The Hillsborough inquest

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Panorama isn't going to say those words that you now want but it's certainly not inconceivable to think that a bigger police presence would have been able to funnel the fans properly.

Il wait in anticipation to see if you acknowledge your complete contradiction of seeing nothing to reading that there was 20% less police officers than precious semi-finals.

I know there were fewer police, but I have not seen, as I said, that this is blamed or named as a causing/contributing factor and I still haven't. I should have heeded my own advice and left it a while back.

[Woodytom]

Just now, blandy said:

Sorry, my poor wording . To be clear and leave the goalposts in exactly the same place.

Thanks.

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I haven't seen it mentioned as a conclusion or contributory factor in any of the report conclusion, either as a factor or as the thing you say i.e. more of a deal than opening the gate.

You probably won't find that but I think that's an issue with the inquest and why the gate opening incident shouldn't be singled out imo. 

There were many issues by the lack of police imo. First of all, the obvious chaos from the fans coming and not being channeled into an orderly fashion. Secondly they were finding their own ways into the pens thus leaving certain pens half empty. A police presence could have counteracted this. 

I truly believe it should have never got the stage where it was a case of opening a gate or not. Hence why I don't see that as one of the main issues and why I disagree with it being singled out as a factor.

I don't think it's too inconceivable to suggest that a greater police presence and the hillsborough disaster may not have occurred. I can't guarantee that obviously.

I think by the time the gate is opened, the chaos and indeed the tragedy is occurring.

[blandy]

The police themselves said the opposite of this, Woody:

5 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

the fans coming and not being channeled into an orderly fashion. Secondly they were finding their own ways into the pens thus leaving certain pens half empty. A police presence could have counteracted this. 

They said (from memory) that the sheer numbers of fans going in to that central area was too high for them to block off with coppers.. There were internal gates they could have used, and which were used at previous semis, but they didn't have them closed this time (as they should have done, if they'd prepared properly).

Also, the conclusions and the evidence doesn't support your view really on the gate opening. Yes opening it was a huge mistake, it turned out, but even with it open, there were actions and other things that were done wrong/ not done which could have much reduced the scale of the tragedy.

 

[Woodytom]

Just now, blandy said:

The police themselves said the opposite of this, Woody:

They said (from memory) that the sheer numbers of fans going in to that area was too high for them to block off with coppers.. There were internal gates they could have used, and which were used at previous semis, but they didn't have them closed this time (as they should have done, if they'd prepared properly).

Also, the conclusions and the evidence doesn't support your view really on the gate opening. Yes opening it was a huge mistake, it turned out, but even with it open, there were actions and other things that were done wrong/ not done which could have much reduced the scale of the tragedy.

 

No I agree, but the gate opening is singled out by the inquest as a contributING factor.

The reason I have an issue with this:

I think it's fair to blame David dukinfield for lack of planning/organisation. That's the very basics of his job.

I don't think it's fair to blame him for a reactionary decision based on the information he was given at the time: 'open the gate or people are going to die'.

That's quite a statement and one which needs a reaction. Now, again with better planning/police presence and indeed 2016 eye he may have been able to make a more informed decision based on what was happening outside the ground compared to that inside. 

I suppose abother Way of putting it is asking people what they think might have happened had the gate not been opened?

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

No I agree, but the gate opening is singled out by the inquest as a contributING factor.

The reason I have an issue with this:

I think it's fair to blame David dukinfield for lack of planning/organisation. That's the very basics of his job.

I don't think it's fair to blame him for a reactionary decision based on the information he was given at the time: 'open the gate or people are going to die'.

That's quite a statement and one which needs a reaction. Now, again with better planning/police presence and indeed 2016 eye he may have been able to make a more informed decision based on what was happening outside the ground compared to that inside. 

I suppose abother Way of putting it is asking people what they think might have happened had the gate not been opened?

I don't think you've read anywhere near the level of detail of evidence you claim to have read.

There are statements in this very thread about previous police operations at the very same ground that state exactly what has happened with the gate in question being closed.  Even I can spot those.

