Hillsborough Inquest

[ninja-lewis]

Red 4 said:

Thanks for clarifying the nonsense reported in the press.

Can I ask why you suspect any damages awarded by the court will be nominal ?

IANAL but I think the court would consider it to be not in the public interest to take money from SYP and WMP today. Given the scale of the allegations and number of families impacted, any true damages would be so enormous as to effectively bankrupt SYP. Anything other than nominal damages would be spread so thinly as to appear ridiculous hence symbolic damages only IMV.

SYP settled civil claims from the injured and bereaved (and police officers) in 1989 totalling £19.8m in 1989 terms. This happened pretty suddenly in the aftermath of Taylor's interim report and without SYP admitting any liability. This was funded by SYP's £8.5m PII cover, £1.5m contribution from SWFC, £1.5m from Eastwoods, £1.5m from Sheffield City Council and the remainder came out of SYP financial reserves and special payments from the Home Office.

Ultimately, I think this will mainly be about getting a complete admission of liability on the record, particularly where there was wrongdoing but not criminally so. A parallel process to the expected criminal prosecutions really.

Could be completely wrong of course.

[Red 4]

ninja-lewis said:

IANAL but I think the court would consider it to be not in the public interest to take money from SYP and WMP today. Given the scale of the allegations and number of families impacted, any true damages would be so enormous as to effectively bankrupt SYP. Anything other than nominal damages would be spread so thinly as to appear ridiculous hence symbolic damages only IMV.

SYP settled civil claims from the injured and bereaved (and police officers) in 1989 totalling £19.8m in 1989 terms. This happened pretty suddenly in the aftermath of Taylor's interim report and without SYP admitting any liability. This was funded by SYP's £8.5m PII cover, £1.5m contribution from SWFC, £1.5m from Eastwoods, £1.5m from Sheffield City Council and the remainder came out of SYP financial reserves and special payments from the Home Office.

Ultimately, I think this will mainly be about getting a complete admission of liability on the record, particularly where there was wrongdoing but not criminally so. A parallel process to the expected criminal prosecutions really.

Could be completely wrong of course.

Thanks for that. You're well informed !

I agree - a "fall back" in case there are no proceedings in the criminal courts.

A claim for damages in the civil courts (with a lower standard of proof).

Cheers.

[saaby93]

Speed 3 said:

The SYP are, however further culpable for what happened afterwards.

Thats what Ive been trying to get at with the lack of info around what Duckenfield actually said and the difference between inferred and lied thats come out

In the shambles that was going on afterwards did he say something like 'the fans rushed the gates'?
It would have been 'true' in that the fans were being pushed against the gates from fans behind. They were late. The kick off wasnt going to be delayed. The police opened the gates and the fans rushed through - nothing wrong with that just a turn of phrase.
He knew the gates were open, the police knew the gates were open and the fans knew the gates were open
However was the inference by commentators that he'd suggested the fans had rushed the gates while they were closed and it subsequently developed that he'd lied about the state of the gates?

Here's what he said again

beeb said:

"I said something rather hurriedly, without considering the position, without thinking of the consequences and the trauma, the heartache and distress that the inference would have caused to those people who were already in a deep state of shock, who were distressed. I apologise unreservedly to the families."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31821211

Is the 'inference' whats been described elsewhere as the 'lie'?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 28th April 20:45

[anonymous-user]

Mr Menon asks if he said to Mr Kelly that a gate had been forced.

He says: "Yes, I used words to that effect."

He says he doesn't recall that he said there had been an inrush of Liverpool fans.

He says he didn't tell Mr Kelly there had been any fatalities.

He says the first time he knew there were fatalities was when he saw bodies covered in tarpaulin as he walked back from a meeting in the directors' box.

Mr Menon refers to the evidence of Glen Kirton, from the FA.

He said Mr Duckenfield had said a gate had been forced.

Mr Duckenfield agrees.

[Speed 3]

saaby93 said:

Speed 3 said:

The SYP are, however further culpable for what happened afterwards.

Thats what Ive been trying to get at with the lack of info around what Duckenfield actually said and the difference between inferred and lied thats come out

In the shambles that was going on afterwards did he say something like 'the fans rushed the gates'?
It would have been 'true' in that the fans were being pushed against the gates from fans behind. They were late. The kick off wasnt going to be delayed. The police opened the gates and the fans rushed through - nothing wrong with that just a turn of phrase.
He knew the gates were open, the police knew the gates were open and the fans knew the gates were open
However was the inference by commentators that he'd suggested the fans had rushed the gates while they were closed and it subsequently developed that he'd lied about the state of the gates?

Here's what he said again

beeb said:

"I said something rather hurriedly, without considering the position, without thinking of the consequences and the trauma, the heartache and distress that the inference would have caused to those people who were already in a deep state of shock, who were distressed. I apologise unreservedly to the families."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31821211

Is the 'inference' whats been described elsewhere as the 'lie'?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 28th April 20:45

I was saying further culpable for what happened in the days, weeks, months and years afterwards rather than the minutes following the maelstrom as that was conspired rather than reactive. I should also include WMP in that phase as well. Whatever was said to the media could quite easily have been clarified/corrected within 24 hours. The police however went in the completely opposite direction of reinforcing their falsehoods.

[saaby93]

Speed 3 said:

saaby93 said:

Speed 3 said:

The SYP are, however further culpable for what happened afterwards.

Thats what Ive been trying to get at with the lack of info around what Duckenfield actually said and the difference between inferred and lied thats come out

In the shambles that was going on afterwards did he say something like 'the fans rushed the gates'?
It would have been 'true' in that the fans were being pushed against the gates from fans behind. They were late. The kick off wasnt going to be delayed. The police opened the gates and the fans rushed through - nothing wrong with that just a turn of phrase.
He knew the gates were open, the police knew the gates were open and the fans knew the gates were open
However was the inference by commentators that he'd suggested the fans had rushed the gates while they were closed and it subsequently developed that he'd lied about the state of the gates?

Here's what he said again

beeb said:

"I said something rather hurriedly, without considering the position, without thinking of the consequences and the trauma, the heartache and distress that the inference would have caused to those people who were already in a deep state of shock, who were distressed. I apologise unreservedly to the families."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31821211

Is the 'inference' whats been described elsewhere as the 'lie'?

I was saying further culpable for what happened in the days, weeks, months and years afterwards rather than the minutes following the maelstrom as that was conspired rather than reactive. I should also include WMP in that phase as well. Whatever was said to the media could quite easily have been clarified/corrected within 24 hours. The police however went in the completely opposite direction of reinforcing their falsehoods.

and this posted a couple pages back from the mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3557714/Po...

If you set aside the parts where the piece says the guy has lied, there is this section

mail said:

Mr Duckenfield on his lie that the fans had gained unauthorised access into the stadium through the gate - Christina Lambert QC, counsel to the inquests: 'One final point Mr Duckenfield. It might be said that people lie in order to obscure the true facts as understood. Was that the reason why you told this lie?
Answer: 'Ma'am , I don't know, but may I just say, if we're categorising things, that was a terrible lie, in that everybody knew the truth. The fans knew the truth, that we'd opened the gates, the police officers knew we'd opened the gates.'

Did he say something quickly which he knew as soon as he said it didn't quite line with what everyone knew including himself?
Or has he said one thing which has been subtly inferred has meaning something else?

Whichever it was, does it look as though what followed he could do little about. Once it had got legs it took everything in its path - until now?

I wasnt there - someone else fill in some gaps

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 28th April 21:08

[anonymous-user]

Saaby why don't you read the Inquest transcripts?
They are exhaustive and definitive.
All the answers are there.

There is also a website with all the evidence on it.

[saaby93]

desolate said:

Saaby why don't you read the Inquest transcripts?
They are exhaustive and definitive.
All the answers are there.

There is also a website with all the evidence on it.

That's all the stuff that led up to the verdict of gross negligence? ( and all the other issues around the ground)
Does it say about what happened next - what was the seed of misinformation that led from one thing to another - why it took all these years?

[Bigends]

Speed 3 said:

Steve Campbell said:

The Surveyor said:

The point is that people do push at public events, and they certainly did at Football matches back then, so the Police should have been ready for this, they weren't so people died.
You can't blame a crowd for behaving like a crowd.

Edited by The Surveyor on Thursday 28th April 18:12

The "role" of the "crowd" is an interesting one. The commentary on "pushing" from the back brings up images of unruly people deliberately "shoving". I can't talk for those at the back, I wasn't one of them...as to what they did.....but anyone who is interested should google around crowd dynamics, especially the phenomena of turbulence. Once a crowd reaches a certain density, small and relatively insignificant movements propagate high pressure waves through the crowd, resulting In significant movements of the crowd that are not the consequences of significant "shoving". If you watch the videos of the pens, you can see this. The problem with this phenomena in this circumstance was that the pressure wave had no where to go, and being on a sloped terrace, drove the crowd forward. As the crowd surged due to the dynamics, further people filled the space (whether they wanted to or not). I know this happened 3 or 4 times where I was located. I believe one of the commentaries talks of the pressure being like a constricting snake. This is the best description I have heard for those at the "ends" of those pressure waves where there was nowhere to go and the pressure just increased as the turbulence wave occurred.

PS I'm from Manchester, and have been a Liverpool fan all my life.

As for the crush outside, and taking it at the time, it was unbelievable. To give you an idea, at the time, I was a 22 year old, fit and healthy 6"1' man. I got trapped "between" the turnstiles against a wall. There was nothing I could do on my own. About 4 other blokes managed to ease the crush by bracing themselves against the wall which eased the pressure. I described entering the turnstile like a cork out of a bottle. The news at the time described fans "climbing" to get into the ground, in fact, they climbed to get out of the crush. There was at least 1 policeman on the roof helping them. The police had lost control by this time, with no mechanism of communicating with the crowd. Police horses got trapped within the crowd, some reports talked of the horses being lifted. I saw quite a few people ducking "between" the legs of the horses to prevent getting crushed against them !
As for opening the gate, at that given moment I personally think it was likely the only decision to prevent injury or death outside. At that point I was standing in front of the tunnel looking for my friends. When the door opened, I thought....oh, they've opened the gate to release the pressure outside, I better get into the ground ....that's when I turned to enter the tunnel.

Edited by Steve Campbell on Thursday 28th April 19:22

The most insightful and BS free post so far. Steve has grasped (largely after the events through research I'm assuming) the peculiar nature of fluid dynamics and that is exactly what a crowd is, same as a liquid or gas. It is often counter-intuitive and highly geared in its effects over distance and time (Boxing Day Tsunami being a great example).

I was at the QPR-West Ham FA Cup game just over a year before Hillsborough where the away end I was in overcrowded for various reasons. Thankfully in that case QPR didn't have us fenced in and we were able to spill onto the pitch to relieve the pressure but it was exactly as Steve described up to the point of relief. On that day the police were equally clueless. It could easily have had the same outcome.

I very much doubt whether any of the police in or outside Hillsborough understood the complex mechanics of what was going on. That should have been taken away from them beforehand in design, planning, monitoring and on-the-day process execution. In my view the cuplability is shared (given all the evidenced near misses and comparable experience beforehand) between SYP, SWFC and the FA. The ground was not fit for the purpose it was engaged in and plenty of people knew that beforehand. Each had their own reasons for not remedying that situation. The SYP are, however further culpable for what happened afterwards.

I was Policing league football then - there were no pre match safety briefings, no evacuation procedures - the pre match briefings related to how much trouble was expected, and procedures relating to arrests and ejections and to act firmly in the event of trouble.. We didnt have personal issue radios-just one per serial. The sections the supporters were segregated by were called bins. In the cases of overcrowding, crushes and trouble -all were expected to act on their own initiative until things were organised Massive changes were made following the Taylor report

Edited by Bigends on Thursday 28th April 21:25

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

That's all the stuff that led up to the verdict of gross negligence? ( and all the other issues around the ground)
Does it say about what happened next - what was the seed of misinformation that led from one thing to another - why it took all these years?

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

that is a useful resource

Summary: industrial scale lying by South Yorkshire Police. Doctored witness statements when necessary. Cosy follow up investigation reporting "there is nothing to see here" by West Midlands Police.

Dishonorable mentions to the local Tory MP and a tame local press agent.


Edited to add: start reading, use a bit of google and you will find it all for yourself and you can make your own mind up.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 28th April 21:27

[carinaman]

If Crompton wasn't in charge when the industrial scale child sexual abuse was happening in Rotherham he should finger the Common Purpose Space Lizards at the Council that used public money to seek an injunction to try to stop The Times reporting what was going on.

What's the difference between The Sun running with the line that it was those drunken, scouse pickpockets that were responsible for Hillsborough and the Council in Rotherham seeking an injunction to try to stop The Times revealing industrial scale sexual abuse of children in Rotherham?

Was that former police officer, now a peer Deer on Radio 4 this morning or Peter Neyroud former head of the NPIA saying there used to be systems in place so as the good people were in place, with good people promoted to ensure a decent police organisation but that seemed to stop four years ago?

That there's a lack of decent police officers that can be promoted into place could have something to do with going on training courses run by Common Purpose Space Lizards and social engineering and positive discrimination schemes?

