Hillsborough

[The Mad Monk]

The delayed report may be published soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e04pl48ldo

The full report is several thousand pages. The abridged version is some 400 pages.

I couldn't find anything much on Hillsborough on PH. Has everything been removed?

[AB]

Families have been paid, or some have anyway, large amounts.

Maybe I'm different, maybe I haven't been through it so I don't understand, but I wouldn't want to keep putting myself through it, it happened, loved ones are gone and that's the only thing that matters, nothing will change it. Maybe I'm totally out of touch.

[McGee_22]

There is a marked and glaring difference between the reaction to the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster and the Heysel Stadium Disaster that is never clearly explained by advocates of those still pursuing justice over the latter loss of life.

[gotoPzero]

I just find it very odd that they keep going over and over it.

Yes it was a terrible disaster but it was 35+ years ago now.

The police were hardly a shining light, but many of those there are on the day are now dead. I believe all are now retired.

The families have been compensated, the investigations and inquiries have cost over £80M.

What else is left to say? To me we are at job justification and kicking the can down the road to rinse the last couple of million out of the tax payer.

Nothing is going to bring those people back, but its history now. We are about as close to "justice" as we will get.

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Ask 100 people on the street to explain the Ibrox disaster...

<shrugs>

[Antony Moxey]

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

[Yertis]

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

Herald of Free Enterprise 1987 would be another one from 'around that time'.

[gotoPzero]

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

Similar policing methods, H&S (or lack of it) and ability for things to be covered up.

[dundarach]

There needs to be a definitive end to it, publish the report, get agreement from everyone and then it becomes the official record of the events, why it happened and what we've done to move on.

I was at uni with a lad who was there and lost friends either side of him.

I don't see anything wrong with finding a conclusion that everyone can agree on.

[MesoForm]

The Mad Monk said:

I couldn't find anything much on Hillsborough on PH. Has everything been removed?

PH doesn't let Google search NP&E, it's probably there if you want to spend ages going through the pages.

[Antony Moxey]

gotoPzero said:

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

Similar policing methods, H&S (or lack of it) and ability for things to be covered up.

You think things were the same in 1966 as they were in 1989 regarding H&S? Absolute and complete and utter nonsense. They were nothing like the same.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

dundarach said:

I don't see anything wrong with finding a conclusion that everyone can agree on.

Anyone who remembers the main Hillsborough thread that ran on here for ages, will know that no conclusion exists that everyone can agree on.

[gotoPzero]

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

Similar policing methods, H&S (or lack of it) and ability for things to be covered up.

You think things were the same in 1966 as they were in 1989 regarding H&S? Absolute and complete and utter nonsense. They were nothing like the same.

You may want to read my post again, particularly the first word.

[Antony Moxey]

gotoPzero said:

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

Antony Moxey said:

gotoPzero said:

There were lost of bad things happening around that time, but this one seems to get a lot of money thrown at it. Piper Alpha, Aberfan, various serious plane crashes, fires, train crashes etc. The Marchioness sinking happened the same year.

Aberfan was 1966, Hillsborough 1989. 'Around that time'???

Similar policing methods, H&S (or lack of it) and ability for things to be covered up.

You think things were the same in 1966 as they were in 1989 regarding H&S? Absolute and complete and utter nonsense. They were nothing like the same.

You may want to read my post again, particularly the first word.

What, 'similar'? What about it, there was nothing 'similar' regarding H&S in 1966 to 1989.

[MrBogSmith]

I've always seen Hillsborough as two distinct parts.

What happened during the disaster and what happened after.

I've never believed there was any actionable wrong-doing during the disaster. The two recent trials against Duckenfield for manslaughter reinforce that view. The IPOC have concluded there would be operational misconduct back in 1989. I'm not convinced and in any event it's a risk-free conclusion for them to make since it doesn't apply to anyone involved now.

They've also made similar conclusions regarding misconduct where I believe there was wrong-doing - the pressure to change statements, blaming the fans etc. However, it's clearly fallen short of the criminal standards and I think it's clear it always will.

I don't see what else there is to look at with Hillsborough going forward.

[The Gauge]

Who requested this report? Was it the families?
I assume the families just want any police wrong doings made official ? But wasn't that already done during the Duckenfield court case?

[milesgiles]

MrBogSmith said:

I've always seen Hillsborough as two distinct parts.

What happened during the disaster and what happened after.

I've never believed there was any actionable wrong-doing during the disaster. The two recent trials against Duckenfield for manslaughter reinforce that view. The IPOC have concluded there would be operational misconduct back in 1989. I'm not convinced and in any event it's a risk-free conclusion for them to make since it doesn't apply to anyone involved now.

They've also made similar conclusions regarding misconduct where I believe there was wrong-doing - the pressure to change statements, blaming the fans etc. However, it's clearly fallen short of the criminal standards and I think it's clear it always will.

I don't see what else there is to look at with Hillsborough going forward.

Putting someone in charge of a massive event who had no previous relevant experience was criminal

Ignoring what had happened between the same two teams at the same ground only one year previously, when pure luck was the only reason people weren’t killed, was criminal

Duckenfield being cleared is the best argument against jury trials going. He lied on the day and then refused to give evidence

[The Gauge]

milesgiles said:

Putting someone in charge of a massive event who had no previous relevant experience was criminal

Well the previous commander got 'moved' to another district (but thats another story) meaning his replacement (Duckenfield) was automatically assigned the role of match commander. There's a separate issue of whether an offer of him shadowing a more experienced commander was offered and refused.

[mr pg]

milesgiles said:

Putting someone in charge of a massive event who had no previous relevant experience was criminal

Ignoring what had happened between the same two teams at the same ground only one year previously, when pure luck was the only reason people weren t killed, was criminal

Duckenfield being cleared is the best argument against jury trials going. He lied on the day and then refused to give evidence

The game that lessons should have beeen learnt from was Spurs v Wolves in '81. Around 40 injured (some badly) due to overcrowding in the Leppings Lane end.

[Bigends]

The Gauge said:

milesgiles said:

Putting someone in charge of a massive event who had no previous relevant experience was criminal

Well the previous commander got 'moved' to another district (but thats another story) meaning his replacement (Duckenfield) was automatically assigned the role of match commander. There's a separate issue of whether an offer of him shadowing a more experienced commander was offered and refused.

He shouldnt have got anywhere near match Commanders role without shadowing at a few games first.

[Derek Smith]

The Gauge said:

milesgiles said:

Putting someone in charge of a massive event who had no previous relevant experience was criminal

Well the previous commander got 'moved' to another district (but thats another story) meaning his replacement (Duckenfield) was automatically assigned the role of match commander. There's a separate issue of whether an offer of him shadowing a more experienced commander was offered and refused.

There is this belief, or rather was when I was in, that rank knows best. Promote someone, and they know everything they need to. Ex-CID is not good training ground for someone in charge of what was always going to be a violent event. He'd seen nothing like it before.

He had almost universal praise when in command of major enquiries into crime, but spontaneous, rapidly developing events are fundamentally different. At that time the European forces used to send their senior officers to the UK to see if they could learn from the way we dealt with football supporter violence. We were good at it. Heysel - 39 deaths and 5-6-700 injuries - would not have happened as it did in the UK. The Liverpool thugs would have been policed differently. Mind you, the UK police should have been good given the thuggery that went on every weekend in the season.

The Bradford fire was a case in point of a spontaneous incident that was dealt with well through experienced officers and supervisors. Putting Duckenfield in charge though was, as was said, criminal. Fish out of water. Madness.

I was policing a cup match at Brighton and Hove FC around '86/87 and when the match was about to start, there was a call for assistance at the turnstiles. I was sent to assist and it was the rush at gates by the mob, who'd spent hours drinking and were forcing their way past the turnstiles, the staff barricading themselves in. The poor PC, a probationer at his first 'big' football match, was trying to stop the thugs. There was over 100 of them, and they weren't going to be stopped by me and a probbie. They were dragging in crates of beer. It was just another football match. It went on at most, if not all, of them. What else was criminal is that the FA, and a number of managers, treated it carelessly.

Grounds should have been shut, matches played behind closed doors; that would have made it less fun for the thugs.

Policing the mobs put me off football then, and it's lasted until now. I stuck to rugby.