Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
".....but the tragic event itself appears an unfortunate accident."
I disagree & so does the inquest. The senior officer in charge that day did no pre-work for the job on the day ...how to properly police the ground on such an occasion was documented & it was his job to know. He never read it, even though he'd never been to the ground for 10 years and had not been in charge of such an event before, so he was negligent in his duties from the start. From the evidence he appears to have turned up and "winged it". This was then compounded when things started to go wrong and he had no clue on the consequences of his actions, nor what sequence of decisions were required ( eg open the gate, close the tunnel). All of this was known, and as the senior officer, it was his job to know and manage accordingly. That was his duty of care.
Let me try and put it another way, consider you are given a very important job at your work, it requires you to manage a situation you have never done before...and peoples lives are at stake with regards to safety. Previous times this job was done, there have been well documented near misses with regards to safety. You do no preparation, you don't consult other people who have done it, you don't read the existing plans for how to do it, and you don't know the location that the job takes place as you haven't been near the place for 10 years. You turn up and just get on with it. It goes wrong and someone dies. Do you think the HSE would prosecute you or just consider it an unfortunate accident ?
The whole thing was of course compounded with multiple contributing factors, eg fans arriving late, bad ground design, no safety certificate linked to changes to barriers etc
I disagree & so does the inquest. The senior officer in charge that day did no pre-work for the job on the day ...how to properly police the ground on such an occasion was documented & it was his job to know. He never read it, even though he'd never been to the ground for 10 years and had not been in charge of such an event before, so he was negligent in his duties from the start. From the evidence he appears to have turned up and "winged it". This was then compounded when things started to go wrong and he had no clue on the consequences of his actions, nor what sequence of decisions were required ( eg open the gate, close the tunnel). All of this was known, and as the senior officer, it was his job to know and manage accordingly. That was his duty of care.
Let me try and put it another way, consider you are given a very important job at your work, it requires you to manage a situation you have never done before...and peoples lives are at stake with regards to safety. Previous times this job was done, there have been well documented near misses with regards to safety. You do no preparation, you don't consult other people who have done it, you don't read the existing plans for how to do it, and you don't know the location that the job takes place as you haven't been near the place for 10 years. You turn up and just get on with it. It goes wrong and someone dies. Do you think the HSE would prosecute you or just consider it an unfortunate accident ?
The whole thing was of course compounded with multiple contributing factors, eg fans arriving late, bad ground design, no safety certificate linked to changes to barriers etc
SeeFive said:
And I still do. Twig has added some of his insight to what I experienced at games at the time,
I'm not seeking to be emotive, or to insult anyone's memory, but trying, in a polite and objective way, to tell what I experienced week in week out.And as a Chelsea supporter, I followed an unsuccessful team with a moderate away support. A better away support than the team deserved much of the time! I never got to go to cup semi finals and the like, those dizzy heights were well beyond us back then. A successful club like Liverpool had huge support, so the crushes to get in before kick off would have been worse much of the time, as the numbers were greater.
As Derek said, if there was no bad behaviour from a section of the fans on the day, no drunkenness, no pushing, no aggression, then this was a very odd football crowd. Not like any I would have known back then.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Thanks for that Twig.Very interesting.
Thanks for your honesty.
walm said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Thanks for that Twig.Very interesting.
Thanks for your honesty.
There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Last year my son (19 then) and I went to the Chelsea v Liverpool League cup semi at the Bridge on a weds eve. There were issues on the tube so we arrived at Fulham Broadway about 5 mins before kick off. Thousands of fans, of both clubs. We walked to the ground together, Chelsea and Liverpool fans, chatting to each other, moaning about the trains and saying how were going to miss k.o.
There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
I've been chastised for saying this, but do you thing the events of Hillsborough have contributed to this?There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
walm said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Thanks for that Twig.Very interesting.
Thanks for your honesty.
My wife and I returned from a London function in February this year. Sunday morning, Euston station, loads of trains arriving with Liverpool fans on them. Police escort, having banter with each other. The noise was tremendous and people moved out of the way. Very, very intimidating. I just waved at the ones I knew. Some of them were customers from Bala in North Wales.
iSore said:
55palfers said:
Now SYP have been proven to be unreliable witnesses, how long will it before all those miners go back to court appealing Police evidence?
Lawyers everywhere are thinking just this! It's in the cards I reckon. I wonder where it will all end?saaby93 said:
55palfers said:
Now SYP have been proven to be unreliable witnesses,?
Is this true - on how many levels?Didnt around 200 SYP come forward to say what had happened in front of them that day
"
Hillsborough disaster verdict: Police and survivors call for criminal action over altered testimonies
'Call me an old fashioned bobby, but that is criminal,' says officer whose statement was changed "
iSore said:
I've been chastised for saying this, but do you thing the events of Hillsborough have contributed to this?
You were "chastised" for making a joke about it.Yes the events at Hillsborough directly led to a chain of events resulting in all seater stadiums.
there are also other changes within football that have led to changes in behaviour, although I was at the UTD V Liverpool european game and that was like going back to the mid 80s.
55palfers said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hil...
"
Hillsborough disaster verdict: Police and survivors call for criminal action over altered testimonies
'Call me an old fashioned bobby, but that is criminal,' says officer whose statement was changed "
I think it would be a good idea to set up some sort of amnesty."
Hillsborough disaster verdict: Police and survivors call for criminal action over altered testimonies
'Call me an old fashioned bobby, but that is criminal,' says officer whose statement was changed "
Steve Campbell said:
".....but the tragic event itself appears an unfortunate accident."
I disagree & so does the inquest. The senior officer in charge that day did no pre-work for the job on the day ...how to properly police the ground on such an occasion was documented & it was his job to know. He never read it, even though he'd never been to the ground for 10 years and had not been in charge of such an event before, so he was negligent in his duties from the start. From the evidence he appears to have turned up and "winged it". This was then compounded when things started to go wrong and he had no clue on the consequences of his actions, nor what sequence of decisions were required ( eg open the gate, close the tunnel). All of this was known, and as the senior officer, it was his job to know and manage accordingly. That was his duty of care.
Let me try and put it another way, consider you are given a very important job at your work, it requires you to manage a situation you have never done before...and peoples lives are at stake with regards to safety. Previous times this job was done, there have been well documented near misses with regards to safety. You do no preparation, you don't consult other people who have done it, you don't read the existing plans for how to do it, and you don't know the location that the job takes place as you haven't been near the place for 10 years. You turn up and just get on with it. It goes wrong and someone dies. Do you think the HSE would prosecute you or just consider it an unfortunate accident ?
The whole thing was of course compounded with multiple contributing factors, eg fans arriving late, bad ground design, no safety certificate linked to changes to barriers etc
Great post along with your others. This is the sort of measured input that's needed, not some of the tone this situation is resulting in.I disagree & so does the inquest. The senior officer in charge that day did no pre-work for the job on the day ...how to properly police the ground on such an occasion was documented & it was his job to know. He never read it, even though he'd never been to the ground for 10 years and had not been in charge of such an event before, so he was negligent in his duties from the start. From the evidence he appears to have turned up and "winged it". This was then compounded when things started to go wrong and he had no clue on the consequences of his actions, nor what sequence of decisions were required ( eg open the gate, close the tunnel). All of this was known, and as the senior officer, it was his job to know and manage accordingly. That was his duty of care.
Let me try and put it another way, consider you are given a very important job at your work, it requires you to manage a situation you have never done before...and peoples lives are at stake with regards to safety. Previous times this job was done, there have been well documented near misses with regards to safety. You do no preparation, you don't consult other people who have done it, you don't read the existing plans for how to do it, and you don't know the location that the job takes place as you haven't been near the place for 10 years. You turn up and just get on with it. It goes wrong and someone dies. Do you think the HSE would prosecute you or just consider it an unfortunate accident ?
The whole thing was of course compounded with multiple contributing factors, eg fans arriving late, bad ground design, no safety certificate linked to changes to barriers etc
XCP said:
We used to treat supporters like sheep. Herded from place to place with horses and dogs. Shops and pubs boarded up. Appalling.
To be honest, with the way football fans (not just Liverpool fans) had behaved over the preceding few years I'm personally not really surprised. After incidents like those leading up to English clubs being banned from Europe, I can't even begin to think how you would go about trying to control that sort of thing and can imagine that the focus from the authorities was weighted more to preventing that than anything else.This is not to excuse anything, but it has to be another compounding factor.
Let's hope the final push to getting justice and closure is measured, the right thing is done and everyone can move forwards positively. I'm doubtful this will happen though.
iSore said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Last year my son (19 then) and I went to the Chelsea v Liverpool League cup semi at the Bridge on a weds eve. There were issues on the tube so we arrived at Fulham Broadway about 5 mins before kick off. Thousands of fans, of both clubs. We walked to the ground together, Chelsea and Liverpool fans, chatting to each other, moaning about the trains and saying how were going to miss k.o.
There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
I've been chastised for saying this, but do you thing the events of Hillsborough have contributed to this?There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
iSore said:
55palfers said:
Now SYP have been proven to be unreliable witnesses, how long will it before all those miners go back to court appealing Police evidence?
Lawyers everywhere are thinking just this! It's in the cards I reckon. I wonder where it will all end?AstonZagato said:
There was a long article on the Today programme on R4 with a female campaigner (lawyer?) claiming that the miners were all fitted up during the Battle of Orgreave.
SYP have paid significant amounts of compensation relating to this.However The Miner's Strike is up there with Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine when it comes to arguments getting out of hand so may be best to save that debate for another thread!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
iSore said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Last year my son (19 then) and I went to the Chelsea v Liverpool League cup semi at the Bridge on a weds eve. There were issues on the tube so we arrived at Fulham Broadway about 5 mins before kick off. Thousands of fans, of both clubs. We walked to the ground together, Chelsea and Liverpool fans, chatting to each other, moaning about the trains and saying how were going to miss k.o.
There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
I've been chastised for saying this, but do you thing the events of Hillsborough have contributed to this?There was no hint of trouble. We went our separate ways at the stadium and my lad and I stood in a long queue to get in, finally getting in 15 mins late. No pushing, no shoving, no aggression. A couple of police were in close proximity, standing there with nothing to do.
The events of the 70s and 80s seem like a lifetime away. And with my own son going home and away to matches, I'm mightily glad of it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
SeeFive said:
And I still do. Twig has added some of his insight to what I experienced at games at the time,
I'm not seeking to be emotive, or to insult anyone's memory, but trying, in a polite and objective way, to tell what I experienced week in week out.And as a Chelsea supporter, I followed an unsuccessful team with a moderate away support. A better away support than the team deserved much of the time! I never got to go to cup semi finals and the like, those dizzy heights were well beyond us back then. A successful club like Liverpool had huge support, so the crushes to get in before kick off would have been worse much of the time, as the numbers were greater.
As Derek said, if there was no bad behaviour from a section of the fans on the day, no drunkenness, no pushing, no aggression, then this was a very odd football crowd. Not like any I would have known back then.
All of which is 100% true.
However, I'm not sure that is 100% of the truth.
Edited by AstonZagato on Friday 29th April 11:38
AstonZagato said:
We seem to be having a "Diana moment" where logical debate on the issue is not possible because the whole thing is too emotional. All anyone currently wants to hear is that the police were negligent; that the Liverpool fans who died were blameless; that the police covered up their negligence; and that the press willingly disseminated those lies.
All of which is 100% true.
However, I'm not sure that is 100% of the truth.
There were a couple of posters who took the piss and got a reaction but I would say in general the debate on here has been pretty level.All of which is 100% true.
However, I'm not sure that is 100% of the truth.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 29th April 11:38
The verdict covers more than you state so you are correct that the points you raise arent 100% of the matter.
Certain people seem to have difficulty with the findings that the people attending the match as spectators do not share any of the blame.
So far the Taylor report, the report of the independent panel and now the longest and most expensive inquest in British history have found that do not share any of the blame.
So my question regarding that would be:
Do the people arguing the fans must share part of the blame have some sort of an agenda?
What is it that they know that the reports/inquests mentioned above don't know?
Is the verdict of the jury faulty and if so do you expect there to be an appeal?
55palfers said:
saaby93 said:
55palfers said:
Now SYP have been proven to be unreliable witnesses,?
Is this true - on how many levels?Didnt around 200 SYP come forward to say what had happened in front of them that day
"
Hillsborough disaster verdict: Police and survivors call for criminal action over altered testimonies
'Call me an old fashioned bobby, but that is criminal,' says officer whose statement was changed "
I put (all of) in brackets as your post implied it was all of SYP whereas you may have meant just a few bits of SYP.
Ive previously mentioned stretching where one thing is said, something else is inferred and before you know it theres a whole bandwagon off on something that wasnt there.
How many years has it taken to unpick?
It looks like thats what may have happened to Duckensfield too
Anyone want to be police commander at a footie match?
However it has to be said that when all the whole in the cheese lined up to produce this tragic event, a number of changes were put in place and people began acting differently.
Today normal people can feel as though they can safely go to a game. Out of adversity comes whatever
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 29th April 11:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff