The Hillsborough inquest

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

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. 

You have tried to apportion blame on fans, though, to the extent of entirely fabricating an amount of people without tickets.

In fact, the whole thing has been speculation.  All of your posting here is speculation.  Factually, none of the blame lies with fans nor with the health and safety laws of 1989 nor with not having enough police outside the venue.  In fact, the whole "2016 eye" thing doesn't even make sense.  Semi-finals had been held at the venue in previous years with visible and clear issues.

To be honest, I hope this thread is now done with.  I'm glad the families have had the truth that they've been seeking for so long, finally admitted. 

[Woodytom]

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You have tried to apportion blame on fans, though 

No I haven't.

 

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

to the extent of entirely fabricating an amount of people without tickets.

No more than those who said there were a few.

Don't think anyone truly knows the number.

20 minutes ago, bobzy said:

In fact, the whole thing has been speculation.  All of your posting here is speculation. 

Negative.

Not all the facts are written on the Internet or shown in the media - though I have highlighted some that are.

22 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Factually, none of the blame lies with fans nor with the health and safety laws of 1989 nor with not having enough police outside the venue. 

I've never said that it has tho like I say, not all of the facts are on Google.

23 minutes ago, bobzy said:

In fact, the whole "2016 eye" thing doesn't even make sense. 

To you, hence why you write stuff like 

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Semi-finals had been held at the venue in previous years with visible and clear issues.

that doesn't apply to what I'm suggesting. 

25 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm glad the families have had the truth that they've been seeking for so long, finally admitted. 

Agreed.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Woodytom said:

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

I think this [freezing] 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'.

I predict @snowychap is going to have a seizure when he reads this . . . 

The point, Woody, is it should never have got to that moment. So whether what he did in that moment is forgivable or not, literally nothing else he did that day is forgivable. So it's all really rather irrelevant, and still puzzling why you're talking about it. 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Woodytom said:

Another question you've failed to answer snowychap.

Where have I said that those with tickets were unexpected?

I think you have failed to understand both what you yourself have posted and what I have posted.

You posted about ticketless fans (in their thousands and then an admission that this was an over-exaggeration) and you posted subsequently about the unexpected number of Liverpool fans .

My comment about this last point (unexpected number of...) was:

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

And we're back to the 'ticketless fans' line again (surely only the ones without tickets would have been unexpected?).

Clearly saying that you were returning to the theme of ticketless fans by referring to the unexpected number of Liverpool fans (as surely the fans with tickets would have been fully expected. i.e. only the ones without tickets would have been the unexpected ones) and you agreed with me (yeah).

My point (and I answered what my point was by quoting blandy's criticism of the self-same thing) was of your return to a theme that was already discredited (not least by your own admission that you were making it up).

[snowychap]

2 hours 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.

**** me - is that where we've got to? Inquest ITK?

I deleted it earlier but I'll ask it now: what rank were and are these people, woody?

Edited April 28, 2016 by snowychap

[Woodytom]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I deleted it earlier but I'll ask it now: what rank were and are these people, woody?

From the bottom to top.

[Woodytom]

31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I predict @snowychap is going to have a seizure when he reads this . . . 

The point, Woody, is it should never have got to that moment. So whether what he did in that moment is forgivable or not, literally nothing else he did that day is forgivable. So it's all really rather irrelevant, and still puzzling why you're talking about it. 

First of all, it was blandy who first mentioned freezing so we were talking about it as he brought it up. 

Are you going to ask him why we're talking about it?

Also, it shouldn't have ever got to that point. Kind of what I've said already. Hence why I don't think the opening of the gate should be singled out as a separate mistake in the way that it is.

[Woodytom]

25 minutes ago, snowychap said:

My point (and I answered what my point was by quoting blandy's criticism of the self-same thing) was of your return to a theme that was already discredited (not least by your own admission that you were making it up).

Well no I discredited that there were thousands. Truth is, I don't know. And neither do you.

I never said that I was wrong to say there were ticket less fans. Because there were.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Woodytom

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

From the bottom to top.

I'm not surprised at all by your posting then.

