The Hillsborough inquest

[Woodytom]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

?

Well, let me put it this way. Much of the tragedy is blamed on the gate being opened. Yep, without doubt, that played a major part. However, it's quite feasible to believe that a different tragedy had of occurred had the gate been left closed.

Let's put ourselves in dukinfield's shoes for a moment. Not the Dukinfield that's portrayed in the various documentaries but the Dukinfield who whilst out of his depth, and riddled with mistakes, certainly didn't set out to kill 96 innocent people.

You're informed by colleagues who are crushed, panicked and frightened themselves that if you don't open the gate, people are going to die. And you have to make a split second decision...based on absolute chaos surrounding you and without doubt, appalling technology to the technology we know now.

 

Let's also take the health and safety argument. No the stadium wasn't safe. But society looked at health and safety very different then. Man alive, I watch crowds pouring forward in the kop celebrating goals. There isn't a cat in hells chance I'd be in there. I cringe when I see away fans piling forward nowadays. It's a wonder more people dont get hurt even now.

Society didn't give a **** about health and safety like we do now. 

Completely different eras for so many reasons.

 

[maqroll]

I just learned of this incident with Spurs fans in the same stand. Amazing negligence from SWFC and the SYP for not getting a handle on what was clearly a very dangerous problem.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by maqroll

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Well, let me put it this way. Much of the tragedy is blamed on the gate being opened. Yep, without doubt, that played a major part. However, it's quite feasible to believe that a different tragedy had of occurred had the gate been left closed.

Let's put ourselves in dukinfield's shoes for a moment. Not the Dukinfield that's portrayed in the various documentaries but the Dukinfield who whilst out of his depth, and riddled with mistakes, certainly didn't set out to kill 96 innocent people.

You're informed by colleagues who are crushed, panicked and frightened themselves that if you don't open the gate, people are going to die. And you have to make a split second decision...based on absolute chaos surrounding you and without doubt, appalling technology to the technology we know now.

 

Let's also take the health and safety argument. No the stadium wasn't safe. But society looked at health and safety very different then. Man alive, I watch crowds pouring forward in the kop celebrating goals. There isn't a cat in hells chance I'd be in there. I cringe when I see away fans piling forward nowadays. It's a wonder more people dont get hurt even now.

Society didn't give a **** about health and safety like we do now. 

Completely different eras for so many reasons.

 

Well in a word, no. What you are saying there is not correct. 

Have a read of this report. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

In particular this section explaining what had happened when the previous officer in charge of operations (Mole) for the match was replaced by Duckenfield:

"Jackson and Anderson still stood by their belief that Duckenfield could handle the semi-final, given experienced officers and the operational plan in place from the previous year when, under Mole’s command, an identical match between the same two clubs was played at Hillsborough.

Duckenfield 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 had carefully managed supporters’ entry.

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."

There was a H&S plan for this ground in place but on that day that particular officer in charge of operations that day didn't bother to follow it. There should have been no need for a "split second decision" to open a gate. If the operations plan had been enacted it would never have come to that.  

[maqroll]

I think the Hillsborough tragedy was bound to happen. And if not there, probably at another ground. I'd like to think the victims didn't die in vain, but laid down their lives so that future generations of football fans could be safe from that kind of catastrophe ever happening again.

[Woodytom]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Well in a word, no. What you are saying there is not correct. 

Have a read of this report. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

In particular this section explaining what had happened when the previous officer in charge of operations (Mole) for the match was replaced by Duckenfield:

"Jackson and Anderson still stood by their belief that Duckenfield could handle the semi-final, given experienced officers and the operational plan in place from the previous year when, under Mole’s command, an identical match between the same two clubs was played at Hillsborough.

Duckenfield 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 had carefully managed supporters’ entry.

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."

There was a H&S plan for this ground in place but on that day that particular officer in charge of operations that day didn't bother to follow it. There should have been no need for a "split second decision" to open a gate. If the operations plan had been enacted it would never have come to that.  

I'm sorry, which part of my post didnt say that Dukinfield wasn't out of his depth and riddled with mistakes?

[Genie]

I have to admit, I was always of the opinion that it was a combination of fans mis-behaving/ticketless/drunk and bad policing that underpinned the tragedy but it seems I was wrong and the fans were completely innocent in all of this.

[dAVe80]

9 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Well, let me put it this way. Much of the tragedy is blamed on the gate being opened. Yep, without doubt, that played a major part. However, it's quite feasible to believe that a different tragedy had of occurred had the gate been left closed.

Let's put ourselves in dukinfield's shoes for a moment. Not the Dukinfield that's portrayed in the various documentaries but the Dukinfield who whilst out of his depth, and riddled with mistakes, certainly didn't set out to kill 96 innocent people.

You're informed by colleagues who are crushed, panicked and frightened themselves that if you don't open the gate, people are going to die. And you have to make a split second decision...based on absolute chaos surrounding you and without doubt, appalling technology to the technology we know now.

 

Let's also take the health and safety argument. No the stadium wasn't safe. But society looked at health and safety very different then. Man alive, I watch crowds pouring forward in the kop celebrating goals. There isn't a cat in hells chance I'd be in there. I cringe when I see away fans piling forward nowadays. It's a wonder more people dont get hurt even now.

Society didn't give a **** about health and safety like we do now.

Completely different eras for so many reasons.

 

This isn't the whole of the issue though is it? Mistakes are made in every day life. Some small, some massive. To an extent you can feel symathy for those who make a genuine mistake, that causes the loss of life. If culpability was admitted at the time of the incident, then maybe Dukinfield would now just be living out the rest of his life in peace (no doubt on a cushy Police pension). He didn’t though, he lied. He and his colleagues cobbled together a heinous tale of drunken football fans, and put the blame solely at feet of the poor souls who perished, and were injured, and the who fought in vein to try and save them. They let the world believe it for 27 years. In my view that supersedes any issues about the state of health and safety.

[Stevo985]

Notable that the only national newspaper without this story on their front page today is The Sun, who instead went with a story about David Cameron using WhatsApp.

Hillsborough made it to pages 8 and 9.

[Designer1]

37 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Notable that the only national newspaper without this story on their front page today is The Sun, who instead went with a story about David Cameron using WhatsApp.

Hillsborough made it to pages 8 and 9.

Not on The Times front page either.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

I'm sorry, which part of my post didnt say that Dukinfield wasn't out of his depth and riddled with mistakes?

The bits where you claimed that his split second decision averted some other tragedy, rather ignoring all of the circumstances that LondonLax laid out for you.

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Not on The Times front page either.

Well that makes sense too...

Edited April 27, 2016 by Stevo985

[Demitri_C]

What's sad is it was incompetence from the police and obviously they were not intentionally killing anyone. However making up lies about the Liverpool fans is what has made this dragged on fir so long. They should be punished now for all the suffering the families have been through.

they should held their hands up and along with the other mistakees and accepted mistakes were made. Complete shambles from the police force back then. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

Mistakes are made in every day life. Some small, some massive.

They are. Though negligence is more than a single mistake. A whole series of actions and inactions, failure to prepare, failure to communicate, failure to plan, failure to do the basic part of his job well before the critical moments all contributed to the situation where he was faced with, to be fair, an unenviable choice. But it was only unenviable because of all the failings already made by himself and others.

And then they lied about it, blamed the victims, hid evidence, changed evidence, colluded and connived and....thanks god they've been thoroughly found out, 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

What's sad is it was incompetence from the police and obviously they were not intentionally killing anyone. However making up lies about the Liverpool fans is what has made this dragged on fir so long. They should be punished now for all the suffering the families have been through.

they should held their hands up and along with the other mistakees and accepted mistakes were made. Complete shambles from the police force back then. 

It's not just 'mistakes', though, is it? According to the determination of the inquest jury, it was gross negligence.

 

 

[Stevo985]

"Mistakes" on that scale, even excluding the lying and coverups afterwards, are still negligence. Just because it wasn't intentional isn't an excuse. If you've got someone in charge who is in no way qualified to be in charge, then that is negligence.

[Genie]

The logical thing to do seems to be to go after those in charge on the day and those accused of covering it up with criminal charges.

The only downside to that is that it stops those involved from really moving on. More court cases, more evidence, and then if any of those accused were to 'get off' then it raises more questions and will feel justice not fully delivered etc...

[dAVe80]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

They are. Though negligence is more than a single mistake. A whole series of actions and inactions, failure to prepare, failure to communicate, failure to plan, failure to do the basic part of his job well before the critical moments all contributed to the situation where he was faced with, to be fair, an unenviable choice. But it was only unenviable because of all the failings already made by himself and others.

And then they lied about it, blamed the victims, hid evidence, changed evidence, colluded and connived and....thanks god they've been thoroughly found out,

Oh I agree 100%. I was kind of playing Devil's advocate to an extent. I agree that mistakes that cost lives should result in some kind of punushment. I certainly think Dukinfield and his colleagues should have faced punishment, even if they had admitted his error at the time. As I think you know, the point I was trying to make is that he'd probably have paid for his crimes by now, if he'd held his hands up, and as we know it wouldn't have made the lives of the families as hard to bare as the past 27 years.

[dAVe80]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

The logical thing to do seems to be to go after those in charge on the day and those accused of covering it up with criminal charges.

The only downside to that is that it stops those involved from really moving on. More court cases, more evidence, and then if any of those accused were to 'get off' then it raises more questions and will feel justice not fully delivered etc...

I honestly think if this were to happen, then the public out cry would be too massive to ignore. I don't think there's anyway those involved can't be punushed to the full extent.

I also think that yesterday was about vindication for the families, but there's still justice to be done. Unfortunatley, it's probable that a lot of the family members and probably even those facing trial won't be around to see the final outcome, but it still needs to happen.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Oh I agree 100%. I was kind of playing Devil's advocate to an extent.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to argue or anything - just adding to your comment was my aim.

[Genie]

47 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I honestly think if this were to happen, then the public out cry would be too massive to ignore. I don't think there's anyway those involved can't be punushed to the full extent.

Hi Dave, I agree, all I'm saying is that cases collapse all the time and if that were to be the situation here then it will be pretty painful for the families to see someone charged and them walking 'free'.