The Hillsborough inquest

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Well if it's not basic human nature, then Wtf is it?

As you're the one cocking on about 'basic human nature' and its relevance with respect to ticket procedure etiquette then it's up to you to explain what on earth it is you mean.

[Woodytom]

Just now, snowychap said:

As you're the one cocking on about 'basic human nature' and its relevance with respect to ticket procedure etiquette then it's up to you to explain what on earth it is you mean.

Well ok, I've worded it poorly. I suppose what I mean is I wouldn't expect anyone to attend something where a ticket is required, without a ticket. In a nutshell.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Woodytom said:

Well ok, I've worded it poorly. I suppose what I mean is I wouldn't expect anyone to attend something where a ticket is required, without a ticket. In a nutshell.

I'll repeat what I posted earlier:

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Edit:

Plenty of people have attended events without already being in possession of tickets for that event. I went to an event today and was able to buy one at the gate. I have been to Cheltenham Festival and obtained tickets from a tout outside because they were sold out on the gate; I have also been and got tickets from the chaps outside when I knew none were on sale on the gate.

I seem to remember people talking about going down to Wembley last May without tickets (whether they were going down to hang around, try and get tickets and get in or whatever I can't say). I guess that was in the thread about last season's final.

You may not understand why someone may do it and you may not 'expect anyone' (do you not actually mean that you would expect no one?) to attend something without a ticket where a ticket was required but plenty of people do it.

 

I find it rather disconcerting that you've managed to divert a conversation about the result of the inquest in to what happened at Hillsborough and the determination of the jury at that inquest in to a discussion firstly on a hypothetical about what you present as a Morton's Fork and then on to a bizarre discussion about human nature and decision making on going to an event without a ticket.

[Woodytom]

Snowychap - just because you have been without tickets as have others. Doesn't mean I have to understand it. It makes no sense to me. Many a time I've been asked to go n watch England abroad with the idea that we wing a few tickets whilst over there. No thanks.

And all I've brought to the debate is the idea that people can not look at this situation in a balanced way anymore and in all honesty, imo, you've proved that ten fold.

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Snowychap - just because you have been without tickets as have others. Doesn't mean I have to understand it. It makes no sense to me. Many a time I've been asked to go n watch England abroad with the idea that we wing a few tickets whilst over there. No thanks.

Who said you have to understand it? I said You may not understand ... it which was an acknowledgment of your lack of understanding of what other people may think. That's fine. You think one way, other people think another way. No need to come up with nonsense about basic human nature.

23 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

And all I've brought to the debate is the idea that people can not look at this situation in a balanced way anymore

What rubbish. You've specifically 'brought to the debate' some utter nonsense and claptrap which has nothing to do with what happened, what has been found by the inquest, what has been determined by the jury at the inquest, what has been dragged out of the witnesses and so on.

28 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

in all honesty, imo, you've proved that ten fold

You're very much getting confused between someone looking at the situation surrounding Hillsborough (and the subsequent fall out, inquests and so on) in a balanced way and someone lacking stoic levels of patience when dealing with the content of your posts in this thread over the past couple of days.

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

Yes. it happened all ready, didn't it (kind of) with Duckenfield. Don't think it was a criminal trial, from memory, but a misconduct type charge. As you guys have implied though, this time there's now a lot more evidence of wrongdoing etc. out in the open. They pretty much have to charge those responsible for that wrong-doing.

It was a manslaughter charge according to Rozenberg's piece:

Quote

The Hillsborough jury’s majority finding that the 96 people who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed means that seven of the nine jurors agreed on four points: that former chief superintendent David Duckenfield, the match commander, owed a duty of care to the victims; that he was in breach of that duty; that his breach caused their deaths; and that his breach of duty amounted to gross negligence – meaning it was so bad as to be a criminal act or omission. And yet, by law, the jury’s findings “must not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person”.

This is more than a little curious. It has come about because Sir John Goldring, the former appeal judge who was appointed as coroner, put a set of detailed questions to the jury after hearing legal arguments from those involved in the inquest. Jurors were also told precisely what answering “yes” would mean. Giving the jury a written questionnaire is a growing trend in major inquests and very much to be welcomed. It shows how a system that parliament has hardly touched in 800 years can be adapted by the judiciary to meet modern needs.

Another curious thing is that the police are continuing a criminal investigation into the tragedy which they say should be finished “by the turn of the year”. It will then be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether any individual or corporate body should face prosecution. That’s unusual, because inquests are commonly suspended until criminal investigations have been completed. The reason is obvious: an inquest finding might be thought to prejudice a subsequent criminal trial.

We know that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been considering evidence that witness statements were doctored after the disaster. A decision is expected on whether serving or retired officers should face criminal proceedings arising from an alleged cover-up.

But the most interesting question of all is whether Duckenfield will now face fresh criminal proceedings. He was tried for manslaughter in 2000 but the jury failed to agree. That outcome, of course, is not an acquittal and a retrial would normally follow. Instead, Mr Justice Hooper ordered a “stay” on the proceedings. The judge said that putting Duckenfield through a second trial would amount to oppression. “I have an overriding duty to ensure a fair trial for the defendant,” said Hooper in July 2000. “That, I am firmly convinced, is no longer possible.”

It used to be thought that a stay was permanent. But in October 2014 Mr Justice Globe lifted a stay that had been imposed by a magistrate as far back as 1998. The defendant was Gary Glitter, charged as Paul Gadd. In granting what’s called a voluntary bill of indictment, the judge said that Gadd could still receive a fair trial 16 years later. His subsequent conviction was upheld on appeal.

As a matter of law, then, it would be possible for the CPS to bring manslaughter charges against Duckenfield if prosecutors thought there was a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution would be in the public interest. But Duckenfeld’s lawyers would undoubtedly argue that any prosecution would be an abuse of process.

If a fair trial was not possible in 2000, they would maintain, how can it be possible in 2017? The answer, of course, is that a fair trial was perfectly possible in 2000. It was held; the judge allowed it to continue; and it came to an end.

Could there be a fair retrial now? On one hand, the inquest findings are clearly, and literally, prejudicial. The findings have already been the subject of publicity and comments – including this. On the other, juries should be trusted to put prejudicial material out of their minds. Delay should not be a factor provided the necessary evidence is available, and the Hillsborough independent panel has placed a huge archive of material online. Nor should age matter, unless a defendant is unfit to stand trial.

Whether a retrial would now be an abuse of process is a matter that should be decided by the courts if and when it arises – and not by the court of public opinion. But the one thing that should not affect the courts’ decision is the wishes of the bereaved Liverpool families. They have, at last, been fully vindicated by the jury’s verdict. Whether or not there are any criminal convictions, nothing can take that vindication away from the relatives of those who died. No wonder, 27 years on, they broke into song.

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

2 hours ago, Woodytom said:

So its not basic human nature to not turn up to an event if you don't have a ticket?

 

I think the term you're looking for is 'common sense' and not 'basic human nature'. But as pointed out, buying tickets in advance for games wasn't really a thing back then.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Dr_Pangloss

[Woodytom]

5 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I think the term you're looking for is 'common sense' and not 'basic human nature'. But as pointed out, buying tickets in advance for games wasn't really a thing back then.

Yep, I've acknowledged both of those things.

[Woodytom]

6 hours ago, snowychap said:

What rubbish. You've specifically 'brought to the debate' some utter nonsense and claptrap which has nothing to do with what happened, what has been found by the inquest, what has been determined by the jury at the inquest, what has been dragged out of the witnesses and so on.

Did the Inquest interview everyone there that day?

No further questions.

[Woodytom]

6 hours ago, snowychap said:

No need to come up with nonsense about basic human nature.

Still banging on about a mistake that I've already acknowledged twice?

[Woodytom]

Since posting a couple of days ago, my overall point has been one of how I don't believe it is possible to look at this in a balanced view through a 2016 eye.

What I find quite amusing is that people are able to see this from the fans point of view (oh it was normal for people to turn up back then without tickets) and not the from the view of other parties. 

What Is quite ironic is that the person who the finger is pointed at the most is blamed for his inability to follow basic procedure - and rightly so (il add at this point (again) that I fully support that David dukinfield is criticised for his role on that day.

However, how many heroes exist and at times worshipped (as want of a better word) for their neglective approach towards basic procedure - gene hunt? Brian clough? Now, I'm not for one moment comparing David dukinfield to a dead football manager nor a fictional character BUT, it's amazing how there is no consistency between evaluations of situations.

Let me use a more appropriate example. One football match where I can guarantee that basic policing/health n safety procedure wasn't followed was the pitch invasion at the 6-4 win v blackburn. Nobody's head is wanted on a spike for that are they? Because it wasn't fatal. Doesn't mean it wasn't completely unsafe and had potential to cause serious injury. Nor does it mean that the planning was up to scratch - especially in this day n age.

David dukinfield's approach to hillsborough whilst catastrophic wasn't and still isn't unique. He didn't get away with it though. 

And just on a side point (not directly aimed at hillsborough at all). Society itself is in danger of losing all creativity and initiative. Perhaps it already has. We're so focused on what procedures and guidelines say. Whilst having an obvious place of importance procedures and guidlines dont consider one important point (especially with organisations that deal with external parties). The person/ppl who don't have the opportunity to read them - the external party for example usually the party that can drive a train straight through the plan - I. E. Thousands of Liverpool fans without tickets. (I'm just using these as an example - I'm not for one second suggesting they caused havoc to a non existent plan).

People should be encouraged to be creative and think on their feet and outside the box. I don't think society promotes that at all, as we live in a blame culture.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

how many didn't have tickets, an forced there way in?

[&]

it's a criminal offence by the fans, trying to force there way in.

Where did this crap come from. There is zero evidence of this. None whatsoever. It has in fact been proven to be untrue and a lie by Duckenfield. He admitted it was his lie in the inquest.

How **** ignorant do people have to be?

You can have your own opinion, even if it's utter shite, but you can't have your own facts

 

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Did the Inquest interview everyone there that day?

No further questions.

There were certainly 96 people whom they were unable to interview.

Is your point that because they didn't interview every one of all of the thousands of people who were there they can't have come to the truth of the matter? Yet you with your allusions, aspersions and 'creative thinking' have the answers?

[Stevo985]

I've read every post in this thread and I still don't know what Woodytom's point is.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Thousands of Liverpool fans without tickets.

According to whom?

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

I'm just using these as an example - I'm not for one second suggesting they caused havoc to a non existent plan

Yes, you are.

You wrote just before that impotent disclaimer:

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

the external party for example usually the party that can drive a train straight through the plan - I. E. Thousands of Liverpool fans without tickets.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Since posting a couple of days ago, my overall point has been one of how I don't believe it is possible to look at this in a balanced view through a 2016 eye.

That's demonstrable rubbish.

People need to understand that 'balance' is not simply provided in a discussion by putting forward a contrary view (nor is it unbalanced to disagree vehemently with this contrary view) and that discussing an event that happened nearly three decades ago doesn't mean that you can trot out the 'hindsight' card or make a claim about 'different eras' and think that is definitive truth.

As for crapping on about Brian Clough, Gene Hunt and 'irony': what the actual ****?

[Woodytom]

Just now, snowychap said:

There were certainly 96 people whom they were unable to interview.

Is your point that because they didn't interview every one of all of the thousands of people who were there they can't have come to the truth of the matter? Yet you with your allusions, aspersions and 'creative thinking' have the answers?

No, not at all. I've already said that Im very close to some people who were there and I know a lot that were (did you miss this? ). The inquest has exposed the truth from the authorities point of view and that's a big positive. However it seems to have erased any belief that the crowd had a part to play.

It seems that because a jury has found David dukinfield guilty of opening a gate, that everyone believes that every single Liverpool fan turned up stone cold sober, behaving impeccably. That simply isn't the case.

Again, I want to stress that I'm not shifting the blame to the Liverpool fans. I'm Really not. Though they won't have made the smooth running of the day easy. And I guarantee that there will be Liverpool fans who perhaps regret going that day and pushing forward without tickets.

Like I say, it's about balance. A massive learning curve in society of how to put on a game of football safely. It's not like back then the environment of what happened at hillsborough was a one off. 

For some reason (and I can't understand why) the police felt the need to cover it up. Power from above if you ask me.

What they'd have been better doing is just telling the truth (like a lot of original statements did).

'We were poorly prepared and the overwhelming number of people we just simply couldn't cope with. As a result, we were forced to make decisions quickly that were not sound and regretfully, were fatal'

That's the bottom line of it really and had they said that then I doubt we'd be having inquests but instead celebrating the lives of the unfortunate 96.

[Woodytom]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

Where did this crap come from. There is zero evidence of this. None whatsoever. It has in fact been proven to be untrue and a lie by Duckenfield. He admitted it was his lie in the inquest.

How **** ignorant do people have to be?

You can have your own opinion, even if it's utter shite, but you can't have your own facts

 

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

[ChrisVillan]

22 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I've read every post in this thread and I still don't know what Woodytom's point is.

His point is to get idiots like you and me to read and respond to his point.

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

It seems that because a jury has found David dukinfield guilty of opening a gate

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.

17 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

It seems that ...everyone believes that every single Liverpool fan turned up stone cold sober, behaving impeccably

Straw man. No one has said this.

17 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Like I say, it's about balance.

No, it isn't. Your posts are about pushing an opinion that you have that is obviously long held and doesn't fit with much if not all of the evidence gathered (but of course they didn't interview everyone who was there and you know some who were).

 

17 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

'We were poorly prepared and the overwhelming number of people we just simply couldn't cope with. As a result, we were forced to make decisions quickly that were not sound and regretfully, were fatal'

That's the bottom line of it really

That is not the bottom line of it and to claim that it is means that you are purposely ignoring the evidence gathered and deliberated on in all of the inquests and by the independent panel.

The above quote, though, shows quite clearly the actual point of your posting over the past couple of days.

Edited April 28, 2016 by snowychap
comma