You could have saved us a couple of days of having to read what you posted by declaring your interest in the first place.

Balance, my arse.

[romavillan]

The thing I find hardest to accept in all this, is the deliberate falsification by later alteration of hundreds of statements. It was a systematic cover up which massively saps faith in the police.

[Woodytom]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I'm not surprised at all by your posting then.

You could have saved us a couple of days of having to read what you posted by declaring your interest in the first place.

Balance, my arse.

Snowychap with the greatest of respects, if I wanted to blame the liverpool fans, id just say. 

Not sure why you think I have some hidden agenda and certainly not sure why you think I'd hide it by consistently acknowledging the fault of the police.

Fwiw, I think it's massively naive that you think people associated with the police (I'm not btw) automatically side with the police on this.

I think it's naive, highly laughable and damn right disrespectful tbh.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Well no I discredited that were thousands. Truth is, I don't know. And neither do you.

We kind of do know. I mentioned this earlier, but the Taylor Report (pdf) said

Quote

No Conspiracy

208. I have already found that there was not an abnormally large number of fans without tickets on this occasion. With one or two exceptions, the police witnesses themselves did not subscribe to the "conspiracy" theory. I am satisfied that the large concentration at Leppings Lane from 2.30 pm to 2.50 pm did not arrive as a result ofany concerted plan. There were, I accept, small groups without tickets who were willing to exploit any adventitious chance of getting into the ground.  

 

[Woodytom]

So no solid info then blandy?

[Woodytom]

How many were in each group. How many groups were there? How did they identify people without tickets? Has everyone without a ticket come forward?

Nobody has a clue of the number.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

Truth is, I don't know. And neither do you.

Because no one actually counted the precise number of ticketless fans you feel you're able to continue to push the tired police line about ticketless fans?

 

[Woodytom]

Just now, snowychap said:

Because no one actually counted the precise number of ticketless fans you feel you're able to continue to push the tired police line about ticketless fans?

 

No I feel that you have no place to make out you have anymore of a clue to how many there were than I do.

[villakram]

Some of the discussion in here is pretty disheartening.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

So no solid info then blandy?

What we know is that there were small groups of people without tickets. We do not know precisely how many individual supporters that amounted to, but we know the number had no consequence in terms of the tragic outcome.

What we know is that the behaviour of the supporters (with or without tickets) did not cause or contribute to the tragedy.

What we know is that even the Police, who lied about the gate, who tampered with statements and who destroyed evidence and who shamefully spread "blame" towards the victims, even they didn't say ticketless fans caused the problems.

By the way I have now looked at the panorama programme and a policeman says he was surprised there were fewer police outside the Leppings lanes than he expected. That's it. Nowhere does he say that it was a cause or a factor, as you do.

[Woodytom]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

By the way I have now looked at the panorama programme and a policeman says he was surprised there were fewer police outside the Leppings lanes than he expected. That's it. Nowhere does he say that it was a cause or a factor, as you do.

I never said it did. I told you that you wouldn't find that info when you changed the goalposts stating what you wanted to see. So, you've either not read my posts or you've deliberately posted this to try and prove that I was talking nonsense, when I'm not.

There's also a fan who was concerned by the lack of police. Don't highlight that tho as that wouldn't fit your agenda.

I find it bizarre that because nobody states it, people find it ridiculous to suggest that a greater police presence would have prevented some of the glaring mistakes the police made. Almost like we're not allowed to use our own initiative.

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

First of all, it was blandy who first mentioned freezing so we were talking about it as he brought it up. 

Are you going to ask him why we're talking about it?

If anyone did ask me I'd tell them it was because I've read the evidence and various transcripts and that's what Duckenfield admitted was the case at the decision point. And I mentioned it because you were talking about the decision to open the gate.

All of the inquests have pointed out that the decision to open it was probably the right one under the circumstances, but that a catastrophic lack of judgement, preparation and planning and multiple failures both before and after taking that decision caused the fatalities and injuries. The inquiries have concluded that though the decision was the trigger for the events that followed, the allocation of "blame" is not based on that decision, but on the actions etc. before and after it.