Hillsborough Inquest

[Jockman]

EnthusiastOwned said:

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

The water isn't capable of rational thought.

Would that make a difference? It would still not be in a position of power to alter events.

[Dr Murdoch]

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

I think the point he is driving it that that they were part of many contributing factors.

Its not as simple as black or white.

I think legally when apportioning blame for collisions, a percentage of culpability is used.

Personally, I would say about 2% from fans pushing, sweeping each other along. The most part is made up of SYP (65%?) stadium design (25%?) and response by emergency services (8%?)

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

I may be misreading the news report but has he been suspended for apologising?

It's early days but I would imagine that he has been suspended for authorising a particularly adversarial stance at the latest inquests having previously accepted the findings of an earlier report, accepted responsibility and apologised.

[gooner1]

EnthusiastOwned said:

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

The water isn't capable of rational thought.

Of course, but the fans allowed in that caused the crush had no idea of conditions inside Pens 3 and 4, but those that let them in did.

[Halb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36154201

[Northbloke]

Not been following closely but has it been determined how many of those going in (via gate C) didn't have tickets?

So the volume of fans would be greater than that expected to be accommodated (i.e. number of tickets sold). I was going to say "planned for" but it seems there was very little planning by the authorities.

Shameful cover up nevertheless and heads should roll for that.

[EnthusiastOwned]

Jockman said:

EnthusiastOwned said:

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

The water isn't capable of rational thought.

Would that make a difference? It would still not be in a position of power to alter events.

I get what you're saying... To water entering a bath no, it's being forced by pressure up the pipes and has no where else to go. And yes, the unfortunate people in the tunnel were the same, they were being forced and had no where else to go. But the people at the back, i'm not so sure.

[davidball]

desolate said:

Looks like the current Chief Constable of SYP has been suspended.

I wonder if he will be allowed to resign?

[Jockman]

walm said:

Essentially you are still making the "if they weren't there it wouldn't have happened" argument.

Absolutely there was need for crowd management AND a moral responsibility - that's the whole point.

Indeed. It's called a Duty of Care.

FWIW the news reported earlier that all avenues will be analysed - police, ambulance, stadium etc. It will take over 12 months and the CPS has already satisfied the 'public interest' question. The only obstacle is whether there is more than a 50% chance of a successful prosecution. If not, then no prosecution.

[EnthusiastOwned]

gooner1 said:

:



Of course, but the fans allowed in that caused the crush had no idea of conditions inside Pens 3 and 4, but those that let them in did.

They had no idea, that makes it ok then.

Don't get me wrong here, I fully support that those who let them in hold responsibilities, but to say those which phyisically caused the crush had NO responsibility at all, I'm struggling to comprehend.

[Jockman]

EnthusiastOwned said:

Jockman said:

EnthusiastOwned said:

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

The water isn't capable of rational thought.

Would that make a difference? It would still not be in a position of power to alter events.

I get what you're saying... To water entering a bath no, it's being forced by pressure up the pipes and has no where else to go. And yes, the unfortunate people in the tunnel were the same, they were being forced and had no where else to go. But the people at the back, i'm not so sure.

I also get what you're saying. I listened to a family member being interviewed last night and he stated it was a major concern for all the families about this question as they had no idea which way the jury would vote on this. I hadn't heard 2 years worth of evidence so I'm placing my faith in the 6 women and 3 men.

[iSore]

walm said:

Essentially you are still making the "if they weren't there it wouldn't have happened" argument.

No he isn't.

He's saying that if they had arrived earlier and behaved, it wouldn't have happened. Very different.

[TTwiggy]

EnthusiastOwned said:

They had no idea, that makes it ok then.

Don't get me wrong here, I fully support that those who let them in hold responsibilities, but to say those which phyisically caused the crush had NO responsibility at all, I'm struggling to comprehend.

I imagine it's to do with whether or not they could perceive of their actions causing harm.

If I walk onto a tube platform and push someone, and that someone falls in front of a train, it's reasonable to argue I understand the potential consequences of my actions. If I'm one of several commuters causing a crush in a tube access tunnel, because the staff allowed us all down there, and our group pushing knocks someone in front of a train, I wouldn't feel that I could perceive that risk adequately and be held responsible.

[Halb]

TTwiggy said:

I imagine it's to do with whether or not they could perceive of their actions causing harm.

If I walk onto a tube platform and push someone, and that someone falls in front of a train, it's reasonable to argue I understand the potential consequences of my actions. If I'm one of several commuters causing a crush in a tube access tunnel, because the staff allowed us all down there, and our group pushing knocks someone in front of a train, I wouldn't feel that I could perceive that risk adequately and be held responsible.

Quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
“The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”
Terry Pratchett.

[gooner1]

EnthusiastOwned said:

gooner1 said:

:



Of course, but the fans allowed in that caused the crush had no idea of conditions inside Pens 3 and 4, but those that let them in did.

They had no idea, that makes it ok then.

Don't get me wrong here, I fully support that those who let them in hold responsibilities, but to say those which phyisically caused the crush had NO responsibility at all, I'm struggling to comprehend.

Makes it ok for what exactly?

[iSore]

gooner1 said:

Makes it ok for what exactly?

Cause a crush?

[TTwiggy]

Halb said:

Quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
“The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”
Terry Pratchett.

Good old Sir Terry!

It's interesting of course that a crowd of commuters can be held back by one man and a small barrier, but that's because a crowd of commuters are a disparate group with no sense of 'tribe'. You might get one ahole who makes a fuss, but that person will be ignored by the rest. By contrast a football crowd is effectively an army (or a mob, if you prefer). They have to be treated differently, but they are not the defacto 'scum' they were viewed as at the time.

[johnxjsc1985]

iSore said:

No he isn't.

He's saying that if they had arrived earlier and behaved, it wouldn't have happened. Very different.

at 2.15 pm the Police were in trouble they had lost control that is 45 mins before kick off.
You need to be careful what you post and inquest of 2 years evidence has concluded you are wrong and you need to heed their findings . Ignorance is not an excuse. I have reported your post as I find it deeply offensive.

[SeeFive]

gooner1 said:

If you are running a Bath, and allow the Bath to overflow, is it the fault of the water, or you, the Bath runner?

Are you saying that the fans have the same IQ as water? In that case it would be the runner, but if water had intelligence, then one could contend that it is the water.

[SeeFive]

Bigends said:

Allowing them into the ground in an uncontrolled manner then allowing them into an already packed area was the contributory factor. Its not as if they fought and rioted their way into the ground was it. A crowd had formed which escalated into a crush, hence the gates were opened. All the fans did was squeeze their way into the central area not realising the consequences of what they were doing - there was no malice or intent to cause death or harm on their part. Police had a duty of care to get everybody into and out of the ground in a safe, controlled manner - they failed on this occasion. I policed league matches all over the uk for 27 odd years both on terraces and within control rooms - saw some piss poor Policing and decision making in relation to crowd control over the years.

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 27th April 17:02

So why was their entry out of control? If their behaviour was self-controlled, then there would have been no crush, and nothing formothers to control, just simply to guide them back and into another area of the ground.