Honestly, I think you're looking for a strange bite or trying to apportion blame on Liverpool fans.  You're making things up ("thousands" being without tickets ffs) and stating "what ifs" that go against factual evidence.

What even was your original point?

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

I think it's fair to blame David dukinfield for lack of planning/organisation. That's the very basics of his job.

I don't think it's fair to blame him for a reactionary decision based on the information he was given at the time: 'open the gate or people are going to die'.

That's quite a statement and one which needs a reaction. Now, again with better planning/police presence and indeed 2016 eye he may have been able to make a more informed decision based on what was happening outside the ground compared to that inside. 

I suppose abother Way of putting it is asking people what they think might have happened had the gate not been opened?

Given the situation at that point, the question of whether to open the gate or not is clearly a massively hard one. Regardless of the fact that the cause of the situation up to that point was poor planning, poor communications and many other flaws, it's a horrible one to have to deal with.

We know that he was in the control room with video and/or line of sight view of the real time situation inside and outside the ground. He himself said he froze, I think. He was basically negligent and incompetent and ceased to perform his duty correctly. He didn't make rational decisions weighing up all the information calmly. He didn't communicate with the commanders inside and outside the ground, there were equipment/comms problems too.

But when the reactive decision was made, it was not followed up with the duty of care actions that it should have been. He failed again.

That post by the way was better than this type of sequence

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 there has never been any suggestion that I've seen that there was a lack of police numbers as a contributing factor.

 

1 hour ago, Woodytom said:

Clearly not as well read on the matter as you thought.

 

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

...I have not seen, as I said, that this is blamed or named as a causing/contributing factor and I still haven't.

 

22 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

You probably won't find that

 

[Woodytom]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't think you've read anywhere near the level of detail of evidence you claim to have read.

I don't think you appreciate the level of closeness I have to a number of people that were there/have been close to the inquests etc.

My original point was that it's very difficult to look at the incident through a 2016 eye with any balance.

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, Woodytom said:

I don't think you appreciate the level of closeness I have to a number of people that were there/have been close to the inquests etc.

My original point was that it's very difficult to look at the incident through a 2016 eye with any balance.

What does that even mean?

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Woodytom said:

My original point was that it's very difficult to look at the incident through a 2016 eye with any balance.

I think the opposite. I think this time, this inquiry with the evidence in the open has allowed (far too late) for the thing to be looked at with balance.

I also think the Taylor report (actually in 2 parts) also looked at it in a balanced way (despite the lies the police told etc.). I wonder if closeness to Police people might lend someone a particular viewpoint and closeness to supporters or families another angle? Which is where the benefit of an independent inquiry hearing all the evidence was and is the best starting point.

[Woodytom]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Given the situation at that point, the question of whether to open the gate or not is clearly a massively hard one. 

Which is why I think it's unfair to highlight it as much as the inquest does. 

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

He himself said he froze, I think.

I think this as well is forgivable. I work in a role where things occur (nowhere near on the scale of hillsbrough of course) but when they do and you witness it for the first time, the natural reaction is for some people to freeze and panic. All calmness and logic goes out the window. 

Now, as chief superintendent, he shouldn't. Without doubt he shouldn't have been in that position, nor that rank - at this point, I won't get into my bitterness towards police recruitment and what attributes they seem to really look for in individuals - but he was and he did freeze. But I can understand and forgive that because sometimes that's (and I choose my words carefully) 'human nature'.

[Woodytom]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wonder if closeness to Police people might lend someone a particular viewpoint.

I can see why you may think that but believe me, I have nothing to thank the SYP for. Those I know do but I promise they show as much sympathy with the families as the next man. And they are mortified by the cover up. As I am.

[blandy]

Just now, Woodytom said:

... the natural reaction is for some people to freeze and panic. All calmness and logic goes out the window. 

Now, as chief superintendent, he shouldn't. Without doubt he shouldn't have been in that position, nor that rank - at this point, I won't get into my bitterness towards police recruitment and what attributes they seem to really look for in individuals - but he was and he did freeze. But I can understand and forgive that because sometimes that's (and I choose my words carefully) 'human nature'.

I agree with that part. As a human being, in that short moment, yes, absolutely horrible position to be in, yes people freeze.

The actions/lack of beforehand and afterwards, after the moment of "waking" from the freeze and the decisions of SYP and others, the state of the ground and many other things are all addressed in the reports and responsibility apportioned. The whole thing is not down to one man. The lying and cover up started with him. And regardless of whether he should have been in charge, he was, and he did many things wrong that he simply shouldn't have, even as an inexperienced matchday commander.

the whole blame the fans thing...well that takes us right back to the start.

[bobzy]

6 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Which is why I think it's unfair to highlight it as much as the inquest does. 

I think this as well is forgivable. I work in a role where things occur (nowhere near on the scale of hillsbrough of course) but when they do and you witness it for the first time, the natural reaction is for some people to freeze and panic. All calmness and logic goes out the window. 

Now, as chief superintendent, he shouldn't. Without doubt he shouldn't have been in that position, nor that rank - at this point, I won't get into my bitterness towards police recruitment and what attributes they seem to really look for in individuals - but he was and he did freeze. But I can understand and forgive that because sometimes that's (and I choose my words carefully) 'human nature'.

"You're forgiven mate, you just froze".

**** me.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

I promise they show as much sympathy with the families as the next man. And they are mortified by the cover up. As I am.

I'm sure that's true. Some of the evidence from some of the police is heartbreaking.

[Woodytom]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

What does that even mean?

That because it was so long ago, and we live in a much different world, it's easy to forget what it was like in 1989. 

An easy example of that is health and safety and how our approach to it has changed so much over the last 3 decades. 

[bobzy]

Just now, Woodytom said:

That because it was so long ago, and we live in a much different world, it's easy to forget what it was like in 1989. 

An easy example of that is health and safety and how our approach to it has changed so much over the last 3 decades. 

Being prepared to do a job still exists now as it did then - and this was a huge failure on an already-known issue.

But, to be honest, more than that, lying and covering up and blaming a party that has now been factually proven entirely blameless exists now as it did then.  And a certain police force has been doing this for 27 years.

It's not about "balance".

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Woodytom said:

it's easy to forget what it was like in 1989. 

Depends how old you are. I can remember it pretty clearly.

But basic things like treating people honestly and fairly, not blaming the victims, standing up and taking responsibility, treating people with respect are values which are and should be timeless.

[Woodytom]

Just now, bobzy said:

Being prepared to do a job still exists now as it did then - and this was a huge failure on an already-known issue.

But, to be honest, more than that, lying and covering up and blaming a party that has now been factually proven entirely blameless exists now as it did then.  And a certain police force has been doing this for 27 years.

It's not about "balance".

No, those points aren't and i've never said they are. I've never questioned those points.

However they are not the only points in the inquest.

Btw

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

"You're forgiven mate, you just froze".

**** me.

What a truly remarkably out of context load of nonsense that is.

[hoaxn]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

"You're forgiven mate, you just froze".

**** me.

That's not what he was saying. Freezing in the face of a terrible situation can happen to anyone. If you tell me that's not true, I'll show you a liar.

Just now, Woodytom said:

That because it was so long ago, and we live in a much different world, it's easy to forget what it was like in 1989. 

An easy example of that is health and safety and how our approach to it has changed so much over the last 3 decades. 

I agree with you here. I was born in 1990 so have no idea how things were back then. I have trouble remembering even the late 90's.

I can't imagine going to a public event without officials guiding you to where you should be almost every step of the way.

[Woodytom]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Depends how old you are. I can remember it pretty clearly.

But basic things like treating people honestly and fairly, not blaming the victims, standing up and taking responsibility, treating people with respect are values which are and should be timeless.

They are, hence why at no point over the last couple of days have I shown any support to those that influenced that.

I can understand why lower rank officers went with it tho.