Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
johnxjsc1985 said:
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.He's saying that if they had arrived earlier and behaved, it wouldn't have happened. Very different.
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.
Are you suggesting that enquiries never get it wrong? I am reporting you as I am deeply offended by that as I have had a close friend on the rough end of a dodgy enquiry. Stupid attitude. Just debate the issues.
Yes, the turnstiles were slow and the fans were delayed. But does that make the awful scenes we saw ok - essentially caused by the police failing to control a pushing mob in my "not to be taken offence to" opinion.
walm said:
SeeFive said:
If the fans outside hadn't pressed and pushed impatiently against the people at the turnstiles and those already inside in their "panic" to see their game, there would have been no need for any crowd management.
Essentially you are still making the "if they weren't there it wouldn't have happened" argument.Part of the job of the ground and the police is to ensure the safety of the people under their care.
If those people behave perfectly legally and in a completely predictable fashion, and end up dying, then the ground and/or the police are responsible 100%.
You can't be blamed if you have done nothing illegal in my eyes.
Absolutely there was need for crowd management AND a moral responsibility - that's the whole point.
TTwiggy said:
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!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.
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 a
hole 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.SeeFive said:
No. Once again, I am saying that if the people at the back were not creating a problem by pushing and shoving, then there would have been no situation for the authorities to screw up at the turnstiles or inside the ground.
But you are setting up your dominos to suit your own interpretation of events.Add a further domino at the beginning of your line and call it "loss of control by the police".
The sequence of events does not begin with pushing and shoving.
SeeFive 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?
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.gooner1 said:
SeeFive 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?
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.iSore said:
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.
But it's not illegal or morally wrong or somehow blame-worthy to turn up late to something, is it?
And as far as "behaviour" is concerned, again you would expect them to be relatively rowdy and do some pushing and jostling.
You can't have an unrealistic expectation for that behaviour.
As Jockman points out above, selling these guys tickets and letting them into your grounds involves a duty of care.
Part of that duty is to analyse what crowds tend to do.
Rioting is NOT expected but expecting them to turn up in droves 30mins before kick-off rather than at the last minute is just wrong!
SeeFive said:
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.
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.Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 27th April 17:02
Jockman said:
But you are setting up your dominos to suit your own interpretation of events.
Add a further domino at the beginning of your line and call it "loss of control by the police".
The sequence of events does not begin with pushing and shoving.
Really. Ok then. So how did the crush happen if people did not stop pressing when someone else was in the way? I appreciate that this is sensitive but do you think that someone else got behind the fans and pushed them against their fellow fans and would not back off?Add a further domino at the beginning of your line and call it "loss of control by the police".
The sequence of events does not begin with pushing and shoving.
Bigends said:
How many football matches have you been to? Have you seen how crowds behave? I never said they were out of control - merely uncontrolled
Lots. And with Liverpool involved. And in the old Kop with the crush and release as events on the pitch unfold. Great fun, but it was clear what could happen. Rule 1. Never take a kid to the bottom of the Kop. It is normal behaviour. It was an accident looking for a place to happen. There were less severe incidents at Hillsborough previous years.
Next question? Perhaps your experiences of peaceful, non crushing, standing football crowds being really cool waiting patiently outside while the game is close to kickoff - until the old bill get involved?
Try answering this. Did the police open gate C just because they wanted to get these orderly fans inside quickly to watch their game? Or was there a more pressing reason? Just ask yourself that, given that all cops hated all football supporters according to this thread.
ETA. First game, Chelsea vs Newcastle in 1968 at Stamford Bridge. 1-1 draw IiRC.
Edited by SeeFive on Wednesday 27th April 18:35
desolate said:
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.This contradicted his apology made in 2012.
paulrockliffe said:
V8 Fettler said:
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.
I think that probably arises out of the conduct of the Police, but obviously the media can run whatever headlines they prefer. I've copied the questions asked of the jury and the answers below that identify failings of others other than the police, I don't think it's just the Police that are on the hook still.Inquest said:
Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the disaster? Verdict: YES
Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster? Verdict: YES
Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday and its staff in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on April 15, 1989, which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Verdict: YES
Should Eastwood and Partners (structural engineers) have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough Stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster? Verdict: YES
After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Verdict: YES
Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster? Verdict: YES
Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday and its staff in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on April 15, 1989, which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Verdict: YES
Should Eastwood and Partners (structural engineers) have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough Stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster? Verdict: YES
After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Verdict: YES
The CPS (and the HSE) will be lining up the various organisations in order of size and resilience.
SeeFive said:
desolate said:
That's not what the judgement says.
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.
k me, what a spaz. The longest inquiry in British Legal history, 27 years after the event, with clear evidence of wrongdoing and cover up, and you STILL fking think it is the fans fault. Do one pal;
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff