Hillsborough Inquest

[Red 4]

Cantaloupe said:

The mystery is what was the reason for the fans stampede into the already crowded central pens at Hillsborough, no-one was chasing them.

Stampede ?
Collect dunce hat. Sit in corner. Face the wall. Do not move until teacher says you can.

[mickk]

Cantaloupe] At Heysel [ which Red continues to claim to know little about said:

one has no problem in believing that the Juventus fans were blameless
for the fatal crush that resulted from fleeing the rampaging English fans.

The mystery is what was the reason for the fans stampede into the already crowded central pens at Hillsborough, no-one was chasing them.

English fans?

[Bacon Is Proof]

Red 4 said:

No, you don't understand. You really don't.
I am sorry that I cannot assist you further.

I do understand.
You could assist by answering my question.
You choose not to because you are emotionally involved with the subject matter and know that you are in the wrong.
It is clear to everyone.
Even without regarding your exstensive posting history.

[Red 4]

Bacon Is Proof said:

Red 4 said:

No, you don't understand. You really don't.
I am sorry that I cannot assist you further.

I do understand.
You could assist by answering my question.
You choose not to because you are emotionally involved with the subject matter and know that you are in the wrong.
It is clear to everyone.
Even without regarding your exstensive posting history.

I have answered your question.
The answer is because crowd.
If you cannot understand I am sorry. I cannot assist you further. Perhaps you could get someone to assist you and explain what words mean.
Additionally, please support your assertions with facts.
Facts please. Just the facts.
Thank you.

[JNW1]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In many cases, say a conference for the country's librarians, that would cause congestion, irritation, lateness etc. But not a crush. I doubt it would have caused a crush had a cricket match been taking place. For it to cause a crush, you need a particular type of crowd. Football crowd definitely. Maybe even a boy band, with young girls, desperate to see their hero. Possibly a religious event, with a Messianic leader on the pitch. But of itself, lack of turnstiles, poor policing and a loss of police control would not result in a crush.

I agree. Opening Gate C certainly created the potential for a crush as a result of fans heading down the tunnel to the central pens but had it been, say, a rugby union match I very much doubt a crush would have occurred - the reason it did was because it was a football crowd and their behaviour is different (for which read worse). Of course it could be argued the authorities knew it was a football crowd - and should have policed it accordingly - but to say a direct result of opening Gate C was a crush isn't quite accurate in my view; that did happen at Hillsborough but only because it was a football crowd that behaved, well, like a football crowd.

And moreover, isn't it a fact that the central pens were full even before Gate C was opened? I would argue that if proper processes had been in place the door to the access tunnel to those pens should have been closed once they were at capacity and if that had happened opening Gate C would have had no catastrophic consequences (because the fans would simply have had to go to the side pens which were still relatively empty). To me, though, Duckenfield shouldn't have needed to make the decision to close the access door to those central pens, it should have done as a matter of course once their capacity was reached; if there was no process in place to do that then that's a failing of stadium management and stewarding as much as policing in my view.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Red 4 said:

I have answered your question.
The answer is because crowd.
If you cannot understand I am sorry. I cannot assist you further. Perhaps you could get someone to assist you and explain what words mean.
Additionally, please support your assertions with facts.
Facts please. Just the facts.
Thank you.

You haven't answered my question.
Your answer does not make sense.
You are not sorry.

Can't you get a healthier hobby?
You are not suitably equipped for this one.

[McGee_22]

McGee_22 said:

Red 4 said:

McGee_22 said:

Where in the Inquest Jury Verdict does it say 'DIRECT CAUSE' please?

Wasn't opening Gate C and failing to close the tunnel the direct cause of the deaths ?
If not - what was ?

I asked where in the answers to the 14 questions the Inquest Jury verdict were given do the Jury state the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster?

The jury gave a lot of answers after their very careful consideration which you have accepted as fact, and in those answers they identified and specifically clarified lots of issues that led to the disaster but I cannot recall them stating what was the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster.

Still waiting for the direct quote from you Red4 to this question; as you keep repeating, you only state facts and not opinions so please state where the Inquest Jury in their verdict stated your assertion that the opening of the gates was the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster.

Please back up your claim.

[Red 4]

McGee_22 said:

Still waiting for the direct quote from you Red4 to this question; as you keep repeating, you only state facts and not opinions so please state where the Inquest Jury in their verdict stated your assertion that the opening of the gates was the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster.

Please back up your claim.

See questions 1-5.
See Theresa May's speech.
See the 16 criticisms of the police made elsewhere.
See the testimony given at the inquests.
See admissions made.
I can go on ...

I will educate you.
I will not spoon feed you.
Do your own reading. Stop being so lazy.

[McGee_22]

Red 4 said:

See questions 1-5.
See Theresa May's speech.
See the 16 criticisms of the police made elsewhere.
See the testimony given at the inquests.
See admissions made.
I can go on ...

I will educate you.
I will not spoon feed you.
Do your own reading. Stop being so lazy.

Please show the quote from the jury.
You are actually significantly degrading levels of sympathy for the cause of Hillsborough survivors with your levels of argument.
Your blinkered levels of prejudiced and stupid argument is nothing short of disgraceful to the memory of those that died, the inquests that have taken place, the trials that have taken place and the juries that have the weight of human expectation to deliver just verdicts with the evidence presented to them.
Please quote clearly and concisely where the Inquest Jury stated that the opening of the gate was the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster, a statement you made and stated as a fact on numerous occasions in this thread.

Edited by topsey.mod on Thursday 5th December 09:07

[Red 4]

McGee_22 said:

Red 4 said:

See questions 1-5.
See Theresa May's speech.
See the 16 criticisms of the police made elsewhere.
See the testimony given at the inquests.
See admissions made.
I can go on ...

I will educate you.
I will not spoon feed you.
Do your own reading. Stop being so lazy.

You have shown yourself to be a coward about this question - please show the quote from the jury.
You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite about stating facts and opinions.
You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite about typos.
You are actually significantly degrading levels of sympathy for the cause of Hillsborough survivors with your moronic levels of argument.
Your blinkered levels of prejudiced and stupid argument is nothing short of disgraceful to the memory of those that died, the inquests that have taken place, the trials that have taken place and the juries that have the weight of human expectation to deliver just verdicts with the evidence presented to them.

You are a utter coward of the lowest human level in your statement about Heysel.

Please quote clearly and concisely where the Inquest Jury stated that the opening of the gate was the 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster, a statement you made and stated as a fact on numerous occasions in this thread.

Oh dear.
Read questions 1-5.
Absorb them. There was a reason why the questions were so specific.
Any more abuse from you and I will report you.
That will be a first for me.
I don't think you will be a loss to the thread if I'm honest.
You have been very abusive to me previously when I could not answer your questions about Heysel. I was being honest. I do not know enough about it to comment.

Fair warning.

[Zoobeef]

Report him. Give it a rest

[McGee_22]

Stop running like a coward Red4.

I have read and re-read the answers to all fourteen questions posed to the jury; in no place do they state a 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster - a statement you keep introducing as a fact within this thread.

The mods are free to read the entire context, words and insults you have already thrown about in this thread in your ridiculous efforts to appear to maintain the truth of and moral high ground of Hillsborough.

You have alienated support, sympathy and any degree of actual understanding in your steadfast and prejudiced reinforcement of cherry picked statements from the inquest jury verdict whilst hypocritically denying the equal and balanced support that should be shown to the jury of the Duckenfield trial.

Your cowardice in denying any sufficient knowledge of Heysel is heinous.

Simply answer one simple question to your statement you repeatedly assert as fact, that the Inquest Jury stated the opening of the gate was the ' DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster.

Please show us all.

[McGee_22]

Zoobeef said:

Report him. Give it a rest

I have never reported any thread or post and don't intend to start - Red4 is turning into a comedic parody of himself imho.

[Red 4]

McGee_22 said:

Stop running like a coward Red4.

I have read and re-read the answers to all fourteen questions posed to the jury; in no place do they state a 'DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster - a statement you keep introducing as a fact within this thread.

The mods are free to read the entire context, words and insults you have already thrown about in this thread in your ridiculous efforts to appear to maintain the truth of and moral high ground of Hillsborough.

You have alienated support, sympathy and any degree of actual understanding in your steadfast and prejudiced reinforcement of cherry picked statements from the inquest jury verdict whilst hypocritically denying the equal and balanced support that should be shown to the jury of the Duckenfield trial.

Your cowardice in denying any sufficient knowledge of Heysel is heinous.

Simply answer one simple question to your statement you repeatedly assert as fact, that the Inquest Jury stated the opening of the gate was the ' DIRECT CAUSE' of the disaster.

Please show us all.

You had your chance.

[McGee_22]

Red 4 said:

You had your chance.

You too have had plenty of chances to answer the very simplest of questions to verify your claims, whilst littering the thread with untruths and opinions you state as facts.

I stand by all all my statements as I am sure you stand by yours.

[craig1912]

Red 4 said:

You had your chance.

[Red 4]

McGee_22 said:

Red 4 said:

You had your chance.

You too have had plenty of chances to answer the very simplest of questions to verify your claims, whilst littering the thread with untruths and opinions you state as facts.

I stand by all all my statements as I am sure you stand by yours.

Questions 1-5.
They were specific. There was a reason for that. The questions concerned the opening of the gate and police failures.
That was because the opening of the gate was the direct cause of the disaster.
I have reported you.
There was no need for your abuse. I answered your question more than once.
Likewise concerning Heysel. I don't know enough about it to make informed comment yet you persisted with personal insults.
Offside, Ref.

Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 4th December 21:21

[McGee_22]

Nowhere in the answers to questions 1 to 5 do the Inquest Jury state a 'DIRECT CAUSE' to the disaster as you keep stating, and lying about, to people reading this thread.

Please read back and find where you started the insults regarding emergency services.

[Red 4]

McGee_22 said:

Nowhere in the answers to questions 1 to 5 do the Inquest Jury state a 'DIRECT CAUSE' to the disaster as you keep stating, and lying about, to people reading this thread.

Please read back and find where you started the insults regarding emergency services.

I have never insulted the emergency services on this thread.
I was a member of the emergency services.
I have commented on the failings at Hillsborough which are well publicised and, in my view, criticism is fully deserved.
You continue to accuse me of lying. I have answered your question. I am not lying.
The verdicts are available for all to see.
I will not continue a dialogue with you.
Bye bye.

Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 4th December 21:40

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Red 4 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Red 4 said:

Zoobeef said:

Red 4 said:

What caused the crush ?
Clue; it wasn't ticketless fans who arrived late.
Are you Lord Justice Stuart-Smith ?

What caused the crush outside the stadium?
Clue; the turnstiles didn't move towards the crowd.

7 turnstiles for 10,100 people.
Poor policing.
A loss of police control.

In many cases, say a conference for the country's librarians, that would cause congestion, irritation, lateness etc. But not a crush. I doubt it would have caused a crush had a cricket match been taking place. For it to cause a crush, you need a particular type of crowd. Football crowd definitely. Maybe even a boy band, with young girls, desperate to see their hero. Possibly a religious event, with a Messianic leader on the pitch. But of itself, lack of turnstiles, poor policing and a loss of police control would not result in a crush.

The crowd was described as good natured and co-operative - "A carnival atmosphere".
Source - PC Martin McLoughlin.
Other sources are available.

SYP officers did say there were a lack of bobbies at Leppings Lane - specifically on the approach to the turnstiles and in the concourse area.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Oh, sorry, I get it. Footy fans. All animals. Silly me.

The point I am trying to make, and one you know to be true, is that your repeated answers of "crowd..because crowd.....crowd innit", fails to address the realistic possibility, indeed probability, indeed almost certainty, that this would not have happened if you repeated the same circumstances, the same venue, and the same useless policing, at the Antiques Roadshow, or the National Annual Conference of Librarians, or a cricket test match, and many other events attended by 50k people. You needed a certain type of crowd.

As for your emotive "footy fans, all animals", I would say not all, but a majority. As I said earlier in the thread, 70s/80s football crowd, 10% hooligans, 5% perfectly behaved, 85% the rest, not out and out hooligans, but overly aggressive, lacking respect for authority, selfish, and generally a pain in the arse. I know as I was one of the 85%. If you behaved today like the 85% behaved then, 95% of the crowd would think you were a complete bell end.