Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
Bigends said:
Im still surprised there weren't other in the Police control room to assist and advise him. I was CCTV operator at a league ground for many years. Together with the Comms Operator, and ground safety officer we'd advise the Match Commander on what was happening and where, especially in the case of those new to the role.
I agree! I detect that in some quarters there's a real desire to see Duckenfield hung out to dry (or perhaps just hung!) but, while I carry no torch for him, for something like this to have happened there must surely have been a fundamental breakdown in process rather than it all being just the fault of one person's poor decision making? If the right processes had been in place you'd have thought the consequences of any dubious decisions would have been understood and relayed back to Duckenfield so he could think again but that didn't seem to happen. Like I say, I carry no torch for the bloke and I'm sure he was far from blameless; however, by the same token I can't see it was all his fault either!V8 Fettler said:
Duckenfield was ambushed by being placed in a position that was outside of his competence, which was a key factor resulting in 96 deaths. If Duckenfield hadn't been ambushed then it's likely that those 96 people would not have died. Perhaps if someone in a position of authority had "waffled" effectively about that particular ambush prior to the match then possibly the outcome would have been different.
An irrelevant sideshow to distract from your pure make-it-up-as-you-go-along waffle about 'ambushing' around Crompton. Perhaps if you were to sift information, to differentiate the difference between 'fact' and 'speculation', you'd be able to filter out some unfounded assumptions. V8 Fettler said:
We are agreed that I haven't used the word "source".
Once more, an irrelevant side show. You jumped in two feet and assumed the GMP were the source of the information being brought to light about Copley's investigation, and instead of acknowledging you were wrong to do so, you try some smoke and mirrors around whether or not the actual word to describe that you were using were written. V8 Fettler said:
Are you going to enlighten me about your use of the word "we" when referring to La Liga?
See the word beginning with 'S' and ending with 'W' once more. V8 Fettler said:
I am far too long in the tooth and cynical to have any idealistic views about the private or public sectors, but the principle remains: in a capitalist free market, an organisation's failure to perform should result in failure of the organisation.
It depends on the degree of failure and what % of 'business' that makes up of an organisation. JNW1 said:
Bigends said:
Im still surprised there weren't other in the Police control room to assist and advise him. I was CCTV operator at a league ground for many years. Together with the Comms Operator, and ground safety officer we'd advise the Match Commander on what was happening and where, especially in the case of those new to the role.
I agree! I detect that in some quarters there's a real desire to see Duckenfield hung out to dry (or perhaps just hung!) but, while I carry no torch for him, for something like this to have happened there must surely have been a fundamental breakdown in process rather than it all being just the fault of one person's poor decision making? If the right processes had been in place you'd have thought the consequences of any dubious decisions would have been understood and relayed back to Duckenfield so he could think again but that didn't seem to happen. Like I say, I carry no torch for the bloke and I'm sure he was far from blameless; however, by the same token I can't see it was all his fault either!La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Duckenfield was ambushed by being placed in a position that was outside of his competence, which was a key factor resulting in 96 deaths. If Duckenfield hadn't been ambushed then it's likely that those 96 people would not have died. Perhaps if someone in a position of authority had "waffled" effectively about that particular ambush prior to the match then possibly the outcome would have been different.
An irrelevant sideshow to distract from your pure make-it-up-as-you-go-along waffle about 'ambushing' around Crompton. Perhaps if you were to sift information, to differentiate the difference between 'fact' and 'speculation', you'd be able to filter out some unfounded assumptions. V8 Fettler said:
We are agreed that I haven't used the word "source".
Once more, an irrelevant side show. You jumped in two feet and assumed the GMP were the source of the information being brought to light about Copley's investigation, and instead of acknowledging you were wrong to do so, you try some smoke and mirrors around whether or not the actual word to describe that you were using were written. V8 Fettler said:
Are you going to enlighten me about your use of the word "we" when referring to La Liga?
See the word beginning with 'S' and ending with 'W' once more. V8 Fettler said:
I am far too long in the tooth and cynical to have any idealistic views about the private or public sectors, but the principle remains: in a capitalist free market, an organisation's failure to perform should result in failure of the organisation.
It depends on the degree of failure and what % of 'business' that makes up of an organisation. You're confusing "source" with "management responsibility", there may have been no specific source for the ambush.
You still haven't clarified if there is more than one La Liga.
By any measurement, SYP as an organisation failed catastrophically over Hillsborough, as have others.
V8 Fettler said:
How can the readily avoidable deaths of 96 people be a "sideshow"? If only one person in authority had taken a reality check and asked the question: "Duckenfield is new to this position, has he been ambushed?".
Because you were talking about 'Crompton being ambushed'. Because you can't substantiate that and have tired to pass speculation off as fact, you then changed it to talking about Duckenfield. It's a bit like asking if the actual word 'source' were used when avoiding answering why you used the GMP as one and asking if I knew for certain that the PCC's direct quote were true when you didn't bother to do basic research.
You may get away with such smoke and mirrors in your line of work, but in a world where no one believes anything on face value it's a little harder.
V8 Fettler said:
By any measurement, SYP as an organisation failed catastrophically over Hillsborough, as have others.
No doubt. Am I right in thinking that nobody considers that the behaviour of the fans played any part whatsoever in the tragedy?
OK, South Yorkshire Police are considered to have exhibited various failings on the day, and (apparently) behaved appallingly afterwards in manipulating the record of events, but is it fair to leave the police facing all the blame for what happened?
Bear in mind, I'm making no assertions or accusations; it's merely a matter of asking a couple of questions and wondering how others see it.
OK, South Yorkshire Police are considered to have exhibited various failings on the day, and (apparently) behaved appallingly afterwards in manipulating the record of events, but is it fair to leave the police facing all the blame for what happened?
Bear in mind, I'm making no assertions or accusations; it's merely a matter of asking a couple of questions and wondering how others see it.
p1esk said:
Am I right in thinking that nobody considers that the behaviour of the fans played any part whatsoever in the tragedy?
One of the questions that was asked of the inquest jury, who sat for over two years hearing all the available evidence, was quite specifically if they could find fault with the fans' behaviour; the answer was no.La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
How can the readily avoidable deaths of 96 people be a "sideshow"? If only one person in authority had taken a reality check and asked the question: "Duckenfield is new to this position, has he been ambushed?".
Because you were talking about 'Crompton being ambushed'. Because you can't substantiate that and have tired to pass speculation off as fact, you then changed it to talking about Duckenfield. It's a bit like asking if the actual word 'source' were used when avoiding answering why you used the GMP as one and asking if I knew for certain that the PCC's direct quote were true when you didn't bother to do basic research.
You may get away with such smoke and mirrors in your line of work, but in a world where no one believes anything on face value it's a little harder.
V8 Fettler said:
By any measurement, SYP as an organisation failed catastrophically over Hillsborough, as have others.
No doubt. My basic research indicates that neither the BBC nor the SYP PCC should be absolutely trusted, but clearly you place great trust in quotes posted in the SYP PCC website.
Smoke and mirrors? Again, you're flailing. Many people were fooled into accepting the SYP account of the Hillsborough tragedy at face value, this was a mistake that took 27 years to rectify, and was only rectified after the SYP account of the tragedy was revealed as smoke and mirrors. In my line of work, I would certainly not wish to have any responsibility for operating a system or process that didn't have current safety certification with all major potential issues addressed. It's a pity that the authorities (including SYP) didn't take the same approach prior to Hillsborough and postpone the match.
Einion Yrth said:
p1esk said:
Am I right in thinking that nobody considers that the behaviour of the fans played any part whatsoever in the tragedy?
One of the questions that was asked of the inquest jury, who sat for over two years hearing all the available evidence, was quite specifically if they could find fault with the fans' behaviour; the answer was no.popeyewhite said:
Einion Yrth said:
p1esk said:
Am I right in thinking that nobody considers that the behaviour of the fans played any part whatsoever in the tragedy?
One of the questions that was asked of the inquest jury, who sat for over two years hearing all the available evidence, was quite specifically if they could find fault with the fans' behaviour; the answer was no.Einion Yrth said:
One of the questions that was asked of the inquest jury, who sat for over two years hearing all the available evidence, was quite specifically if they could find fault with the fans' behaviour; the answer was no.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that the jury reached the correct conclusion.They (juries) have got it wrong before, they will get it wrong in the future, they may have got it wrong on this occasion.
The Mad Monk said:
But it doesn't necessarily follow that the jury reached the correct conclusion.
They (juries) have got it wrong before, they will get it wrong in the future, they may have got it wrong on this occasion.
We can also add the findings of the Taylor Report and the later independent report that both found the same. They (juries) have got it wrong before, they will get it wrong in the future, they may have got it wrong on this occasion.
The Mad Monk said:
Einion Yrth said:
One of the questions that was asked of the inquest jury, who sat for over two years hearing all the available evidence, was quite specifically if they could find fault with the fans' behaviour; the answer was no.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that the jury reached the correct conclusion.They (juries) have got it wrong before, they will get it wrong in the future, they may have got it wrong on this occasion.
tes on a motoring forum. Feel free to differ. Pauly-b said:
Jockman said:
I was under the impression that 13 of the 14 decisions were unanimous. The majority 7/2 decision was on the Unlawful Killing question. Have I miss-read this?
No, you're exactly right.. Unanimous on 13 of the 14.. Only unlawful killing was 7/2..popeyewhite said:
Pauly-b said:
Jockman said:
I was under the impression that 13 of the 14 decisions were unanimous. The majority 7/2 decision was on the Unlawful Killing question. Have I miss-read this?
No, you're exactly right.. Unanimous on 13 of the 14.. Only unlawful killing was 7/2..The Mad Monk said:
Einion Yrth said:
This, probably, makes them more informed than a bunch of gobstes on a motoring forum.
Well argued.tes on a motoring forum. popeyewhite said:
Yep, sorry - hold my hands up - I should have stated I was referring to the unlawful killing charge levelled at the Police. Completely amazed the Police could be held 100% to blame...but there you go - you apply enough pressure over the years and even fact can be replaced with a more favourable version of events.
The police haven't been held 100% percent to blameRead the verdict, it will only take you a few minutes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff