The Hillsborough inquest

[blandy]

Just now, Woodytom said:

So everyone had a ticket blandy? Is that what you are saying?

No - I cannot know that, no-one can. it is likely that people would have gone there without tickets, as is the case for many games - hoping to buy off a fan with a spare, or a tout, or whatever. According to the Taylor report there were small numbers of people without tickets at the game, but they did not cause of contribute to the disaster. The same conclusion has been drawn by every inquest and investigation. It is established, admitted (by the Police) fact that the police lied about supporters behaviour.

But what we can and do know is that supporters did not force their way in.

To say otherwise is simply to lie, or repeat a lie. It is clear fact that the inquests looking at all the evidence, the latest being over a 2 year period, found unanimously that the actions of supporters did not cause or contribute to the disaster. No ifs, no buts. So coming out with "ah but what about ticketless fans forcing the gates" or  "ah but what about fans without tickets adding to the crushing" - that's just utter, wilfull, ignorance of the truth and a lie. Please stop.

 

[snowychap]

..

Edited April 28, 2016 by snowychap

[Woodytom]

 

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It hasn't.

The jury at the inquest has found that the dead at Hillsborough were unlawfully killed, that Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the people who died, that he was in breach of that duty of care, that the breach of the duty of care caused the deaths and that they were sure that the breach amounted to gross negligence.

Perhaps you should go and do what you have claimed that you have already done and actually read the details, the documents and the reports in order that you don't come out with shit like the above.

Can you please stop with the patronising nonsense. I put that a jury found him guilty of opening a gate to emphasise the broader findings that I have continually acknowledge every time you ram them down my throat. Yet you fail everytime to acknowledge that I have from moment one supported the criticism of SYP.

Please, if you are going to quote my posts and debate then that's fine, but I don't see the point in highlighting the entire findings of the inquest time and time again when we already know and more importantly agree on it.

[Woodytom]

42 minutes ago, snowychap said:

According to whom?

 

Yes, you are.

You wrote just before that impotent disclaimer:

 

That is the most ridiculous miss quotation I've ever read.

You've made it sound like those two sentences didn't follow on from each other when they most certainly did. For non other than the reason than folk like yourself who interpret what they want to interpret.

If I say I'm not blaming the Liverpool fans, then I'm not blaming the Liverpool fans. Thanks. Don't put accusations in my mouth.

They were unexpected at the game in that number and I used them as an example to highlight a point I was making that ironically was away from hillsborough (which I also made clear). But don't let that get in your way either.

[Paddywhack]

5 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Can you please stop with the patronising nonsense.

Pot, kettle.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

 

I put that a jury found him guilty of opening a gate to emphasise...

You posted something factually incorrect in order to return to a particular point which is what you've been trying to 'emphasize' all through your posts about 'opening a gate'. It's been an exercise, from the angle of the content of your posts, in reducing everything to 'opening a gate' so that it can be all about a split second decision and you can question what people would do when faced with the Morton's Fork of opening the gate or keeping it closed.

6 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

I don't see the point in highlighting the entire findings of the inquest time and time again when we already know and more importantly agree on it

Because by not doing so and repeating the kind of stuff like 'found him guilty of opening a gate', you are doing what I have said above and it needs to be rebutted at every occasion when you do it.

If you're going to continue to post utter drivel then I'll continue (time and willing permitting) to call you out on it.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

 

If you're going to continue to post utter drivel then I'll continue (time and willing permitting) to call you out on it.

Please do. It's very satisfying.

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

You've made it sound like those two sentences didn't follow on from each other when they most certainly did.

No, I didn't. I indicated that what you said was just before your 'disclaimer' by posting You wrote just before that impotent disclaimer .

9 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

If I say I'm not blaming the Liverpool fans, then I'm not blaming the Liverpool fans. Thanks. Don't put accusations in my mouth.

I didn't put accusations in your mouth. The accusations were in the words you used and, as I posted, your disclaimer was utterly impotent because of what you'd already said.

You can't talk about parties 'driving a train and horses through a plan' (the metaphorical use of train and horses doesn't appear to have been a mistake) identify which party you mean (that's what the use of 'id est' does) and then claim that you weren't trying to make a point about it. It just doesn't wash.

 

Back to the question, though: according to whom were there

4 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Thousands of Liverpool fans without tickets.

?

Edited April 28, 2016 by snowychap

[Woodytom]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You posted something factually incorrect in order to return to a particular point which is what you've been trying to 'emphasize' all through your posts about 'opening a gate'. It's been an exercise, from the angle of the content of your posts, in reducing everything to 'opening a gate' so that it can be all about a split second decision and you can question what people would do when faced with the Morton's Fork of opening the gate or keeping it closed.

Because by not doing so and repeating the kind of stuff like 'found him guilty of opening a gate', you are doing what I have said above and it needs to be rebutted at every occasion when you do it.

You've completely misinterpreted my post time and time again.

From moment one I've acknowledged the overall mistakes of SYP and health and safety. How many times have I highlighted poor planning. Yes I've used the opening of the gate a number of times but I'm telling you now that it's not for the reasons you've made up above. It just isn't.  I used it to emphasise the position that dukinfield was left in (left himself in infact) and how he didn't have a choice - and the debate has continued from there.

Whether you want to believe me or not is upto you but that's where the debate started with regards the gate. If you want to carry on with the morton's fork bollocks then fine, it's untrue and I won't be wasting my breath any more on it.

[Woodytom]

For the record snowychap. 

I do believe the Liverpool fans drove a train through the police non existent plan. I used this an example to emphasise how procedures need to be adapted in all walks of life...... 

 

That doesn't mean I'm blaming the Liverpool fans for the hillsborough disaster.

 

It was a point I was making that sometimes procedures have to be adapted in order to cope with the demand of the environment and how the ruthless blame culture society has discouraged people from being adaptable. 

 

There's a really good quote I think it's 

Managers follow procedures, leaders use them as guidlines

But it was a point that I made away from hillsborough and I made that very clear in my post.

[Woodytom]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

Back to the question, though: according to whom were there

?

I suppose I can't prove there were 1000s. Perhaps I'm over exaggerating there. However, there were definitely more than the allocation and I think cctv proves that.

Not to mention the people who I have spoken to who were there.

The media never shows fans coming forward saying they didn't have a ticket. But I bet there are some fans without tickets who perhaps look back and wish they hadn't have bothered.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

I suppose I can't prove there were 1000s. Perhaps I'm over exaggerating there.

Another example of your 'creative thinking', then?

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

I do believe the Liverpool fans drove a train through the police non existent plan.

As expressed, that is not a logical or credible belief.

If you mean just the second part of it -  that the Police failed to have any plan at all, that is not something that is supported by the facts.

If you mean just the first part, again, that is not supported by the facts. The Liverpool fans simply turned up to watch a game of football.

But they say you cannot use reason to persuade someone out of a belief that they did not arrive at via reason.

[Woodytom]

Just now, snowychap said:

Another example of your 'creative thinking', then?

Another example of my honesty when I'm happy to admit I've put something that doesn't stack up. Read through this thread there are 2/3 examples of it.

None of which relate to the misquoting morton's fork bollocks that you keep banging on about.

[Woodytom]

Just playing devils advocate blandy as you seem to rely a lot on the findings of the inquest as truth - and why wouldn't you of course.

Do all inquests highlight all of the truth?

[chrisp65]

Woodytom, you might possibly take this from someone else other than Snowy.

There was previous knowledge and working experience within the police of how to manage crowds at Hillsborough, from cordons and queues outside the ground, managing roadworks on the approaches, filtering people once in the ground. Nothing new or unique happened on that day that required any instant catastrophic adaption of any plans. Duckenfield has personally admitted his failure to instruct the closure of the tunnel was the single unique error that lead to deaths. He knows he had minutes to change that decision and he didn't. He knew that the tunnel and the option to close it, was a tool previously used to control over crowding.

If you have evidence that is contrary to that used in the inquest, or would change any aspect of the outcome, don't dick about on here, report it to the authorities.

 

[Woodytom]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Nothing new or unique happened on that day that required any instant catastrophic adaption of any plans.

I disagree - though the lack of planning from the police probably played as big a part as the unexpected number of Liverpool fans.

The rest of your post I agree with. Not sure why that isn't clear. I think virtually every post I've acknowledged that the police made massive mistakes. 

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

 the lack of planning from the police probably played as big a part as the unexpected number of Liverpool fans.

forum rules prevent any further contribution from me right now

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Just playing devils advocate blandy as you seem to rely a lot on the findings of the inquest as truth - and why wouldn't you of course.

Do all inquests highlight all of the truth?

In the context of this particular tragedy as well as other inquests (where I've taken an interest), and hopefully as a general way of thinking and assessing things, I try to get credible information, facts, evidence and use these things to form a view.

In this particular tragedy and the latest inquest (as well as previous inquests) I have taken the time to not just read the findings and conclusions of the inquests, but to read the whole or large parts of the evidence, to read and listen to many days reporting on the progress, from different outlets.

So when in this case the findings were made public on Tuesday morning they completely tallied with what I had thought they would and should. I think that any reasonable person in possession of the information available would reach the same conclusions and the same findings.

It is galling to me that so many people, without taking the trouble to look at the publicly available information (rather than opinion) have expressed views on the Liverpool supporters, on the tragedy and on individuals involved that are completely at odds with what is the reality.

To an extent I can understand that absolute rubbish such as that printed by the Sun, by Boris Johnson and others has filtered down to people, over time, people too busy, or too incurious to find out information for themselves and has led some people to spout from a position of ignorance.

So if it's galling for me, I can hardly imagine how terrible it was for people directly affected to have to put up with it.

To further answer your question I am natural sceptical of official inquiries and such like. I am generally of the view that "the establishment" will tend to pull together and try and whitewash events and that inquiries really need to be rigorous and thorough and fair and fearless.

Where this particular inquiry has had advantages are that (to their credit) the politicians actually wanted the results to be "the truth". There was no "well that's outside of the remit of this inquiry, to examine..". The inquiry was set up correctly and correctly funded, appropriately chaired and so on.

To be honest as well, I find it incredible as well, that an inquiry has exposed in stark, clear, terms serious Police wrong doing in terms of the covering up, lying, tampering with evidence, falsifying statements and so on, that people are actually concentrating on, or talking about things which have been found multiple times to be completely untrue, or of absolutely no consequence.

It's really sad that football fans, people on this website, even after this verdict still talk about ticket-less Liverpool fans forcing the gates. What kind of ignorance does that reveal?. It utterly beats me. it's profoundly depressing to read.

I also think that discussion of the circumstances and consequences and so on, of the disaster and the Inquiry and so on is fine. This might just be me being a bit precious, but the nature of your postings, the things you've written  - while you're perfectly entitled to - but they just make me sad. I think that, assuming they're posted as genuinely held views or questions etc. that it's a shame that sometimes (as you've admitted) they've contained claims which you since say are wrong. It'd be better if you just didn't post the wrong things to start with.

The idealist in me would have preferred to see fellow supporters a lot more sympathetic to the liverpool people affected. I know that when I was at Anfield on a Hillsborough anniversary some years back to watch Villa I was very proud in my small way of the response of our 3000 supporters at the game to the Liverpool justice campaign and I'm kind of bemused by the postings of a number of people in this thread.

But that's free speech for you.

[Woodytom]

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

In the context of this particular tragedy as well as other inquests (where I've taken an interest), and hopefully as a general way of thinking and assessing things, I try to get credible information, facts, evidence and use these things to form a view.

In this particular tragedy and the latest inquest (as well as previous inquests) I have taken the time to not just read the findings and conclusions of the inquests, but to read the whole or large parts of the evidence, to read and listen to many days reporting on the progress, from different outlets.

So when in this case the findings were made public on Tuesday morning they completely tallied with what I had thought they would and should. I think that any reasonable person in possession of the information available would reach the same conclusions and the same findings.

It is galling to me that so many people, without taking the trouble to look at the publicly available information (rather than opinion) have expressed views on the Liverpool supporters, on the tragedy and on individuals involved that are completely at odds with what is the reality.

To an extent I can understand that absolute rubbish such as that printed by the Sun, by Boris Johnson and others has filtered down to people, over time, people too busy, or too incurious to find out information for themselves and has led some people to spout from a position of ignorance.

So if it's galling for me, I can hardly imagine how terrible it was for people directly affected to have to put up with it.

To further answer your question I am natural sceptical of official inquiries and such like. I am generally of the view that "the establishment" will tend to pull together and try and whitewash events and that inquiries really need to be rigorous and thorough and fair and fearless.

Where this particular inquiry has had advantages are that (to their credit) the politicians actually wanted the results to be "the truth". There was no "well that's outside of the remit of this inquiry, to examine..". The inquiry was set up correctly and correctly funded, appropriately chaired and so on.

To be honest as well, I find it incredible as well, that an inquiry has exposed in stark, clear, terms serious Police wrong doing in terms of the covering up, lying, tampering with evidence, falsifying statements and so on, that people are actually concentrating on, or talking about things which have been found multiple times to be completely untrue, or of absolutely no consequence.

It's really sad that football fans, people on this website, even after this verdict still talk about ticket-less Liverpool fans forcing the gates. What kind of ignorance does that reveal?. It utterly beats me. it's profoundly depressing to read.

I also think that discussion of the circumstances and consequences and so on, of the disaster and the Inquiry and so on is fine. This might just be me being a bit precious, but the nature of your postings, the things you've written  - while you're perfectly entitled to - but they just make me sad. I think that, assuming they're posted as genuinely held views or questions etc. that it's a shame that sometimes (as you've admitted) they've contained claims which you since say are wrong. It'd be better if you just didn't post the wrong things to start with.

The idealist in me would have preferred to see fellow supporters a lot more sympathetic to the liverpool people affected. I know that when I was at Anfield on a Hillsborough anniversary some years back to watch Villa I was very proud in my small way of the response of our 3000 supporters at the game to the Liverpool justice campaign and I'm kind of bemused by the postings of a number of people in this thread.

But that's free speech for you.

Outstanding post overall

I'm sad that you are sad about what I've put and the questions I've asked. I've never once blamed the Liverpool fan's and I certainly don't get my opinion from the sun. So please, don't think that.

I have a tendency to rush into posts without fully thinking them through and a lot of the time I use words (unintentionally) that cause what I am saying to be taken out of context. A lot of that is born out of the enjoyment I have on the site both through the debating and at a lot of times, the banter. What I do think undoubtedly is that I am quick to hold my hands up and go back to correct myself. The basic human nature phrase for example. However the nature of the forum is not always as forgiving

I think my initial point that it's difficult to view this incident in a balanced way through the eye of 2016 has mileage. I feel it's worthy of debate and it wasn't something that I'd come across in the thread. However, I'm probably not articulate nor subtle enough to put that viewpoint across in an appropriate manner. And I did, hesitate in posting at all. 

I can say that wholeheartedly, I have not intended to cause any upset or offence and I am sorry if I have.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Woodytom