Hillsborough Inquest

[SilverSpur]

SeeFive said:

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.

The study of the dynamics of a crowd situation is a technical, scientific issue. People are considering the crowd as a group of individuals all making decisions, which they should not do. This is incorrect, scientific studies have shown us what happens when crowds of people start doing something an onlooker would deem 'wrong' (especially in retrospect). Many people get killed and injured in crowd stampedes and this is a known issue studied by scientists. This understanding has developed massively in the 27 years since Hillsborough but these tragedies still occur when people in charge make bad decisions or judgements with venues and how they control the crowd.

People must stop blaming those involved in the crush. Either those that died or those that lived. Some people will bare forever on their conscience that they were pushing for entry into those pens as kick off grew ever closer. But although involved in the mechanics of the situation they are not to blame for it.

A very simple comparison. You have a burst water pipe which you discover when you get back from a long winter holiday, and the water causes lots of damage to your home. Do you blame the water? No, its a problem of the infrastructure, namely the pipe, and your probable lack of proper maintenance of the infrastructure, and your lack of action to prevent it with proper planning and thought (like shutting off the water stop tap before you go on holiday).

You cant blame those people pushing that shouldn't have been there to push in the first place. They were there because they had been allowed to by the improper response to a minor problem, by ineffectual planning and leadership, and improper infrastructure for the situation.

[RobGT81]

SilverSpur said:

A very simple comparison. You have a burst water pipe which you discover when you get back from a long winter holiday, and the water causes lots of damage to your home. Do you blame the water? No, its a problem of the infrastructure, namely the pipe, and your probable lack of proper maintenance of the infrastructure, and your lack of action to prevent it with proper planning and thought (like shutting off the water stop tap before you go on holiday).

If you have one pipe flowing into two, one pipe will fill up and then the water will flow into the second pipe on its own. The only reason fans didn't flow into the empty pens was because they want to get to the front as quick as possible and the police did not block off access to the already full pen.

[edh]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Wrong though

"Of the 96 people who died, 30 were still outside the turnstiles at 2.52pm."

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hi...

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying in any way they were responsible. That rests squarely with SYP.

Edited by edh on Wednesday 27th April 12:50

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

You may not be part of the "some people" I am referring to.

[Turquoise]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

I've read that 30 of those who died were still outside the ground at 2.52pm.

[julian64]

SilverSpur said:

The study of the dynamics of a crowd situation is a technical, scientific issue. People are considering the crowd as a group of individuals all making decisions, which they should not do. This is incorrect, scientific studies have shown us what happens when crowds of people start doing something an onlooker would deem 'wrong' (especially in retrospect). Many people get killed and injured in crowd stampedes and this is a known issue studied by scientists. This understanding has developed massively in the 27 years since Hillsborough but these tragedies still occur when people in charge make bad decisions or judgements with venues and how they control the crowd.

People must stop blaming those involved in the crush. Either those that died or those that lived. Some people will bare forever on their conscience that they were pushing for entry into those pens as kick off grew ever closer. But although involved in the mechanics of the situation they are not to blame for it.

A very simple comparison. You have a burst water pipe which you discover when you get back from a long winter holiday, and the water causes lots of damage to your home. Do you blame the water? No, its a problem of the infrastructure, namely the pipe, and your probable lack of proper maintenance of the infrastructure, and your lack of action to prevent it with proper planning and thought (like shutting off the water stop tap before you go on holiday).

You cant blame those people pushing that shouldn't have been there to push in the first place. They were there because they had been allowed to by the improper response to a minor problem, by ineffectual planning and leadership, and improper infrastructure for the situation.

Thereby hangs the whole thread. I looked at the entire CCTV footage of the crowd posted above. Saw the surges caused by people just pushing for the fun of it when there was no obvious need and saw those surges building as they went on. There where excerpts of that when a single individual was moving ten feet or so back and forth under the weight of the crowd.

The problem is I don't consider that's inevitable when a large quantity of people get together. I do consider the people pushing bear some responsibility. I have been in crowds at music festivals and concerts nearly as crammed at that with no problem apart from spotting a few unsociable type who are happy to just push or crash into everyone causing surges to start. I've walked away from a 'wet wet wet' (applogies) concert just because of similar concerns about overcrowding.

I can't see those people pushing to get in when the gates were open and call them blameless victims. They don't hold the full blame as I said earlier but they do hold a collective responsibility along with the poor crowd control and poor policing decisions. When the gates were opened everyone who rushed in had a choice.

I find the current coverage of the media and the whiter than white fan comments posted on here incredulous, probably always will.

Its not hard to see why the decision went the way it did. I think in the society in which we live collective responsibility is messy compared with having someone to focus on. I remember it actually happening, watching it and nothing about the recent court chase has changed my mind based on what I saw.

[paulrockliffe]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Thirty of those that died were outside the ground a few minutes before the match kicked off.

[anonymous-user]

paulrockliffe said:

Thirty of those that died were outside the ground a few minutes before the match kicked off.

So beyond turning up for a football match - how did they, as victims, contribute to their own death?

[RottenIcons]

Civil Engineer (involved in the design stage of a modern Football Stadium) hat on for a moment.

The reality of the flow dynamics of crowds was until a breakthrough research paper of 1993 very much non-existent and guesswork ruled the day, the paper of 1993 changed everything overnight, I was fortunate in getting the paper in time to affect the design of the crowd control measures on our Halo Project.

I can tell you that almost all the measures are actually very counter-intuitive and seems to be 'totally wrong', but they work, they really work. It is just foolish to compare old Stadia to anything built since that date, there is no basis point for comparison. Hillsborough could have been made immensely safer had the research been done years earlier, I have seen the film/video of the Leppings Lane entrances and approaches and for a few thousand pounds (yes, that little!) a good Civil Engineer with a working knowledge of the principles outlined in 1993 could make it a dozen times safer than it was at anytime in it's existence.

I'll remove my Civil engineers hat now, it still fits though!

[Dan_1981]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Parade_disaster

Similar.

Tunnel involved.

Poor management of the crowd.

No football fans.

No Antique Roadshow fans either though.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

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.

I understand that point.
My point is that after a 25 yr cover up, and a 2 yr inquest, the jury decided thus:

Question 7: behaviour of the supporters


Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.


The coroner has great powers to instruct the jury when it comes to delivering a verdict and I have yet to see any serious commentator question the validity of the findings.

I'll keep an interested eye on comments when the dust settles a little.

[Eric Mc]

Dan_1981 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Parade_disaster

Similar.

Tunnel involved.

Poor management of the crowd.

No football fans.

No Antique Roadshow fans either though.

Precisely what I've been trying to emphasise. The fact that it was a "football crowd" is totally irrelevant. It was a "crowd", badly handled by those tasked with handling the crowd.

And then those self same people who failed in their job (through ignorance as much as anything else), then tried to assign the blame for their mistakes to the victims.

[SeeFive]

desolate said:

I understand that point.
My point is that after a 25 yr cover up, and a 2 yr inquest, the jury decided thus:

Question 7: behaviour of the supporters


Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.


The coroner has great powers to instruct the jury when it comes to delivering a verdict and I have yet to see any serious commentator question the validity of the findings.

I'll keep an interested eye on comments when the dust settles a little.

The report I saw said:

Question 7: Behaviour of the Supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jurors were advised to consider factors including whether some fans behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control, and whether a significant number of fans were without tickets in the area.
Answer: No



Not unusually forceful or resistant to police control. It was a football crowd, so what is "usual"? In my example earlier, I also was not driving unusually fast, I always do 100mph past the school and I never hit a kid before. So that's fine then, it was the kids fault for stepping out, or the school being there, or not having a copper with a speed camera there... Or... Or...

[davidball]

Whilst it was a great victory for justice yesterday the job is not yet done.

There were many strategies used by SYP to try to manipulate public opinion. One has been used often. That is, in order to deflect criticism, promote officers whose judgement and actions were questionable.

We should not expect too much of the CPS either. Their track record of bringing those in the police force or those with political clout to account is not enviable.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is weighted in favour of the establishment.

Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge. All well and good but no use against a concerted effort by the establishment to collude and cover up corruption and hide evidence in secret files.

Then we have the fall-back block. The Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

Who are they to decide what is in the public interest? Their judgement on this has been lamentable. How is it not in the public interest to try an aged alleged pedophile because the police were unable or unwilling to charge him at the time?

Too many escape routes for the powerful and connected.

Still to come. The cover-up. Who knew what and when?

[paulrockliffe]

desolate said:

paulrockliffe said:

Thirty of those that died were outside the ground a few minutes before the match kicked off.

So beyond turning up for a football match - how did they, as victims, contribute to their own death?

Why are you asking me that? It's pretty clear from the inquest verdict that they didn't contribute to their own deaths and nothing I've written above suggests otherwise.

[Red 4]

davidball said:

Whilst it was a great victory for justice yesterday the job is not yet done.

There were many strategies used by SYP to try to manipulate public opinion. One has been used often. That is, in order to deflect criticism, promote officers whose judgement and actions were questionable.

We should not expect too much of the CPS either. Their track record of bringing those in the police force or those with political clout to account is not enviable.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is weighted in favour of the establishment.

Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge. All well and good but no use against a concerted effort by the establishment to collude and cover up corruption and hide evidence in secret files.

Then we have the fall-back block. The Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

Who are they to decide what is in the public interest? Their judgement on this has been lamentable. How is it not in the public interest to try an aged alleged pedophile because the police were unable or unwilling to charge him at the time?

Too many escape routes for the powerful and connected.

Still to come. The cover-up. Who knew what and when?

1) Prosecutions are in the public interest. 96 people lost their lives.

2) Certain admissions have already been made.

3) Yesterdays determinations was to the criminal standard of proof - unlawful killing.

The second installment will, in my opinion, proceed.
There would be too much public outcry for it not to.

That said, Duckinfield is reportedly not in the best of health.
Whether he will be judged as fit to stand trial remains to be seen.


One thing is for certain though - the lawyers will have a nice pay day.

Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 27th April 13:34

[SeeFive]

paulrockliffe said:

Why are you asking me that? It's pretty clear from the inquest verdict that they didn't contribute to their own deaths and nothing I've written above suggests otherwise.

Aw c'mon, we know they did. They laid down, pulled the heaviest people on top of them and shouted to the back of the crowd for everyone to keep pushing as they were all missing the game.

You and nobody has said it was the fault of the victims. I can't understand why people keep trotting it out. It would appear to be normal behaviour to push from the back of a crowd at any event, without considering the consequences, so that is fine, nobody's fault except for the people trying to fix the issues caused by that completely normal behaviour.

[V8 Fettler]

paulrockliffe said:

V8 Fettler said:

MarshPhantom said:

It's as though the last 27 years have passed them by entirely. Police fked up, lots of people died, police then and now lied through their teeth. End of.

Were there no issues with the design of the stadium?

Of course there were, that's obvious. But those issues were not a variable on the day, the stadium didn't change. The only variable was the way the Police handled the crowd. That's what the inquest is saying.

We are agreed that there were issues with the design of the stadium. I see very little in the headlines today about the failure of the owners of the stadium, the FA and "authorities" to change the design within a reasonable time frame. The management of the crowd varied from previous years primarily because of the lack of a good operational plan.

[V8 Fettler]

MarshPhantom said:

That is neither here nor there regarding the role of the Police and the aftermath.

The role of the police was defined by the design of the stadium and absence of a good operational plan.

[V8 Fettler]

Murph7355 said:

Simple flow charts would only have been any use for eventualities that could be predicted. We need to be careful not to judge that with hindsight at the fore. There were many levers involved in why football crowds were handled as they were in the 80s.

Also,removing responsibility by dint of a flow chart is not sensible.

The police messed up on the day but there were no doubt many factors involved,some of which may have been predictable. Others less so (keeping hindsight at bay).

The disgraceful thing was what happened afterwards. Lying and covering up is bad enough, but tarring victims is as low as you can get. The people involved in those elements of this tragedy are the ones that need fully prosecuting.

A simple flowchart can be used to readily define a process to follow when catastrophe is liable to occur due to unpredicted eventualities; that process could be as simple as cancel the match and vacate the stadium.

The responsibility remains by dint of responsibility for developing the management process that could include flowcharts.

Any cover-up should be treated as a separate issue to the events leading up to the fatalities, otherwise there is a risk that lessons will not be learnt.