What percentage of the Direct Entry Superintendents are messing around on official police FaceBook and Twitter profiles?

Those two CCTV video tapes going missing from a locked stadium control room overnight with a guard stood outside? That'll be the criminal genius of drunken, scouse pickpockets that will.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 28th April 21:28

[XCP]

I used to police football 1980 -88, with an occasional match later than that if I could not avoid it.
I found it a horrible experience in the main. Used to finish covered in spittle. Previous poster is quite right about the briefings though.

[anonymous-user]

XCP said:

I used to police football 1980 -88, with an occasional match later than that if I could not avoid it.
I found it a horrible experience in the main. Used to finish covered in spittle. Previous poster is quite right about the briefings though.

It was a bit of a war zone - I used to go to football at the same time, kept my head down and never spat at anyone. Got treated like a terrorist by the police.

[carinaman]

desolate said:

saaby93 said:

That's all the stuff that led up to the verdict of gross negligence? ( and all the other issues around the ground)
Does it say about what happened next - what was the seed of misinformation that led from one thing to another - why it took all these years?

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

that is a useful resource

Summary: industrial scale lying by South Yorkshire Police. Doctored witness statements when necessary. Cosy follow up investigation reporting "there is nothing to see here" by West Midlands Police.

Dishonorable mentions to the local Tory MP and a tame local press agent.


Edited to add: start reading, use a bit of google and you will find it all for yourself and you can make your own mind up.

That local reporter Westerdale that was on Radio 4 on Weds. afternoon was good.

That poor 52 year old woman in the Daily Mail today that was ordered by a Sergeant three times to change her statement when she was at Hillsborough as a Special Constable should sue their sorry bottoms off.

A female Sergeant ordering a female Special Constable to alter her statement so it didn't say the young man died in her arms at 16.00? So much for women making better Coppers and positive discrimination. Heartless.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 28th April 21:43

[XCP]

desolate said:

It was a bit of a war zone - I used to go to football at the same time, kept my head down and never spat at anyone. Got treated like a terrorist by the police.

We used to treat supporters like sheep. Herded from place to place with horses and dogs. Shops and pubs boarded up. Appalling.

[williamp]

XCP said:

I used to police football 1980 -88, with an occasional match later than that if I could not avoid it.
I found it a horrible experience in the main. Used to finish covered in spittle. Previous poster is quite right about the briefings though.

I sometimes wonder if the actions of the police that day was different towards the Liverpool fans, and maybe it was because the jury decision on the Liverpool fans at the Heysel disaster was due that month (10 days after, I think and they were found guilty). The police might have expected more trouble then normal, and decided to act differently

[saaby93]

carinaman said:

Those two CCTV video tapes going missing from a locked stadium control room overnight with a guard stood outside? That'll be the criminal genius of drunken, scouse pickpockets that will.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Surveyor said:

The point is that people do push at public events, and they certainly did at Football matches back then, so the Police should have been ready for this, they weren't so people died.

You can't blame a crowd for behaving like a crowd.

Edited by The Surveyor on Thursday 28th April 18:12

I think you can because we all knew it was wrong. It happened every week, it was almost cultural. Except culture is a difficult thing to change yet the behaviour whilst queuing up to get into grounds changed virtually overnight. Crushes outside grounds were a weekly occurrence, some frightening, some not so much, but I can honestly say the last one I recall was 15/4/89, the day of Hillsborough, when my team were playing at Leicester. The following week, it had stopped. Sure, it can get a bit congested at a big match waiting to get in, and you might get mildly jostled, but nothing like what happened every week back then.

[Red 4]

XCP said:

We used to treat supporters like sheep. Herded from place to place with horses and dogs. Shops and pubs boarded up. Appalling.

That style of policing was not just confined to the 80's.

I can remember it up until the late 90's (not so much the boarded up shops, but escorting fans with horses and dogs).

The fans didn't like the dogs. The dogs didn't like the fans.

The dogs didn't like anyone, come to think of it.

[XCP]

Red 4 said:

XCP said:

We used to treat supporters like sheep. Herded from place to place with horses and dogs. Shops and pubs boarded up. Appalling.

That style of policing was not just confined to the 80's.

I can remember it up until the late 90's (not so much the boarded up shops, but escorting fans with horses and dogs).

The fans didn't like the dogs. The dogs didn't like the fans.

The dogs didn't like anyone, come to think of it.

The bloody horses used to scare the carp out of me. And I agree with your observations about the dogs.