Hillsborough Inquest

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

But that is how many people are presenting it.

I believe that there is one error in the answer to the 14 questions. I believe that the crowd behaviour led to a situation arising where errors were made in trying to deal with it. If there was no problem with a mass of late arriving fans (ticketed or not) outside, then why would decisions have to be made? The lies make it critical for the folks appealing for justice to apportion as much blame as possible to support their case, and heap disdain on the liars - which I empathise with.

IMO, and I will get flamed for this but the judgement on the crowd not contributing to the tragedy is inaccurate - it wasn't deliberate but it contributed. Opinions are like arse holes etc, but there we go, we can differ.

WRT the judgement, It wouldn't be the first time a jury got a decision wrong. I wouldn't hang my hat on that in this case.

I need to go out now and I am slightly losing the desire to keep posting but as a matter of fact it has been established that "a mass of late arriving fans" was not the cause of this.

There was precedent for such an event and an ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

Having said that given the fact that something similar had happened THREE times in the 80s it really does beggar belief that they kept holding semi finals there.

[walm]

SeeFive said:

the judgement on the crowd not contributing to the tragedy is inaccurate

The crowd behaving like a crowd was entirely predictable.
You are doing the equivalent of blaming the wobbling of the wobbly millennium bridge on the people walking across it (as someone said earlier).

You can't BLAME people for trying to see the football.
That's why they were there and is a perfectly blameless activity!

[FredClogs]

Blaming people kettled into a small area for creating a crush is like blaming people locked in a sealed room for running out of oxygen.

No one was pushing the people in front out of any sort of malice or intent, they were being pushed from behind, that's why, that's how that scenario works.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Do we have a more open and honest police syst since the likes of Hillsborough and bloody Sunday?

In all seriousness, does anyone here believe that should the same thing (Hillsborough like) happen again, the police account would be believed.

If there is one major side effect of this case, is that deep trust in those responsible for major events being open and honest has been, at best, sewn with doubt.

Trust is a multifaceted word. Looking at a senior police officer and saying 'I don't believe what you are saying' is beyond failure.

Do those in command have any idea how profound that loss of trust is. I doubt it very much.

[RottenIcons]

desolate said:

RottenIcons said:

You said the following:- "...as was her trusted "press secretary" who was involved in creating the false narrative."

I'm no fan of the man, but I think claiming he was involved in creating the false narrative is wrong, at worst he perpetuated it, but laying any blame on him and her for believing what the SYP told them both at high level briefing is just plain wrong. If a Chief Constable gives you (in this case the 'you' being the Prime Minister and her most trusted aide) the run down on the reasons for the disaster then really you have to take that on trust.

Just my opinion.

Fair enough if that is your opinion.

At the time Ingham was a big beast - a cynical horrible Rottweiler of an operator who was the forerunner for the modern spin doctors. I don't believe for one minute that he would take anything that didn't suit his agenda on trust. Just as I don't believe that those at the top didn't have a clue as to what actually happened.

He also worked very closely with The Sun.

His 1996 letter shows him for the disgusting pig of a man he really is.

So yes with his perpetuation of the "Tanked up mob" theory he plays his part in creating the false narrative.

But despite all that you can't justify the claim that he played a part in creating the false narrative. That could, if played out to the full, be itself a false narrative, wouldn't it?

I'll say it again, he was an innocent party in perpetuating a false narrative, but I really can't find anything that suggest he created or added materially to it.

This is really an SYP matter, now I could 100% agree with you if you posit'd that Thatcher helped create a monstrous Police Force in South Yorkshire by dropping the reins on their activities during the Miners Strike and enjoying the effect. In my opinion and many others it seems the SYP went rogue as a result.

[MarshPhantom]

edh said:

South Yorkshire Police need to be held accountable for this

Corrupt and above the law, used almost as a paramilitary force during the miner's strike & believed they could do as they wished. Continued to lie and dissemble even at this inquest. Orgreave next..

Oborne gets it right (as he often does).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3560552/...

Precisely, some people are more bothered about their involvement with the BBC and the search of Cliff Richard's house.

[Eric Mc]

walm said:

SeeFive said:

the judgement on the crowd not contributing to the tragedy is inaccurate

The crowd behaving like a crowd was entirely predictable.
You are doing the equivalent of blaming the wobbling of the wobbly millennium bridge on the people walking across it (as someone said earlier).

You can't BLAME people for trying to see the football.
That's why they were there and is a perfectly blameless activity!

Exactly. That is more or less saying "those who died have a responsibility for their own deaths because they were there".

If they hadn't been there, they wouldn't have died.

[anonymous-user]

RottenIcons said:

But despite all that you can't justify the claim that he played a part in creating the false narrative. That could, if played out to the full, be itself a false narrative, wouldn't it?

I'll say it again, he was an innocent party in perpetuating a false narrative, but I really can't find anything that suggest he created or added materially to it.

This is really an SYP matter, now I could 100% agree with you if you posit'd that Thatcher helped create a monstrous Police Force in South Yorkshire by dropping the reins on their activities during the Miners Strike and enjoying the effect. In my opinion and many others it seems the SYP went rogue as a result.

Fair enough.

I am accusing him of being part of creating the myth. I don't believe he was an innocent, naive receiver of information.

Also it is a matter of absolute record that he added materially to the narrative - just look at the letter he wrote in 1996.

I agree with you regarding the government of the time's relationship with SYP. Which is why I don't believe the Ingham didn't (doesn't) know more than he has let on.

edited to add: people are so angry about this as there has been not just a cover up but a 25 yr smear campaign. This wasn't just a case of suffocating the information and kicking into the long grass this was an active long term smear campaign against an enormous group of people. All against the backdrop of 96 deaths!!!

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 27th April 12:07

[SeeFive]

desolate said:

I need to go out now and I am slightly losing the desire to keep posting but as a matter of fact it has been established that "a mass of late arriving fans" was not the cause of this.

There was precedent for such an event and an ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

Having said that given the fact that something similar had happened THREE times in the 80s it really does beggar belief that they kept holding semi finals there.

So, if I drive past a school at 100mph every day, the fact that over the years, I never had to dig a kid out of my grille before this tragic day of the accident means that I did not contribute to the death of a child? It is the sole responsibility of the authorities to find some way around my dangerous behaviour?

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me. A dangerous MO does not mean it is blameless when the st hits the fan.

ETA: yeah, they should move the school, clearly.

Edited by SeeFive on Wednesday 27th April 12:11

[SeeFive]

Eric Mc said:

walm said:

SeeFive said:

the judgement on the crowd not contributing to the tragedy is inaccurate

The crowd behaving like a crowd was entirely predictable.
You are doing the equivalent of blaming the wobbling of the wobbly millennium bridge on the people walking across it (as someone said earlier).

You can't BLAME people for trying to see the football.
That's why they were there and is a perfectly blameless activity!

Exactly. That is more or less saying "those who died have a responsibility for their own deaths because they were there".

If they hadn't been there, they wouldn't have died.

Not at all.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

So, if I drive past a school at 100mph every day, the fact that over the years, I never had to dig a kid out of my grille before this tragic day of the accident means that I did not contribute to the death of a child? It is the sole responsibility of the authorities to find some way around my dangerous behaviour?

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me. A dangerous MO does not mean it is blameless when the st hits the fan.

I have to be honest I don't really understand your point.

If you feel so strongly that there has been a miscarriage of justice you really should let the coroner know and start a campaign or something.

Perhaps watch some of the contemporaneous videos that are now online. I was genuinely surprised at how sober and well behaved most people looked. And how LONG the videos are. They are so long as this unfolded over an hour or so - not as the result of a last minute rush.

[walm]

SeeFive said:

Not at all.

I just don't see what the crowd did WRONG?

Driving at 100mph is wrong.
Rioting is wrong.

Having a couple of pints before a game isn't wrong.
Walking into a gap, when directed by police, just isn't wrong.
Shuffling forward to get into a position to view a game of football you have paid to see, simply isn't wrong, is it?

[FredClogs]

drivin_me_nuts said:

Do we have a more open and honest police syst since the likes of Hillsborough and bloody Sunday?

In all seriousness, does anyone here believe that should the same thing (Hillsborough like) happen again, the police account would be believed.

If there is one major side effect of this case, is that deep trust in those responsible for major events being open and honest has been, at best, sewn with doubt.

Trust is a multifaceted word. Looking at a senior police officer and saying 'I don't believe what you are saying' is beyond failure.

Do those in command have any idea how profound that loss of trust is. I doubt it very much.

We have elections for Police Commissioner in our area coming up... Will that role be the end stop for these kind of things in the future or just another sled interested political gamer to muddy the waters?

We certainly don't have a bad police force by international standards but further de coupling them and their management from central government and political influence must only be a good thing.

I think, culturally, we could learn a bit from Japanese and Korean culture where you see the expectation for those in charge to fall on their sword, publicly, after events like this, on an individual level and a societal one it seems a much healthier and cathartic response.

[Red 4]

FredClogs said:

It's an illustration as to just how powerful prejudice, the media and the ability to spin facts and propaganda are. Once opinions are formed in peoples minds it's incredibly hard to change them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

You're right about that.

In the years following Hillsborough people from Liverpool were regarded as scum by many who believed the lies and propaganda put out by South Yorkshire Police and reported in the press.

Let's not forget that Liverpool fans were accused of rifling through the pockets of the dead and urinating on police officers who were trying to help.
All of these reports were lies and it takes a sick mind to come up with something like this.

The simple fact is that South Yorkshire Police cocked up on a monumental scale and the hierarchy within the force looked to protect themselves at all costs - simply put, they put themselves before the truth. This continued for nearly a quarter of a century.

The current Chief Constable, David Crompton, accused the campaigners group for Hillsborough of being liars not so long ago. Although he later apologised for this it would appear that attitudes towards the victims of Hillsborough have not really changed that much within SYP circles.
I notice he is now back-pedalling furiously and apologising profusely in light of the judgement.

All in all this case - and the actions of senior police officers involved in this debacle - has done irrepairable damage to the police service. Or, at least, the wounds will take an exceptionally long time to heal.

I say this as a former police officer (and a scouser).
I've seen the wheel come off at incidents.
Sadly, those responsible often continue to duck for cover and try to avoid all responsibility - as happened at Hillsborough.
I'll be attending the memorial service at St Georges Hall in Liverpool later.
The victims and their families deserve alot of respect.
South Yorkshire Police - hang your head in shame.

[RottenIcons]

desolate said:

RottenIcons said:

But despite all that you can't justify the claim that he played a part in creating the false narrative. That could, if played out to the full, be itself a false narrative, wouldn't it?

I'll say it again, he was an innocent party in perpetuating a false narrative, but I really can't find anything that suggest he created or added materially to it.

This is really an SYP matter, now I could 100% agree with you if you posit'd that Thatcher helped create a monstrous Police Force in South Yorkshire by dropping the reins on their activities during the Miners Strike and enjoying the effect. In my opinion and many others it seems the SYP went rogue as a result.

Fair enough.

I am accusing him of being part of creating the myth. I don't believe he was an innocent, naive receiver of information.

Also it is a matter of absolute record that he added materially to the narrative - just look at the letter he wrote in 1996.

I agree with you regarding the government of the time's relationship with SYP. Which is why I don't believe the Ingham didn't (doesn't) know more than he has let on.

edited to add: people are so angry about this as there has been not just a cover up but a 25 yr smear campaign. This wasn't just a case of suffocating the information and kicking into the long grass this was an active long term smear campaign against an enormous group of people. All against the backdrop of 96 deaths!!!

Edited by desolate on Wednesday 27th April 12:07

So are you saying that his letter was worse or added aspects that were not in the many Sun and other Newspaper headlines? I was around at the time and it seems to me he simply was not 'present' in any material sense in this, it was others who McKenzie in particular who has something serious to answer overall, from him an apology is just not enough, again just my opinion.

By using a scattergun approach against people who played no significant part the real culprits are given the huge fillip of smearing out and spreading blame more thinly.

Again, all in my opinion. I believe in concentrated fire, smart bombing the bad and rotten in this World not in blanket bombing as it is ineffective.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

FredClogs said:

desolate said:

RobinOakapple said:

Who blamed the innocent victims? I think you will find they blamed the ones who were doing the crushing, not the ones that got crushed.

An inquest that lasted 2 years. No Blame apportioned the fans.

Why are posters trying to apportion blame onto some fans? What's the agenda?

Surely now the facts of the day are settled the pertinent question is how and why was this matter covered up for so long?

It's an illustration as to just how powerful prejudice, the media and the ability to spin facts and propaganda are. Once opinions are formed in peoples minds it's incredibly hard to change them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

My overwhelming evidence is going to football week in and week out in the 70s and 80s. I know exactly how fans acted when stuck outside the ground 10 mins before k.o. I know exactly what the behaviour of the fans on that day would have been like.

Are we saying that this particular set of fans behaved differently to every other set of fans every other week at every other ground? What made these fans so special?

[SeeFive]

desolate said:

I have to be honest I don't really understand your point.

If you feel so strongly that there has been a miscarriage of justice you really should let the coroner know and start a campaign or something.

Perhaps watch some of the contemporaneous videos that are now online. I was genuinely surprised at how sober and well behaved most people looked. And how LONG the videos are. They are so long as this unfolded over an hour or so - not as the result of a last minute rush.

It is clear that you don't understand the point.

It is also clear that you do not understand the difference between a debator with an opinion different to yours on an Internet forum, and someone with a deep seated need to seek justice. I am the former.

To be clear. What you do not understand in my point is that historical poor behaviour that has not had a consequence does not mean that it can never be a contributing factor when things go bad. Be clear, I am not solely blaming the fans. What I am saying is that if they had taken the approach of a non-footballing crowd, such as the tube example or other sports mentioned in this thread, then snap decisions and stated procedures would not have needed to be executed.

So without the cause (e.g., the mob trying to get into a badly designed and badly managed area), measures would not need to have been taken, for example to open gate C without thinking about where all these rushing, pushing people were going to go and the impact on those already in the pens.

[Eric Mc]

I think the topic has run its course now.

Some people will always think that the crowd were instrumental in their own demise - effectively on the basis that it was a "football crowd" and therefore had an inbuilt tendency to cause its own problems - unlike other types of crowds which are civillised and obviously made up of a different sort of person..

Others won't hold such a view.

I don't think we will get any meeting of the minds on these two opposite views.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

Some people will always think that the crowd were instrumental in their own demise.

You keep trotting this line out, as do many others, as a way of being emotive to try and shut down those who don't subscribe to the party line.

Those who died were completely innocent, played absolutely no part in their own demise, as they were in the ground early and waiting to watch the match. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

[FredClogs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

My overwhelming evidence is going to football week in and week out in the 70s and 80s. I know exactly how fans acted when stuck outside the ground 10 mins before k.o. I know exactly what the behaviour of the fans on that day would have been like.

Are we saying that this particular set of fans behaved differently to every other set of fans every other week at every other ground? What made these fans so special?

That there was a crush is entirely self evident, if you think you have evidence to contradict the findings of the inquiry then maybe you should inform someone slightly more relevant than the PH massive.

As has been repeatedly said in this thread, the actions of the crowd locked out the ground with 10 minutes to kick off were entirely predictable, there is no mitigation for the police in describing, as you have, what they already knew and were prepared for. So they mitigated their failure by stories of pick pocketing, hooliganism and freely urinating thuggery - all of which were lies.

If you were in a "firm" in the 70s and 80s (as you seem to hint at earlier in the thread) and wish to unload your guilt for whatever social ills, stadium design and policing paradigms you influenced - then do that - but don't try to muddy the now clear waters about the events of that day again.