taylor Report had pretty much nailed SYP in the "immediate" aftermath. I was only 11 at the time but the only result of the Taylor report that I was ever aware of was that all-seater stadiums became compulsory.

You're right, but the problem was that what most people read of the Taylor Report was the headlines and summary that went out in the mainstream media - which was still carrying an anti-football fan bias. How many people read, or had access to, the whole report? Nowadays it's much easier to find, read and share source documents so it's harder (thought not impossible) for the maintstream media to set the agenda and control the narrative. The internet enables the public to find out the truth and that is why the establishment doesn't like it.

[JNW1]

Vaud said:

I dipped out of this debate, but this popped up on my Facebook feed and though it worth sharing in the spirit of debate:

This is copied from Andy Frith's public post -
This link might work: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=...

"I have considered carefully what I want to say here about Hillsborough. The media coverage over the past few days, comments in the House of Commons and the suspension of the South Yorkshire Chief Constable all persuade me to post my thoughts.

I was a Constable, Sergeant and Inspector in South Yorkshire Police and served 17yrs before leaving to run a family business. I was there on the pitch at Hillsborough when the tragedy occurred working as a PC in a public order serial which had been called into the ground when the shout went up for assistance.

I witnessed the lack of command. The almost complete radio silence from the control room at the ground and the ridiculous decision to line up our serial in front of the Notts fans to prevent a pitch invasion whilst people at the Leppings Lane end were in obvious trouble.
I broke ranks at that moment with several other officers and began helping the injured from the pitch because it was obvious that senior commanders were not reacting to the situation as they should have been.

There is no doubt in my mind that poor policing decisions led to the deaths that day and it comes as no surprise that those in charge tried to deflect the blame. The culture in the force at that time was demonstrated in person by the majority of the Chief Superintendents and senior Command team. I have never come across a more arrogant, pompous and unlikeable group of individuals. They had absolute power over their Divisions (Districts now) and were completely unaccountable. What they said went and they were completely but mistakenly self assured in their ability.

That it took so long to discover the depth of the cover up from the then Chief Constable Peter Wright to the Chief Superintendents and those under their direct command is no surprise to me as no one would have dared to speak out.

What does offend me however is the headline in todays edition of “i” which screams ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Well that's not true either. The huge majority of officers on duty that day did just that – their duty. They helped where they could, used initiative when the chain of command failed and should be commended for their work.

The current Chief Constable David Compton has been suspended by the Police and Crime Commissioner Dr Alan Billings. Yes he takes responsibility for the force but he wasn't there 27 years ago. It looks as though he was suspended because he tried to defend his force during the inquest proceedings. I think our Dr Billings is coming up for re election and needs to be able to say to the electorate “look how tough I am”. This has nothing to do with proportionality.

And the fans – yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual. This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces.

Yes, let the people responsible face the music. Yes let Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and his immediate team be called to account but please don't call South Yorkshire Police rotten to the core. It wasn't then and I don't believe it is now.

It's me on the right by the way."

Andy Frith sounds pretty much bang on the money to me. There's no doubt police incompetence caused the death of the 96 fans but that incompetence was with those at the top and it's grossly unfair to label ordinary PC's as rotten in my view.

I also think the whole disaster needs to be seen in the context of football crowds at the time; the default assumption from the authorities was they needed to be prepared to deal with hooliganism and bad behaviour and crowd control measures were all set-up with that in mind. That's why supporters were caged-in like animals and (I suspect) it's why the police in charge were slow to recognise the nature of the tragedy unfolding that day - their initial mindset was to think there might be trouble brewing (and act accordingly) whereas in reality that wasn't the case. Now I'm not saying that makes their misjudgement of the situation right (it clearly doesn't) but it does perhaps make it understandable and sadly that delay in recognising what was happening probably cost at least some of the 96 lives. The main reason those fans died was certainly due to errors by the police on the day but to some extent they also paid the ultimate price for the bad behaviour of English football crowds generally over the previous decade; if they hadn't been caged-in they wouldn't have been crushed which is in effect one of the points Andy Frith makes above....

[Jockman]

The caging to the front was 'deemed' necessary at the time. Why were there fences to the side though? The implication last night was that this stopped the crowd moving sideways as it would have done naturally.

[Red 4]

La Liga - concerning the Taylor Report ...

Lord Justice Taylor got it right back in 1990.
However, there were many pressures to find no blame on the part of South Yorks Police.

Thatcher (amongst others) didn't like Lord Justice Taylor's findings.
Thatcher didn't like the police being criticised on such a monumental scale and "the establishment" went much further than the police ...

Consider this - to find who has absolute control and power over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
Quite frightening really ...

[Jockman]

Mrs Thatcher was at the height of her poll tax campaign. She needed the police onside. Militants were gathering....

[JNW1]

Jockman said:

The caging to the front was 'deemed' necessary at the time. Why were there fences to the side though? The implication last night was that this stopped the crowd moving sideways as it would have done naturally.

Depending on the match the entire Leppings Lane end may not have been allocated to the same team and hence the separate "pens" were probably there to facilitate segregation. For example, normally home supporters would occupy the stands running along the sides of the pitch and if for a league game they wanted to separate them from the away supporters they may have wanted to leave the end pens empty at the Leppings Lane end (and keep the away supporters in the two central pens behind the goal). If they could have taken the dividing fences away for something like an FA Cup semi-final I guess they would but they weren't designed to be removed and replaced on a game by game basis...

[Jockman]

JNW1 said:

Jockman said:

The caging to the front was 'deemed' necessary at the time. Why were there fences to the side though? The implication last night was that this stopped the crowd moving sideways as it would have done naturally.

Depending on the match the entire Leppings Lane end may not have been allocated to the same team and hence the separate "pens" were probably there to facilitate segregation. For example, normally home supporters would occupy the stands running along the sides of the pitch and if for a league game they wanted to separate them from the away supporters they may have wanted to leave the end pens empty at the Leppings Lane end (and keep the away supporters in the two central pens behind the goal). If they could have taken the dividing fences away for something like an FA Cup semi-final I guess they would but they weren't designed to be removed and replaced on a game by game basis...

Thanks - I assumed Leppings Lane would only be for one type of supporter as there was only one set of turnstiles. Empty spaces makes sense.

[Russ35]

JNW1 said:

Jockman said:

The caging to the front was 'deemed' necessary at the time. Why were there fences to the side though? The implication last night was that this stopped the crowd moving sideways as it would have done naturally.

Depending on the match the entire Leppings Lane end may not have been allocated to the same team and hence the separate "pens" were probably there to facilitate segregation. For example, normally home supporters would occupy the stands running along the sides of the pitch and if for a league game they wanted to separate them from the away supporters they may have wanted to leave the end pens empty at the Leppings Lane end (and keep the away supporters in the two central pens behind the goal). If they could have taken the dividing fences away for something like an FA Cup semi-final I guess they would but they weren't designed to be removed and replaced on a game by game basis...

The Leppings Lane Terrace was just one big terrace originally. Then after the crush in 1981 during the Wolves/Spurs game, it was then split into 3 pens, and then split again in 1985

[carinaman]

Jockman said:

chow pan toon said:

I thought it was astonishing that the Taylor Report had pretty much nailed SYP in the "immediate" aftermath..

Ahead of his time on so many levels. Then Dr Popper seems to have dragged us all back in time. The Police Federation guy seemed happy emphasising the old narrative too.

A bit like the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report was about racism in the police and not the father of one of the killers being friendly with a serving police officer?

I wonder what they'll come up with to let the Conservatives off of their 2015 General Election expenses wheeze?

Edited by carinaman on Monday 9th May 18:31

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

I watched the documentary last night.

I thought it was a very powerful piece of film-making. I'm not easily moved but I have to say I had a lump in my throat listening to some of the testimony. It was harrowing.

It was obvious to me that it was not easy for those who were interviewed to relate their stories.
I can only imagine what these people have lived through over the last 27 years.

I found PC Martin McLoughlin's story quite difficult to listen to.
He described how he had a meltdown shortly after the events at Hillsborough - About 3 weeks after the tragedy he began crying uncontrollably and "pissed his pants" whilst on duty.
He also spoke of his disbelief at finding his statement had been altered by South Yorkshire Police, with any criticism of the force removed.

The human cost of Hillsborough can never be forgot
96 people died that day and can never be brought back.
It destroyed many more people's lives though ... that much was obvious from the documentary.

The most surprising thing for me (perhaps because I never knew about it before) was the 'joke' from Lord Stuart-Smith about 'Liverpool fans being late' when he went to meet them.