Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
saaby93 said:
ok thats not (all of) SYP thats some people in SYP as you have other people in SYP who have had their testimonies altered and there are other members of SYP not involved in this at all.
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?
I am very wary of asking you a question but here goes: are you suggesting that Duckenfield didn't in fact lie, but what he did was say something "incorrect" and that a "bandwagon" started rolling?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?
desolate said:
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 AstonZagato 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?
What is it that they know that the reports/inquests mentioned above don't know? Common Sense - People would not have died without a crowd, or a cage. Why was there a cage? Because of the behaviour of fans 'as a group' How can fans, as a group not have a part to play?
Is the verdict of the jury faulty and if so do you expect there to be an appeal? I think it is in part. Zero chance of appeal though. Liverpool supporters have the verdict they want, and the authorities want it all to go away.
desolate said:
I am very wary of asking you a question but here goes: are you suggesting that Duckenfield didn't in fact lie, but what he did was say something "incorrect" and that a "bandwagon" started rolling?
It does depend on different peoples take on what is meant by lie, but when you look at the wording of the inquest interchanges it can look that way.If he'd said what he did in a slightly different way, what he refers to as inference and the continued lie accusation wouldn't have been there and who knows maybe all the other stuff that followed too.
It's bad enough in these forums where you can say one thing and someone comes back at you having read something into it you hadnt thought of
desolate said:
So my questions 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?
Careful, that Oakapple bloke doesn't like people asking questions.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?
surveyor said:
Do the people arguing the fans must share part of the blame have some sort of an agenda? - I don't, but I don't think we have the full story which is a shame.
What is it that they know that the reports/inquests mentioned above don't know? Common Sense - People would not have died without a crowd, or a cage. Why was there a cage? Because of the behaviour of fans 'as a group' How can fans, as a group not have a part to play?
Is the verdict of the jury faulty and if so do you expect there to be an appeal? I think it is in part. Zero chance of appeal though. Liverpool supporters have the verdict they want, and the authorities want it all to go away.
OK - This will become a circular argument so I'll say this and then leave itWhat is it that they know that the reports/inquests mentioned above don't know? Common Sense - People would not have died without a crowd, or a cage. Why was there a cage? Because of the behaviour of fans 'as a group' How can fans, as a group not have a part to play?
Is the verdict of the jury faulty and if so do you expect there to be an appeal? I think it is in part. Zero chance of appeal though. Liverpool supporters have the verdict they want, and the authorities want it all to go away.
you can have a "part to play" in an incident without being at fault. think of a car crash as an analogy. you can be parked up somewhere and smashed to smitherines. even if you were stationary on a blind bend it is entirely possible that you are not to blame if you were there for a good reason.
You also seem to imply that despite a faulty verdict there is cover up mark 2 on the go as it is now convenient for all parties.
I am not sure Duckenfield's legal team would agree and given the gravity of the verdict what would reason would they have not to push for judicial review?
Turquoise said:
desolate said:
So my questions 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?
Careful, that Oakapple bloke doesn't like people asking questions.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?
vs
The way fans were acting and being treated generally which led to the style of policing the pens response by fans and police and anything else you'd care to throw in i.e the mess that is now sorted
saaby93 said:
desolate said:
I am very wary of asking you a question but here goes: are you suggesting that Duckenfield didn't in fact lie, but what he did was say something "incorrect" and that a "bandwagon" started rolling?
It does depend on different peoples take on what is meant by lie, but when you look at the wording of the inquest interchanges it can look that way.If he'd said what he did in a slightly different way, what he refers to as inference and the continued lie accusation wouldn't have been there and who knows maybe all the other stuff that followed too.
It's bad enough in these forums where you can say one thing and someone comes back at you having read something into it you hadnt thought of
gooner1 said:
Ok, what is your definition of a "lie".
Nothing to do with my use, it's all about how some other people have used itIt feels like it's ground hog day
Go back about 5 pages where we went through what may have been said (there is no transcript of the day) and use of the word infer and why the inference may have led to commentators use of lie.
saaby93 said:
youre mixing up 'fans in the circumstance on the day' to which the Jury apportioned no blame
vs
The way fans were acting and being treated generally which led to the style of policing the pens response by fans and police and anything else you'd care to throw in i.e the mess that is now sorted
I am not mixing anything up.vs
The way fans were acting and being treated generally which led to the style of policing the pens response by fans and police and anything else you'd care to throw in i.e the mess that is now sorted
My position is quite clear the general relationship of fans and policing and attendance at football matches adds the context against which the events of the day are judged.
After 25 years of lies, and multi millions of pounds spent on investigations, reports and inquests all parties have been "judged" in open court and with the full glare of publicity. Nobody can say they weren't given a fair crack of the whip this time.
saaby93 said:
Nothing to do with my use, it's all about how some other people have used it
It feels like it's ground hog day
Go back about 5 pages where we went through what may have been said (there is no transcript of the day) and use of the word infer and why the inference may have led to commentators use of lie.
Are you prepared to accept a transcript of what was said in court as substantive evidence that Duckenfield lied?It feels like it's ground hog day
Go back about 5 pages where we went through what may have been said (there is no transcript of the day) and use of the word infer and why the inference may have led to commentators use of lie.
desolate said:
I am not mixing anything up.
My position is quite clear the general relationship of fans and policing and attendance at football matches adds the context against which the events of the day are judged.
After 25 years of lies, and multi millions of pounds spent on investigations, reports and inquests all parties have been "judged" in open court and with the full glare of publicity. Nobody can say they weren't given a fair crack of the whip this time.
Sometimes I think you speak a different language to me!My position is quite clear the general relationship of fans and policing and attendance at football matches adds the context against which the events of the day are judged.
After 25 years of lies, and multi millions of pounds spent on investigations, reports and inquests all parties have been "judged" in open court and with the full glare of publicity. Nobody can say they weren't given a fair crack of the whip this time.
Who said anyone wasnt give a fair crack of the whip? - wasnt me
Ive said it before but you keep arguing against what you think someone has said, when they havent
Unless its not me youre talking about but someone else
desolate said:
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?
I have no agenda. I just think it's a shame when history gets re-written or aspects get airbrushed to make the story more palatable. 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?
I actually think it's healthy that fans should accept a proportion of the blame. All fans. Fans of my generation (I'm in my early 50s) SHOULD be ashamed of the events that led to Hillsborough. They shouldn't be allowed to think it was nothing to do with them, and it happened in splendid isolation from their weekly activities. And younger fans should know the whole truth, to make sure they never repeat the same mistakes.
La Liga said:
Some other stuff and ...
Should he have taken control? A higher rank doesn't mean greater suitability at specific command structures i.e. football. Plenty of ACPO officers have not gone down the route of football commanding. Who knows? Even if he should have it doesn't void what I've said.
Liga - I don't want this to descend into a points scoring contest but if you want to educate yourself then you'll need to read the numerous reports on Hillsborough.Should he have taken control? A higher rank doesn't mean greater suitability at specific command structures i.e. football. Plenty of ACPO officers have not gone down the route of football commanding. Who knows? Even if he should have it doesn't void what I've said.
Clearly, you haven't done this so far or you would not have made some of the comments you have.
As far as ACC Jackson's involvement goes, this was what was said to The Taylor inquiry in 1989;
"Assistant Chief Constable Jackson, who was present at the semi-final in plain clothes and who occupied a seat in the directors box, appears to have been something of a shadowy figure during the course of the day.
Even when he was fully aware of the disaster, it does not appear that he made any positive or purposeful contribution to the policing of the operation.
Although not in uniform, his rank and authority could, in my view, have been used to greater effect".
Not exactly a glowing reference ...... Senior Officers at South Yorkshire Police have infuriated Judges in the past and have been accused (by Judges) of trying to avoid all responsibility/ accountability.
There's lots of reading available ......
I'll agree that South Yorkshire Police were not entirely incompetent though - it takes great imagination and organisational skills to tell such a pack of lies.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 29th April 12:36
saaby93 said:
ometimes I think you speak a different language to me!
Who said anyone wasnt give a fair crack of the whip? - wasnt me
I speak English, although it is sometimes difficult to communicate fully in a plain text discussion. Who said anyone wasnt give a fair crack of the whip? - wasnt me
I think it is perfectly fair that in my apparently futile attempts to try and understand the points you are making that I to try to make inferences as to what your statements mean.
here is what Duckenfield said himself at the inquest - these are from contemporaneous notes made by a journalist at the inquest. I am not aware that the veracity of these notes has been questioned. The full transcript of EXACTLY what was said is available online should you wish to read it.
desolate said:
Mr Menon asks if he said to Mr Kelly that a gate had been forced.
He says: "Yes, I used words to that effect."
...
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.
He says: "Yes, I used words to that effect."
...
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.
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
Some other stuff and ...
Should he have taken control? A higher rank doesn't mean greater suitability at specific command structures i.e. football. Plenty of ACPO officers have not gone down the route of football commanding. Who knows? Even if he should have it doesn't void what I've said.
Liga - I don't want this to descend into a points scoring contest but if you want to educate yourself then you'll need to read the numerous reports on Hillsborough.Should he have taken control? A higher rank doesn't mean greater suitability at specific command structures i.e. football. Plenty of ACPO officers have not gone down the route of football commanding. Who knows? Even if he should have it doesn't void what I've said.
Clearly, you haven't done this so far or you would not have made some of the comments you have.
As far as ACC Jackson's involvement goes, this was what was said to The Taylor inquiry in 1989;
"Assistant Chief Constable Jackson, who was present at the semi-final in plain clothes and who occupied a seat in the directors box, appears to have been something of a shadowy figure during the course of the day.
Even when he was fully aware of the disaster, it does not appear that he made any positive or purposeful contribution to the policing of the operation.
Although not in uniform, his rank and authority could, in my view, have been used to greater effect".
Not exactly a glowing reference ...... Senior Officers at South Yorkshire Police have infuriated Judges in the past and have been accused (by Judges) of trying to avoid all responsibility/ accountability.
There's lots of reading available ......
I'll agree that South Yorkshire Police were not entirely incompetent though - it takes great imagination and organisational skills to tell such a pack of lies.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 29th April 12:36
I'm sorry to say but I cannot see now no blame whatsoever can be attributed to the fans.
You can argue poor policing, poor stadium design, predictability and crowd flow dynamics or whatever, but at the end of the day it was people trying to force their way in when there wasn't room that caused the tragic result.
However, nothing but absolution would have ever satisfied the campaigners and the jurors no doubt suffered a decree of indirect political and emotional pressure to reach that conclusion. Doing so at least puts the matter to bed, be it right or wrong.
You can argue poor policing, poor stadium design, predictability and crowd flow dynamics or whatever, but at the end of the day it was people trying to force their way in when there wasn't room that caused the tragic result.
However, nothing but absolution would have ever satisfied the campaigners and the jurors no doubt suffered a decree of indirect political and emotional pressure to reach that conclusion. Doing so at least puts the matter to bed, be it right or wrong.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 29th April 12:44
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have no agenda. I just think it's a shame when history gets re-written or aspects get airbrushed to make the story more palatable.
I actually think it's healthy that fans should accept a proportion of the blame. All fans. Fans of my generation (I'm in my early 50s) SHOULD be ashamed of the events that led to Hillsborough. They shouldn't be allowed to think it was nothing to do with them, and it happened in splendid isolation from their weekly activities. And younger fans should know the whole truth, to make sure they never repeat the same mistakes.
On the first point: history has been re-written, in public over two years. The behaviour of the fans has not been air brushed. It has been fully exposed - it's on video and there are hundreds and hundreds of statements available for anyone to read. It is all there. Nothing left out.I actually think it's healthy that fans should accept a proportion of the blame. All fans. Fans of my generation (I'm in my early 50s) SHOULD be ashamed of the events that led to Hillsborough. They shouldn't be allowed to think it was nothing to do with them, and it happened in splendid isolation from their weekly activities. And younger fans should know the whole truth, to make sure they never repeat the same mistakes.
The coroner has a massively expensive and well qualified legal team supporting him. He himself is an eminent lawyer. He has the power to preclude the jury from reaching what he thinks is an "unsafe" verdict. (I have a connection with a completely seperate controversial inquest and the coroner REFUSED To allow a verdict that included unlawful killing.
So in summary - everyone has said their piece and it is all out there if anyone wants to look beyond the headlines. Warts and all.
On the second point I would agree, context is important. I would add that the police and the authorities should take their share of the blame for the historical context.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I'm sorry to say but I cannot see now no blame whatsoever can be attributed to the fans.
You can argue poor policing, poor stadium design, predictability and crowd flow dynamics or whatever, but at the end of the day it was people trying to force their way in when there wasn't room that caused the tragic result.
However, nothing but absolution would have ever satisfied the campaigners and the jurors no doubt suffered a decree of indirect political and emotional pressure to reach that conclusion. Doing so at least puts the matter to bed, be it right or wrong.
And the coroner?You can argue poor policing, poor stadium design, predictability and crowd flow dynamics or whatever, but at the end of the day it was people trying to force their way in when there wasn't room that caused the tragic result.
However, nothing but absolution would have ever satisfied the campaigners and the jurors no doubt suffered a decree of indirect political and emotional pressure to reach that conclusion. Doing so at least puts the matter to bed, be it right or wrong.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 29th April 12:44
saaby93 said:
Go back about 5 pages where we went through what may have been said (there is no transcript of the day) and use of the word infer and why the inference may have led to commentators use of lie.
saaby I am not sure why you are insisting on defending what Duckenfield himself has admitted (finally) was a complete lie.It's absolutely black and white, there is no "inference" required.
This is from here: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...
Page 4.
“At about 3.15pm Mr Graham Kelly, Chief Executive of the FA, Mr Kirton also of the FA and Mr Graham Mackrell, Secretary of Sheffield Wednesday, went to the control room for information. Mr Duckenfield told them he thought there were fatalities and the game was likely to be abandoned. He also said a gate had been forced and there had been an inrush of Liverpool supporters. He pointed to one of the television screens focused on gate C by the Leppings Lane turnstiles and said, “That’s the gate that’s been forced: there’s been an inrush”.
Commentators are calling it a lie because it is a lie.
saaby93 said:
gooner1 said:
Ok, what is your definition of a "lie".
Nothing to do with my use, it's all about how some other people have used itIt feels like it's ground hog day
Go back about 5 pages where we went through what may have been said (there is no transcript of the day) and use of the word infer and why the inference may have led to commentators use of lie.
So, to me, your personal definition as to what a lie consists of is relevant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff