Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
desolate said:
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.
post up the other quote about inference
and the one about wishing he'd said it differently
Pull it all together and see why what was said off the cuff and some of the reporting at the time has been claimed to have been a lie for years which it may or may not be depending on definition
It's only like that butterfly in the Pacific making a storm over here ( or does it)
Why is it so important to you? It'll make no difference to the Jury's findings.
saaby93 said:
yep note carefully what has actually been said there, not what you think has been said
post up the other quote about inference
and the one about wishing he'd said it differently
Pull it all together and see why what was said off the cuff and some of the reporting at the time has been claimed to have been a lie for years which it may or may not be depending on definition
It's only like that butterfly in the Pacific making a storm over here ( or does it)
Why is it so important to you? It'll make no difference to the Jury's findings.
OK Saaby I concur that we are talking a different language. - I genuinely do give in. You can do your own research from now on - it's all out there.post up the other quote about inference
and the one about wishing he'd said it differently
Pull it all together and see why what was said off the cuff and some of the reporting at the time has been claimed to have been a lie for years which it may or may not be depending on definition
It's only like that butterfly in the Pacific making a storm over here ( or does it)
Why is it so important to you? It'll make no difference to the Jury's findings.
Before I go out for the afternoon I will note the following:
You really need to read the court transcripts.
Duckenfield lied and admitted it.
But you crack on in your parallel universe
walm said:
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.
Thanks for posting that WalmIt'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.
That's probably what Duckensfield wishes hed said differently because the inference from it led to the accusation of the lie.
He also said he knew he'd opened the gates, the police knew and so did the fans
If I read right what Desolate quoted Duckensfield also agreed that's what Kelly thinks but cant confirm that's what he actually said.
Whats not clear is why if everyone knew the gates were open and the bit Duckensfield doesn't sound happy about - why did it get widely reported and believed for years they were not?
and the question ran for so long
desolate said:
OK - This will become a circular argument so I'll say this and then leave it
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?
Agenda: To understand all of the reasons why people needlessly lost their lives, not just focus solely on getting justice for the major part that the police operation had in the tragedy.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?
Should there be another inquiry? No.
The answer to the question I disagree with had no word "blame" or "fault" in it. It was:
Question 7 said:
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any behaviour MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.
If they answer yes to either questions they will be asked: “Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable?”
They are able to give an explanation if they want to.
The jury were given a list of considerations including whether fans behaved in a way which was unusually resistant of police control and whether there were significant numbers of fans without tickets.
It is a very poor question. It is not the question that should be asked to help people understand that the changes in behaviour at the turnstiles that Twig and others (including me) experienced directly after the Hillsborough tragedy needed to happen in the crowd, and probably would have prevented or minimised this event no matter how bad the stadium was, or how much the authorities screwed up on the day. If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any behaviour MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.
If they answer yes to either questions they will be asked: “Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable?”
They are able to give an explanation if they want to.
The jury were given a list of considerations including whether fans behaved in a way which was unusually resistant of police control and whether there were significant numbers of fans without tickets.
The question should have been targeted at the normal football crowd behaviour discussed by many posters own experience on here that causes crushes, needs barriers erected at stadiums etc. So, not the fault of the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough they day, but a consequence of typical football crowd behaviour we have all experienced.
Why do I question that verdict? Well, like Twig, Derek and others on here, I have experienced the difference between a massive football crowd with an agenda to get inside a stadium, and rugby crowds, gig crowds, motor race crowds in the same situation etc, all of a similar size. Some of the stadia have been a joke too. So why did my worst experiences consistently happen in a football crowd crush?
Some posters who seemingly have an agenda to only discuss the police performance and lies cannot recognise that if that size of crowd had been attending a different event to a football match at this venue in those days, firstly, there would not have been so much of a need for authorities to manage it. Secondly, once mistakes had been made the consequences would probably in my opinion and experience of different large crown behaviour and the associated "fluid dynamics" would have been much less.
So, to take your blind bend analogy to another representative stage. If the first car managed to stop in time, and the second, and the third, and the fourth... when the lorry arrived and pushed them all into the parked car and squashed it, is it still the fault of the guy that actually made contact with the parked car, or the second, or third... or the parked car... or the bend... No, it is a chain of events potentially instigate by some error by the arrival of the lorry. And if the police directed him into that road... Then what?
In a blame culture, people will blame the lorry driver. On here, some folks would blame the police. This inquiry should not be a blame culture for any aspect other than cover ups and lies. It should be a discovery process to understand all aspects of why it happened how to prevent it happening again. In this instance, maybe don't text whilst driving a lorry (if that was the reason - no comparison made to the fans on the day please don't interpret it as such). If the policeman knew of the hidden obstruction, then maybe he made the wrong decision too and contributed. And if he said the lorry just forced its way past, we have a very serious issue.
So, my concern with the answer to the question is not to "blame" the supporters on the day for behaving, as usual let's say excitedly, keen to get in, nothing "in foreseeable" etc. My contention is that the different behaviour of a typical football crowd as experienced and described in debate on here by many posters has not been taken into account whatsoever, and needed to be recognised and addressed as a contributory factor - as it naturally seemed to following that weekend and thankfully seems to have remained so in my limited attendances at matches over the last 10 years and posted experiences of others in this thread.
I think Twig puts it far better than me, but I just can't see normal football fans behaviour not being a contributory factor when compared to similar sized crowds at other types of events and therefore I see the answer to Question 7 as misleading for someone trying to prevent a similar tragedy, which really should be a motive of this enquiry as well as quite rightly sorting out the procedural errors / liars etc. It is not a verdict, it is a personal opinion of the form and verdict of question 7.
No blame or accusations of the specific fans on the day, and certainly no blame apportioned to the victims in the crowd on my behalf.
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.
...
I think the argument is that had the police handled crowd control properly and effectively there wouldn't have been the possibility/opportunity for the scale of crush to start to develop outside of the ground. 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.
...
Everyone attending was trying to get in (of course), but had effective control been in place it shouldn't have happened that there was risk to life at any step of the way towards the ground.
Once there was (outside of the ground) mistakes were made in trying to prevent threats to life outside that led to the deaths inside. The assertion is that the problems should have been identified earlier and by the sounds of it (read Steve Campbell's posts) in previous scenarios they had been and the people in charge hadn't made use of that experience.
Deep seated mistrust due to historic fans' (generically, not just Liverpool) behaviours is understandable, but that doesn't excuse preventable mistakes being made and nothing whatsoever can excuse the lies and deceits that took place once the events had been set in motion.
Just been watching the news. How on Earth are the Hilsborough families claims that the SYP are now "rudderless" and "in need of change" in any way relevant to what happened in the past? The big rally in Liverpool the other day was also ridiculous, I've never known classlessness on such a grand scale.
saaby93 said:
That's probably what Duckensfield wishes hed said differently because the inference from it led to the accusation of the lie.
There is no inference necessary.It's a lie.
I have no idea why you are resorting to such idiotic pedantry about "saying things differently".
It isn't possible to use the word "force" when you have ordered a gate opened.
Your defence of this man is absurd.
walm said:
There is no inference necessary.
It's a lie.
I have no idea why you are resorting to such idiotic pedantry about "saying things differently".
It isn't possible to use the word "force" when you have ordered a gate opened.
Your defence of this man is absurd.
The defence isnt that absurd if you read it.It's a lie.
I have no idea why you are resorting to such idiotic pedantry about "saying things differently".
It isn't possible to use the word "force" when you have ordered a gate opened.
Your defence of this man is absurd.
I'm trying to make sure that we read what's there in front of us not what we think might be there
I cant remember the exact words myself now
you'll have to go back 5-6 pages but Duckensfield talked about what had been inferred from what he said and I think it was the QC that was reported as having said the word lie.You have to be careful about what was reported and what was said
and also about what was agreed.
If you look at it with open eyes
did Duckensfield for instance agree that's what someone said he said
but not agree that's actually what was said
But the daft bit that's missing is that even if someone did think he said the gates were closed (whether or not he did say that or meant to say it)
everyone there including him the police the fans knew they were open
so for how long did it continue to be reported that they were closed?
As Duckensfield said something like he didn't realise the importance that would be attached to it.
quotes are a few pages back
Why are we still discussing it? Is it that relevant?
desolate said:
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 "
saaby93 said:
I was going to but walm asked a question we'd covered some pages back
Maybe we should all go out
No - you insist on defending the indefensible even though the guy who said the lie admits it himself.Maybe we should all go out
It just makes you look like a total loon!
saaby93 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.'
At no point did anyone think that the obviously open gates were closed.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.'
That's more lunacy from you.
The question was HOW the gates were opened - by force from the fans OR by the police.
No one is questioning whether or not they were open, you nutter!!!!
As I understand it, the police's big mistake was opening the exit gate that allowed hundreds of fans to press into a space that was not big enough for them.
Why did they open the gate? Because of the dangerous press of people at the turnstyles.
Why was there a dangerous press at the turnstyles? The fans say because there were not enough turnstyles.
BUT - if there were 'not enough turnstyles' why did the crowd not simply go through them more slowly?
And..
If people were crushed in the stands, it is because other people were pushing in from the tunnel, into the back of the already full stands. I have heard a lot of fans say they were pushed, but the pushing had to start from the back, so some fans must have started the pushing without being pushed themselves. Has anyone heard from any of those fans?
Why did they open the gate? Because of the dangerous press of people at the turnstyles.
Why was there a dangerous press at the turnstyles? The fans say because there were not enough turnstyles.
BUT - if there were 'not enough turnstyles' why did the crowd not simply go through them more slowly?
And..
If people were crushed in the stands, it is because other people were pushing in from the tunnel, into the back of the already full stands. I have heard a lot of fans say they were pushed, but the pushing had to start from the back, so some fans must have started the pushing without being pushed themselves. Has anyone heard from any of those fans?
surveyor said:
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
Juries don't always get it right, even when there are 12 of them.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
The Timothy Evans case. The jury found him guilty right enough and he was executed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
walm said:
At no point did anyone think that the obviously open gates were closed.
The question was HOW the gates were opened - by force from the fans OR by the police.
covered a few pages back walm ( and calm down a bit)The question was HOW the gates were opened - by force from the fans OR by the police.
See the bit about how you interpret rushing the gates
Something like the fans rushed the gates because they would, the match was about to start they need to get in, the gates were opened they rushed through
another interpretation of rush the gates is the gates were closed the fans rushed then and broke them down
Duckensfield it seems is in the camp that everyone there knew it was the former
from the reporting you'd think it was the latter
See the difference..
Read one thing - think it means another
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff