Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
Jockman said:
OpulentBob said:
I don't see why it's taken 25+ years.
If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
I hope you're wrong on the appeal side.If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
Closure on this issue - whatever the decision - is essential and (living on Merseyside) I get the feeling the families are heading in this direction. No more ceremonies at Anfield etc.
From what I can see the case has been handled in a professional and sympathetic manner with all families allowed to speak and even the convenience of the location properly thought out. Well done to all involved.
I hope PHers don't make the Sun mistake of thinking all victims were scousers or even from Merseyside. This event was the worst of its kind in the UK and the changes it brought aboutover the last 27 years have benefitted all UK football supporters.
Is this just about showing that the fans themselves did nothing wrong and weren't to blame for the crush?
RottenIcons said:
Lincsblokey said:
If they hadnt lied through there teeth to try and hide the fact they screwed up this would have been decided years ago.
They brought it in themselves. simple as that
They brought it in themselves. simple as that
Turquoise said:
Perhaps you are not aware of the systematic cover up and lies they told. That's the reason it's taken 27 years to get to this point.
The two posts above give the reason a generation has passed with no proper account being made. Inability, then error followed by realisation and fear compounded by lies and finally corruption was the devilish spiral here. A helter-skelter of human failings. From what we've heard there were errors and some people said the wrong thing and made guesses as they would in a quick moving situtaion.
Why not keep with what the Jury has found?
Nom de ploom said:
the language is important here.
did any of those supporters expect to die at the match? no, they didn't of course not.
did the behaviour of the police contribute to the deaths of the fans - that now seems to also be agreed as correct and confirmed.
did the police intend for anyone to die that day? of course not. however as they were negligent in their duties AT THE TIME and under the circumstances they are responsible for their actions or inaction.
the question I fear will NEVER be answered is this :- did the police behave in the way they did as a result of the "behaviour" of the supporters? was it deliberate negligence or a an inappropriate reaction to a set of circumstances that caused the deaths of so many people?
like a previous poster no winners today but possibly a Pyrrhic victory
None of those are the right questions. The results of the inquest are no more correct than the one done earlier.did any of those supporters expect to die at the match? no, they didn't of course not.
did the behaviour of the police contribute to the deaths of the fans - that now seems to also be agreed as correct and confirmed.
did the police intend for anyone to die that day? of course not. however as they were negligent in their duties AT THE TIME and under the circumstances they are responsible for their actions or inaction.
the question I fear will NEVER be answered is this :- did the police behave in the way they did as a result of the "behaviour" of the supporters? was it deliberate negligence or a an inappropriate reaction to a set of circumstances that caused the deaths of so many people?
like a previous poster no winners today but possibly a Pyrrhic victory
The actual question should be 'had the police done something different would any less people die and would that have been foreseeable at the time.'
The further you get in time from the incident the less likely you are to ever gets your answers.
Delighted that justice has been done. SYP are building a number of these now, Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham abuse gang. Its about time they were made to pay.
One thing in the article that stands out is the following passage :
"Asked why in earlier accounts about the events of the day he did not include the rumoured meeting of freemason officers, Groome replied: “Basically, I’d have been committing professional suicide""
Far, far, far too much of this goes on. People too willing to put their jobs in front of peoples lives. Not sure how he lives with himself.
One thing in the article that stands out is the following passage :
"Asked why in earlier accounts about the events of the day he did not include the rumoured meeting of freemason officers, Groome replied: “Basically, I’d have been committing professional suicide""
Far, far, far too much of this goes on. People too willing to put their jobs in front of peoples lives. Not sure how he lives with himself.
It's fascinating that on one hand people get told to move on over current & historical events by many of those who live in western countries and yet when it is something closer to home and on a far lesser scale occurs many of those same people struggle to reconcile / deal / accept the injustice. Hypocrisy.
BigLion said:
It's fascinating that on one hand people get told to move on over current & historical events by many of those who live in western countries and yet when it is something closer to home and on a far lesser scale occurs many of those same people struggle to reconcile / deal / accept the injustice. Hypocrisy.
Examples please?cb31 said:
NeMiSiS said:
An excellent day for those who have campaigned for justice over these 26/27 years, justice and COMPLETE vindication at last, what an excellent Starter, now let us digest this information and move on to the Main Course.
Compo?el stovey said:
Jockman said:
OpulentBob said:
I don't see why it's taken 25+ years.
If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
I hope you're wrong on the appeal side.If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
Closure on this issue - whatever the decision - is essential and (living on Merseyside) I get the feeling the families are heading in this direction. No more ceremonies at Anfield etc.
From what I can see the case has been handled in a professional and sympathetic manner with all families allowed to speak and even the convenience of the location properly thought out. Well done to all involved.
I hope PHers don't make the Sun mistake of thinking all victims were scousers or even from Merseyside. This event was the worst of its kind in the UK and the changes it brought aboutover the last 27 years have benefitted all UK football supporters.
Is this just about showing that the fans themselves did nothing wrong and weren't to blame for the crush?
I would urge any of those still wishing to blame the supporters to read this excellent article in the Guardian (please cast aside the usual PH prejudice)
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hi...
...
Duckenfield told the inquests that he did inherit disciplinary problems from Mole, that he believed this was a reason why Mole was moved, and that he himself was from the force’s “disciplinarian” wing. After taking over on 27 March 1989, Duckenfield found time to lay down the law to his officers, but he admitted to Christina Lambert QC, for the coroner, Sir John Goldring, that he failed to do basic preparation for the semi-final. He did not study relevant paperwork, including the force’s major incident procedure, and signed off the operational plan two days after taking over, before he had even visited the ground.
He turned up to command the semi-final, he admitted, knowing very little about Hillsborough’s safety history: about the crushes at the 1981 and 1988 semi-finals, or that the approach to the Leppings Lane end was a “natural geographical bottleneck” to which Mole carefully managed supporters’ entry.
An image of the gate that was opened to allow fans in.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
An image of the gate that was opened to allow fans in. Photograph: Hillsborough Inquests/PA
Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four. He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing.
...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hi...
...
Duckenfield told the inquests that he did inherit disciplinary problems from Mole, that he believed this was a reason why Mole was moved, and that he himself was from the force’s “disciplinarian” wing. After taking over on 27 March 1989, Duckenfield found time to lay down the law to his officers, but he admitted to Christina Lambert QC, for the coroner, Sir John Goldring, that he failed to do basic preparation for the semi-final. He did not study relevant paperwork, including the force’s major incident procedure, and signed off the operational plan two days after taking over, before he had even visited the ground.
He turned up to command the semi-final, he admitted, knowing very little about Hillsborough’s safety history: about the crushes at the 1981 and 1988 semi-finals, or that the approach to the Leppings Lane end was a “natural geographical bottleneck” to which Mole carefully managed supporters’ entry.
An image of the gate that was opened to allow fans in.
An image of the gate that was opened to allow fans in. Photograph: Hillsborough Inquests/PA
Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four. He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing.
...
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 26th April 13:42
rover 623gsi said:
I would urge any of those still wishing to blame the supporters to read this excellent article in the Guardian (please cast aside the usual PH prejudice)
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hi...
Good article. The Guardian has some excellent journalists. I just have to steer clear of some of their columnists or I end up swearing at my computer.http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hi...
KarlMac said:
Delighted that justice has been done. SYP are building a number of these now, Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham abuse gang. Its about time they were made to pay.
One thing in the article that stands out is the following passage :
"Asked why in earlier accounts about the events of the day he did not include the rumoured meeting of freemason officers, Groome replied: “Basically, I’d have been committing professional suicide""
Far, far, far too much of this goes on. People too willing to put their jobs in front of peoples lives. Not sure how he lives with himself.
Would you lie for a Daughter/Son/Parent even very close friend ?One thing in the article that stands out is the following passage :
"Asked why in earlier accounts about the events of the day he did not include the rumoured meeting of freemason officers, Groome replied: “Basically, I’d have been committing professional suicide""
Far, far, far too much of this goes on. People too willing to put their jobs in front of peoples lives. Not sure how he lives with himself.
saaby93 said:
RottenIcons said:
Lincsblokey said:
If they hadnt lied through there teeth to try and hide the fact they screwed up this would have been decided years ago.
They brought it in themselves. simple as that
They brought it in themselves. simple as that
Turquoise said:
Perhaps you are not aware of the systematic cover up and lies they told. That's the reason it's taken 27 years to get to this point.
The two posts above give the reason a generation has passed with no proper account being made. Inability, then error followed by realisation and fear compounded by lies and finally corruption was the devilish spiral here. A helter-skelter of human failings. From what we've heard there were errors and some people said the wrong thing and made guesses as they would in a quick moving situtaion.
Why not keep with what the Jury has found?
Duckenfield admitted in his own evidence last year that he had lied.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
RobinOakapple said:
Complex events such as this never have single causes. Seeking to blame one of the participants only is always going to be wrong.
THIS, 100%Those in charge need to be held accountable for their decisions.
julian64 said:
Nom de ploom said:
the language is important here.
did any of those supporters expect to die at the match? no, they didn't of course not.
did the behaviour of the police contribute to the deaths of the fans - that now seems to also be agreed as correct and confirmed.
did the police intend for anyone to die that day? of course not. however as they were negligent in their duties AT THE TIME and under the circumstances they are responsible for their actions or inaction.
the question I fear will NEVER be answered is this :- did the police behave in the way they did as a result of the "behaviour" of the supporters? was it deliberate negligence or a an inappropriate reaction to a set of circumstances that caused the deaths of so many people?
like a previous poster no winners today but possibly a Pyrrhic victory
None of those are the right questions. The results of the inquest are no more correct than the one done earlier.did any of those supporters expect to die at the match? no, they didn't of course not.
did the behaviour of the police contribute to the deaths of the fans - that now seems to also be agreed as correct and confirmed.
did the police intend for anyone to die that day? of course not. however as they were negligent in their duties AT THE TIME and under the circumstances they are responsible for their actions or inaction.
the question I fear will NEVER be answered is this :- did the police behave in the way they did as a result of the "behaviour" of the supporters? was it deliberate negligence or a an inappropriate reaction to a set of circumstances that caused the deaths of so many people?
like a previous poster no winners today but possibly a Pyrrhic victory
The actual question should be 'had the police done something different would any less people die and would that have been foreseeable at the time.'
The further you get in time from the incident the less likely you are to ever gets your answers.
I suspect the answer is no. And that leads you on to other questions about the culture of football in the 70s and 80s, and how that contributed to the disaster.
Without doubt to me, every single football 'fan' that directly caused trouble at matches in the 70's and early 80's carries some responsibility for these poor souls being crushed in pens designed to keep the fans apart. A very small minority of 'fans' caused this mayhem in football in the 80's, the 'hard men' and hooligans that were more interested in a fight than the game itself.
I've been to many sporting events and never ever, not once, caused anyone else any cause for concern for their safety.
The game is so much better for this change of behaviour at games, its not gone completely and probably never will be.
I've been to many sporting events and never ever, not once, caused anyone else any cause for concern for their safety.
The game is so much better for this change of behaviour at games, its not gone completely and probably never will be.
SilverSpur said:
Without doubt to me, every single football 'fan' that directly caused trouble at matches in the 70's and early 80's carries some responsibility for these poor souls being crushed in pens designed to keep the fans apart. A very small minority of 'fans' caused this mayhem in football in the 80's, the 'hard men' and hooligans that were more interested in a fight than the game itself.
I'm sure this crossed the Jury's mind. They then had to consider why it all went so horribly wrong on this occasion if it wasn't unexpected.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff