Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My question would be one I've posed many times: If 50K people had turned up on 15/4/89 for Antiques Roadshow, to the same crappy dangerous stadium and the same utterly incompetent policing, would 96 of them died?
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.
Probably not but it's a daft question.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.
It is/ was the nature of the beast - policing a football match is very different to policing "Antiques Roadshow".
There were a catalogue of failures - not just by the police, but the buck will stop with South Yorkshire Police.
An internal investigation into the actions of individuals involved in this disaster both during and subsequent to the match is ongoing - as is an IPCC investigation.
Findings will be revealed later in the year and the CPS will then decide if any charges will be brought.
Things are far from over.
Dan_1981 said:
Yes we have seen lies.
Duckenfield admitted in his own evidence last year that he had lied.
Duckenfield admitted in his own evidence last year that he had lied.
It's not quite the same but he was pretty frank here where he agreed he said something hurriedly which turned out to be wrong and everyone police fans knew it was wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31...
beeb said:
Ms Lambert asked: "Did you appreciate that what you said and indeed, what you did not say, could or might bear that meaning to Mr Kelly and others?"
He replied: "Yes ma'am. I didn't give him sufficient information to appreciate the situation as it occurred."
Mr Duckenfield went on to say: "It was a situation I was totally untrained for, totally unprecedented, and I make no excuses. I was the man who did it. But I faced a difficult situation.
"I said something rather hurriedly, without considering the position, without thinking of the consequences and the trauma, the heartache and distress that the inference would have caused to those people who were already in a deep state of shock, who were distressed. I apologise unreservedly to the families."
He replied: "Yes ma'am. I didn't give him sufficient information to appreciate the situation as it occurred."
Mr Duckenfield went on to say: "It was a situation I was totally untrained for, totally unprecedented, and I make no excuses. I was the man who did it. But I faced a difficult situation.
"I said something rather hurriedly, without considering the position, without thinking of the consequences and the trauma, the heartache and distress that the inference would have caused to those people who were already in a deep state of shock, who were distressed. I apologise unreservedly to the families."
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 26th April 14:12
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My question would be one I've posed many times: If 50K people had turned up on 15/4/89 for Antiques Roadshow, to the same crappy dangerous stadium and the same utterly incompetent policing, would 96 of them died?
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.
I actually suspect the answer would have been a resounding yes, if the crowd and situation was handled in the same way. IF any crowd is hemmed in an area with a large number of people continually building up at the rear and with no escape route at the front, you are going to get a press developing with potential injury and loss of life. It's happened many, many times with all sorts of crowds - not just football crowds.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.
I find it pretty reprehensible that some people seem to be of the opinion that, just because this happened at a football match and not some other type of event at which large crowds gather, somehow those who died were architects of their own demise.
Red 4 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My question would be one I've posed many times: If 50K people had turned up on 15/4/89 for Antiques Roadshow, to the same crappy dangerous stadium and the same utterly incompetent policing, would 96 of them died?
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.
Probably not but it's a daft question.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.
It is/ was the nature of the beast - policing a football match is very different to policing "Antiques Roadshow".
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So "the nature of the beast" was a contributing factor, was it not? What do you mean by "nature of the beast". Behaviour, attitude? Explain please?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades?CMP=share_btn_twReaching this notorious moment on his second day in the witness box, Duckenfield made more landmark admissions that went far beyond what he had confessed previously, to Lord Justice Taylor’s official 1989 inquiry, the first 1990-91 inquest in Sheffield, and the families’ private prosecutions of him and Supt Bernard Murray in 2000, when Duckenfield exercised his right to stay silent.
At these inquests, he admitted he had given “no thought” to where the people would go if he opened the gate. He had not considered the risk of overcrowding. He had not foreseen that people would naturally go down the tunnel to the central pens right in front of them. He had not realised he should do anything to close off that tunnel. The majority of the 2,000 people allowed in through gate C went straight down the tunnel to the central pens, and gross overcrowding there caused the terrible crush. Of the 96 people who died, 30 were still outside the turnstiles at 2.52pm. They went in through gate C when invited by police, and were crushed in the central pens barely 10 minutes later.
Paul Greaney QC, representing the Police Federation – who on behalf of the rank and file principally sought to emphasise senior officers’ lack of leadership – took his turn on Duckenfield’s sixth day. Standing three rows of lawyers back, he elicited from Duckenfield admissions that he lacked competence and experience, that his knowledge of the ground was “wholly inadequate”.
In a tense, charged exchanges, Greaney asked Duckenfield if he had frozen in the crucial minutes when making the decision to open the gate. Duckenfield denied this four times. Then Greaney asked again: “Mr Duckenfield, you know what was in your mind. I will ask you just one last time. Will you accept that, in fact, you froze?”
Slumped in his seat, “Yes, sir,” Duckenfield replied.
Then Greaney put to him: “That failure [to close off the tunnel] was the direct cause of the deaths of 96 persons in the Hillsborough tragedy?”
“Yes, sir,” Duckenfield said.
I considered writing a long piece but having only read pages four and five I'm probably best just leaving this thread as I can see there are elements here that mirror all the previous threads on this topic. Besides, no-one realistically is going to alter their opinion having read my words who hasn't had their opinion altered by the myriad of Internet discussions, articles, books, documentaries and films and this two year inquiry.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
rover 623gsi said:
Then Greaney put to him: “That failure [to close off the tunnel] was the direct cause of the deaths of 96 persons in the Hillsborough tragedy?”
“Yes, sir,” Duckenfield said.
The trouble is does it look like the guy knew that would be the result? “Yes, sir,” Duckenfield said.
How would anyone feel if they were in that position on the day?
How can these type of proceedings be much more open so everyone finds out sooner what happened
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 26th April 14:20
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So "the nature of the beast" was a contributing factor, was it not? What do you mean by "nature of the beast". Behaviour, attitude? Explain please?
You seem to be getting hung up on the behaviour of the fans.Today's determination was that the fans' behaviour was in no way responsible for the deaths of the 96 who were unlawfully killed.
You also don't seem to understand that policing operations at football matches are just that - disorder both inside and outside the ground is likely/expected - at least more so than at other events.
Can I suggest you do some research into the inquests/ determinations provided today.
Lots of stuff was brought to the surface - please stop trying to blame the fans.
scenario8 said:
I considered writing a long piece but having only read pages four and five I'm probably best just leaving this thread as I can see there are elements here that mirror all the previous threads on this topic. Besides, no-one realistically is going to alter their opinion having read my words who hasn't had their opinion altered by the myriad of Internet discussions, articles, books, documentaries and films and this two year inquiry.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
I agree wholeheartedlyToday was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
Eric Mc said:
I find it pretty reprehensible that some people seem to be of the opinion that, just because this happened at a football match and not some other type of event at which large crowds gather, somehow those who died were architects of their own demise.
I find it equally reprehensible that whenever there's a discussion about this subject and someone dares to suggest that the culture of football at the time (which I was part of) and the low standard of behaviour of fans which was the accepted norm (of which I was also guilty) played a part in the disastrous outcome, they get shut down with "you're blaming the victims".But that's always the way on these threads.
Eric Mc said:
I find it pretty reprehensible that some people seem to be of the opinion that, just because this happened at a football match and not some other type of event at which large crowds gather, somehow those who died were architects of their own demise.
In all fairness Eric I don't think even the naysayers are saying that.It is the opinion of some that the fans to the rear were in some way culpable for the injuries to those at the front. This was a prevalent belief to many Sun readers in the early 90s.
I believe this opinion has been successfully challenged and even SYP acknowledged this to be untrue.
Quhet said:
scenario8 said:
I considered writing a long piece but having only read pages four and five I'm probably best just leaving this thread as I can see there are elements here that mirror all the previous threads on this topic. Besides, no-one realistically is going to alter their opinion having read my words who hasn't had their opinion altered by the myriad of Internet discussions, articles, books, documentaries and films and this two year inquiry.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
I agree wholeheartedlyToday was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Eric Mc said:
I find it pretty reprehensible that some people seem to be of the opinion that, just because this happened at a football match and not some other type of event at which large crowds gather, somehow those who died were architects of their own demise.
I find it equally reprehensible that whenever there's a discussion about this subject and someone dares to suggest that the culture of football at the time (which I was part of) and the low standard of behaviour of fans which was the accepted norm (of which I was also guilty) played a part in the disastrous outcome, they get shut down with "you're blaming the victims".But that's always the way on these threads.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I find it equally reprehensible that whenever there's a discussion about this subject and someone dares to suggest that the culture of football at the time (which I was part of) and the low standard of behaviour of fans which was the accepted norm (of which I was also guilty) played a part in the disastrous outcome, they get shut down with "you're blaming the victims".
But that's always the way on these threads.
There is no doubt that the culture of bad behaviour influenced how football crowds were handled by the authorities. That does not excuse the authorities for making bad decisions when handling a football crowd - especially when this particular crowd was not behaving badly.But that's always the way on these threads.
And it certainly does not excuse the later attempts by the authorities to absolve themselves of blame by lying about the behaviour of that crowd.
scenario8 said:
I considered writing a long piece but having only read pages four and five I'm probably best just leaving this thread as I can see there are elements here that mirror all the previous threads on this topic. Besides, no-one realistically is going to alter their opinion having read my words who hasn't had their opinion altered by the myriad of Internet discussions, articles, books, documentaries and films and this two year inquiry.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
I am refraining from commenting too much aswell. Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
What can you say to someone who justifies the huge cover up that prolonged the agony of the bereaved for 27 years, because those involved simply didn't fancy facing up to their actions? So basically defending people that are not only liars but cowards too.
This was not a witch hunt to solely to blame one party, the police, as has been alluded to. The police, the ambulance service, the ground staff, the stadium owners etc and of course the fans, were all under scrutiny. And those who have given two years of their lives to study all the information available have reached a conclusion.
It should be respected.
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I find it equally reprehensible that whenever there's a discussion about this subject and someone dares to suggest that the culture of football at the time (which I was part of) and the low standard of behaviour of fans which was the accepted norm (of which I was also guilty) played a part in the disastrous outcome, they get shut down with "you're blaming the victims".
But that's always the way on these threads.
There is no doubt that the culture of bad behaviour influenced how football crowds were handled by the authorities. That does not excuse the authorities for making bad decisions when handling a football crowd - especially when this particular crowd was not behaving badly.But that's always the way on these threads.
And it certainly does not excuse the later attempts by the authorities to absolve themselves of blame by lying about the behaviour of that crowd.
What trust is there in future events that truth will be truth and nothing but the truth. Very little I suspect.
Jockman said:
Quhet said:
scenario8 said:
I considered writing a long piece but having only read pages four and five I'm probably best just leaving this thread as I can see there are elements here that mirror all the previous threads on this topic. Besides, no-one realistically is going to alter their opinion having read my words who hasn't had their opinion altered by the myriad of Internet discussions, articles, books, documentaries and films and this two year inquiry.
Today was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
I agree wholeheartedlyToday was a welcome chapter on the scandalous journey towards justice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff