Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine

Heroes & Villains => Other Football => Topic started by: Richard E on April 15, 2016, 08:33:35 AM

Title: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 15, 2016, 08:33:35 AM
As always on this day of the year, please take a moment today to remember fellow supporters who went to watch a football match and never went home again.

RIP. Justice for the 96.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: PeterWithe on April 15, 2016, 08:40:14 AM
RIP
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave shelley on April 15, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
May the fight for justice never show frailty.  Strength in unity.  RIP the 96.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 15, 2016, 10:54:12 AM
Indeed and don't buy The S*n. #JFT96
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 15, 2016, 01:28:33 PM
Echoing what everyone else has said.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: MarkM on April 25, 2016, 12:34:34 PM
Verdicts due on Tuesday Morning at 11am
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on April 25, 2016, 01:09:28 PM
Looks like it'll be a majority verdict on the main question. Hence the delay
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 11:14:46 AM
Unlawful killing by a majority of 7-2.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 11:16:07 AM
The fans behaviour didn't contribute to the disaster.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: spangley1812 on April 26, 2016, 11:17:18 AM
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.

Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: spangley1812 on April 26, 2016, 11:17:42 AM
Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the disaster? Yes or no.

Yes
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 26, 2016, 11:21:35 AM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: SheffieldVillain on April 26, 2016, 11:22:38 AM
Wow. I've believed ever since I was old enough to read about it that it was unlawful killing, but to finally have it admitted by the authorities. I can't imagine how the families of those killed are feeling today.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: spangley1812 on April 26, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
After the crush in the West Terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Yes or no.

Yes.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: auntiesledd on April 26, 2016, 11:24:43 AM
Thank goodness the lies surrounding that dreadful day at Hillsborough are finally being nailed after all this time. I guess it's a case of better late than never, but that's no comfort to the 96 football supporters who lost their lives; or the relatives and friends who are no longer around to see justice being served. May they rest in peace.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: spangley1812 on April 26, 2016, 11:24:59 AM
After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? Yes or no.

Yes
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Woofles The Wonder Dog on April 26, 2016, 11:30:55 AM
I feel quite emotional after that.

 Goodness only knows how the families feel.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 11:42:17 AM
I'm tearful too Woofles.
Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: manic-road on April 26, 2016, 11:43:18 AM
I am pleased for the families of those 96 football supporters who have finally got justice, it should never have taken this long to get this into court for a proper hearing, I hope the families can now finally feel some sense of peace at last.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on April 26, 2016, 11:48:07 AM
I'm tearful too Woofles.
Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.

My initial thought on reading TLP' psot was that it would be good if all the other papers ran front pages that had the *** logo and the word LIARS on underneath.

Then I thought again, as this is about the victims and their families and the side effect of that would be to give that antipodean scuz bucket and his oily rag publicity so scrub that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 26, 2016, 11:54:40 AM
There are still morons online who won't have it, who seem to think that they know better than a jury who listened to the evidence for 2 years. I despair sometimes.   
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Woofles The Wonder Dog on April 26, 2016, 11:56:07 AM
There are still morons online who won't have it, who seem to think that they know better than a jury who listened to the evidence for 2 years. I despair sometimes.

Aye. Sadly we've seen one or two here also.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 11:58:46 AM
CPS are saying they are now considering bringing criminal charges.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 26, 2016, 12:12:06 PM
Two words: The Truth.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 26, 2016, 12:24:25 PM
There are still morons online who won't have it, who seem to think that they know better than a jury who listened to the evidence for 2 years. I despair sometimes.   

You're best ignoring them. They won't listen to anything.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 26, 2016, 12:31:58 PM

Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.

They re-employed that c*nt Mackenzie so I think that isn't going to happen.

I had problems keeping it together at work as the verdicts were coming through, so much respect for the families and all those who fought for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS. Thinking of Anne Williams, a remarkable woman who sadly didn't live to see this day.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Desi on April 26, 2016, 12:33:02 PM
Justice, at last!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/04/26/the-tarnished-initial-hillsborough-inquests-remain-a-stain-on-th/
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 12:46:12 PM
West Midlands Police also have questions to answer following their finding that there was no cover up during their investigation into South Yorkshire Police following the disaster.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on April 26, 2016, 12:48:09 PM
Forgive me, what did WM Police have to do with it?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on April 26, 2016, 12:49:03 PM
Criminal charges should follow now. McKenzie, Dukinfiled, Bernard Ingham....
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 26, 2016, 12:50:49 PM
Forgive me, what did WM Police have to do with it?

Their role in bullying people into changing their Witness Statements, for example.   
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Forgive me, what did WM Police have to do with it?
They were the force tasked with investigating whether or not there was a cover up by SY Police. And said there was no cover up.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on April 26, 2016, 12:55:56 PM
Fair play to the BBC who are reading out the verdicts on each of the 96 with their estimated time of death. And they make a mockery of the original inquest that they were all dead by sixteen minutes past three.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on April 26, 2016, 12:56:42 PM
Thanks. Never heard of that. Suppose it isn't surprising that a police force finds in favour of another police force.

I'd also like to see prosecutions. Can the Sun be sued? Is the MP that made unfounded allegations still alive and if so can they be done for slander?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 26, 2016, 12:56:55 PM
The fans behaviour didn't contribute to the disaster.

Can't see how it could have been.  The only way it could be argued that it was would be the crush outside the turnstiles, but that only happened because of delays on the roads and the funnel system that had been used previously wasn't in place that day due to an oversight. 

I obviously can't speak for the relatives and friends of the victims, but if what happened on the day was terrible, the cover ups and smear campaign that followed was arguably even worse.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 26, 2016, 12:57:54 PM
That's the thing.

Imagine going through this:

Quote
At the gymnasium, families were made to queue outside in the cold, clear night, then eventually brought in and told to look through Polaroid photographs of all those who died, not grouped by age or gender. Families whose loved ones had bus passes or other identifying documents on them were also made to go through this process. When their dead relatives were brought out to them, they were in those body bags. Several parents testified that they were told they could not hold or kiss their dead children because they were “the property of the coroner”.

Dr Stefan Popper, the coroner, who approved the arrangements, ordered blood samples to be taken from all victims and tested for alcohol – even the children, even Jon-Paul Gilhooley, the youngest, aged 10. It has now been revealed that some people lying injured in hospital also had their blood taken, and tested for alcohol. Popper has never fully explained why he decided it was appropriate to take and test people’s blood.

.. and then 27 years of lies and slander from the police, government and media, at various points.

It beggars belief.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Jimbo on April 26, 2016, 01:01:05 PM
Found a chilling clip on youtube of our League Cup quarter final at Upton Park in January '89, three months before Hillsborough.

Watch from 21 mins, when the crowd spills onto the pitch. I remember being terrified at the time, and I was quite a way up near the top. I still find it amazing the game went on with fans standing in the penalty area. 

Had there been fences at Upton Park that day, Hillsborough would have happened to us. Still, not a single lesson was learnt and we all know what happened in Sheffield.   

https://youtu.be/R5T9nMBeH2I
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on April 26, 2016, 01:03:41 PM
That's fucking horrible. Bastards.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AVH87 on April 26, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Mortimer's Bear on April 26, 2016, 01:21:53 PM
I'm tearful too Woofles.
Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.

Whilst The Sun will hopefully get their long overdue comeuppance, surely today should just be about the victims and their families.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: nick harper on April 26, 2016, 01:24:01 PM
Those who bear responsibilty...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/south-yorkshire-police-who-did-what-at-hillsborough
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 26, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Found a chilling clip on youtube of our League Cup quarter final at Upton Park in January '89, three months before Hillsborough.

Watch from 21 mins, when the crowd spills onto the pitch. I remember being terrified at the time, and I was quite a way up near the top. I still find it amazing the game went on with fans standing in the penalty area. 

Had there been fences at Upton Park that day, Hillsborough would have happened to us. Still, not a single lesson was learnt and we all know what happened in Sheffield.   

https://youtu.be/R5T9nMBeH2I

I bought a seat that night and watched all that unfold so the events at the FACup semi came as no surprise.

I cannot express my admiration enough for those that continued to fight against all the odds, heroes come in all shapes and sizes and not always in uniform.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 26, 2016, 01:26:37 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It didn't get mentioned because it wasn't true. Thats the point about today. The truth.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 26, 2016, 01:28:27 PM
My partner's cousin hasn't been to a match since Hillsborough, he was traumatised by what he saw.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on April 26, 2016, 01:29:17 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: glasses on April 26, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It was:

QUESTION 7: Behaviour of the supporters
Posted at
11:14
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.

Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.

Another cheer in court.  ‘Thanks’ comes from the public gallery and  sighs of relief are audible.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AVH87 on April 26, 2016, 01:32:18 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Fair enough. You read that much stuff on news sites/twitter/facebook and forget which is being reported as the truth and which is just opinion, prejudiced or otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 26, 2016, 02:07:49 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Fair enough. You read that much stuff on news sites/twitter/facebook and forget which is being reported as the truth and which is just opinion, prejudiced or otherwise.

There were might have been some with fake tickets or without tickets, but as the video below shows, that was hardly a unique occurrence at big matches back then:



Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: not3bad on April 26, 2016, 02:09:27 PM
I'm tearful too Woofles.
Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.

Whilst The Sun will hopefully get their long overdue comeuppance, surely today should just be about the victims and their families.

Maybe, but apologies may be slow to be forthcoming - today, tomorrow, or ever.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-bernard-ingham-who-labelled-7837120
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 26, 2016, 02:14:11 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Which resulted in Hillsborough not being used as a semi final venue for years.  When it was used again, there were issues at that end of the ground in the Coventry v Leeds semi final and then in the Liverpool v Forest tie they year before the disaster.  Some Liverpool fans even contacted the club to complain about the conditions on the terrace.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: conman on April 26, 2016, 02:33:36 PM
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02531/hillsborough_2531908b.jpg)

thatcher was part of the cover up too , payback time after  the south yorkshire police  looked after her during the miners strike
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on April 26, 2016, 02:57:12 PM
And Boris Johnson has a few questions to answer for his article about Liverpool in 2004

They see themselves whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet at the same time they wallow in it. Part of this flawed psychological state is that they cannot accept that they might have made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it, thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance against the rest of society. The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool's failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 26, 2016, 03:12:44 PM
I doubt that the events of today will change those of a certain mindset, be it establishment figures and their bigoted stereotypes of the "lower orders" or fellow football fans who cannot see beyond their hatred for a rival team.

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 26, 2016, 03:41:46 PM
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.

Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.

No.


I don't think anyone with a shred of knowledge about that day has suggested otherwise for years, including Duckenfield in his evidence to Taylor.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 26, 2016, 03:44:29 PM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.

If you're talking about the unlawful killing verdict I don't agree. I can understand why there was a split over this, and I bet the seven had to think long and hard.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 26, 2016, 03:49:16 PM
Thank goodness the lies surrounding that dreadful day at Hillsborough are finally being nailed after all this time. I guess it's a case of better late than never, but that's no comfort to the 96 football supporters who lost their lives; or the relatives and friends who are no longer around to see justice being served. May they rest in peace.

Taylor in his first / interim report all those years ago pretty much set out the truth of that day, but it was never really accepted by many of those who could and should have acted on it.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: john e on April 26, 2016, 04:58:27 PM
I'm tearful too Woofles.
Hopefully The Sun will now publish a front page apology to the fans but I'm not holding my breath.

Whilst The Sun will hopefully get their long overdue comeuppance, surely today should just be about the victims and their families.

Maybe, but apologies may be slow to be forthcoming - today, tomorrow, or ever.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-bernard-ingham-who-labelled-7837120

The Sun made a front page apology back in 2012
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: simboy on April 26, 2016, 05:42:25 PM
Forgive me, what did WM Police have to do with it?


West Mids carried out the original police enquiry into their colleagues. I think that South Yorks returned the compliment, reviewing the work of the Serious Crime Squad?


Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 26, 2016, 05:49:47 PM


The Sun made a front page apology back in 2012

And then employed Kelvin Mackenzie as a columnist.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 26, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Fair enough. You read that much stuff on news sites/twitter/facebook and forget which is being reported as the truth and which is just opinion, prejudiced or otherwise.

There were might have been some with fake tickets or without tickets, but as the video below shows, that was hardly a unique occurrence at big matches back then:





At the time the deaths occiured the terrace was generally reckoned to be below capacity.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: thick_mike on April 26, 2016, 05:54:36 PM
I was in the Leppings Lane End at the Sheff Wed v Aston Villa game a few months earlier. We arrived at the ground in plenty of time, came through the turnstiles and were faced with a tunnel through which you could see the pitch. The natural thing in an unfamiliar ground is to use the visual cue and head towards the pitch. When we got into the central section it was horrendously overcrowded with more people following behind. It was only after about twenty minutes we were able to move to the side where the terrace was relatively empty.

This was at a bog standard game. I hate to think about what it was like on FA Cup semi final day. It couldn't have been a surprise to the stewards or police. They must have seen this happen week after week without bothering to do anything about it. It's a disgrace.

A friend of mine from university was left in a coma after that day. Thankfully he recovered physically, many who weren't killed didn't.

Now the CPS need to do their jobs properly and bring those responsible to justice.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: CT on April 26, 2016, 06:25:36 PM
I remember walking through that tunnel when we played Wednesday in the first league game of the season under a Big Ron. It was chilling. I'm fairly sure we were the first fans in that lower section since 1989 and since they'd obviously made it all-seater.

I also remember on other visits to Hillsborough that the SYP were none too keen on any items being left to show our respects.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 26, 2016, 07:22:34 PM
Those who bear responsibilty...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/south-yorkshire-police-who-did-what-at-hillsborough

Interesting! If only Russell Crowe had been there on the day things may have been very different.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: peter w on April 26, 2016, 07:29:58 PM
I was in the Leppings Lane End at the Sheff Wed v Aston Villa game a few months earlier. We arrived at the ground in plenty of time, came through the turnstiles and were faced with a tunnel through which you could see the pitch. The natural thing in an unfamiliar ground is to use the visual cue and head towards the pitch. When we got into the central section it was horrendously overcrowded with more people following behind. It was only after about twenty minutes we were able to move to the side where the terrace was relatively empty.

This was at a bog standard game. I hate to think about what it was like on FA Cup semi final day. It couldn't have been a surprise to the stewards or police. They must have seen this happen week after week without bothering to do anything about it. It's a disgrace.

A friend of mine from university was left in a coma after that day. Thankfully he recovered physically, many who weren't killed didn't.

Now the CPS need to do their jobs properly and bring those responsible to justice.

I was at the game but arrived with a mate about 5 minutes after kick off. Like you. I went straight for that tunnel and we thought it was rammed. We went to the sides and it was empty.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 26, 2016, 07:56:58 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Fair enough. You read that much stuff on news sites/twitter/facebook and forget which is being reported as the truth and which is just opinion, prejudiced or otherwise.

There were might have been some with fake tickets or without tickets, but as the video below shows, that was hardly a unique occurrence at big matches back then:





At the time the deaths occiured the terrace was generally reckoned to be below capacity.

So yet another lie then.  The point I was trying to make was that it was blamed on drunk and ticketless fans, but neither of those were particularly uncommon at a lot of big games back then.   
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on April 26, 2016, 08:41:06 PM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.

If you're talking about the unlawful killing verdict I don't agree. I can understand why there was a split over this, and I bet the seven had to think long and hard.

Out of genuine interest Hopadop what avenues were open to the jury? I must admit to agreeing with you but not understanding the legal terminology of what "unlawful killing" means in a Coroners Court, I'm maybe wrong.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 26, 2016, 09:14:42 PM
Lets start with the obvious no one should ever have to worry about their personal  safety at a spectator sporting  event.

So much went wrong on 15th April 1989 it must be have been a nightmare for the jury in every aspect in having to listen to accounts, and testimony to the event.

I never had  any doubt that the  supporters  would be vindicated - I do have some concerns regarding "blame".  A lot of people including the licensing authorities, the Ground administration and the emergency services other than the police have had more than a mention.  Not everything sits well with me  on   that score.  How the ambulance service can ever be blamed for on the spot decisions seems more than an inability to fully understand (mainly due to the cover ups and lies spouted up to this  day).  I am not blaming the jury over this point mind.

I think I am right that to date  it has only been individual police officers who have profited  from Hillsborough (could well be the white case) .

A few oddities have  arisen from Hillsborough  Norman Bettison becoming Chief  Constable of Merseyside Police is just perverse - its  like a leading Nazi becoming a cabinet minister in the Israeli Kennest.  I hope justice catches up  with him.

I am still of the opinion regarding two issues arising out of Hillsborough:

1. Safe Standing should be  forgotten about - be as romantic as you want but if the Leppings Lane had been seated then  we  would not be discussing 15th April 1989 right now.

2. Football needs to properly consider the supporters.  In no shape or form does the governing bodies or  the clubs in general. 

RIP the 96
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on April 26, 2016, 09:23:38 PM
Justice at last. I will wait for the wife to finish with Geordie Shore and then fire up the Hillsborough TV drama for a watch again.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 26, 2016, 09:34:48 PM
A great day for the families of the victims, can't believe it's taken a lifetime.

One question though, without wishing to antagonise anyone, although clearly the police made all the errors, surely the thing that started that chain of events was far more fans turning up than the number of tickets allocated? Surprised that didn't get mentioned in the summary of the jury's verdict.

It wasn't the number of fans arriving at the ground, it was the fact that they were funnelled through a very small part of the ground. Just look at how the pens either side were relatively empty. And look at footage of Wolves v Spurs at Hillsbrough a few years earlier (81?) where something similar happened

Fair enough. You read that much stuff on news sites/twitter/facebook and forget which is being reported as the truth and which is just opinion, prejudiced or otherwise.

There were might have been some with fake tickets or without tickets, but as the video below shows, that was hardly a unique occurrence at big matches back then:





At the time the deaths occiured the terrace was generally reckoned to be below capacity.

So yet another lie then.  The point I was trying to make was that it was blamed on drunk and ticketless fans, but neither of those were particularly uncommon at a lot of big games back then.   

And neither was a factor.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 26, 2016, 10:46:52 PM
Strangely absent from the front page of either The  Sun or The Times tomorrow. Why ever would that be, now?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: maidstonevillain on April 26, 2016, 11:13:07 PM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.

If you're talking about the unlawful killing verdict I don't agree. I can understand why there was a split over this, and I bet the seven had to think long and hard.

I am with Hopadop on this.  The principal cause of the whole tragedy was a copper, who probably shouldn't have been put in charge that day, making a wrong agony of the moment decision.  Hardly gross negligence, in my opinion. The real crime was what went on afterwards with the treatment of the families, and the attempted cover ups.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on April 26, 2016, 11:18:59 PM
I know The Sun acted disgracefully. What did The Times do? Surely nothing as bad as "The Truth"?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 26, 2016, 11:19:41 PM
When you see footage of the tragedy it's a striking and haunting image seeing the line of coppers stood on the halfway line making no attempt to help people but to keep the supporters apart despite the fact the Forest fans are making no attempt to get on yo the pitch. Hearing the call was put out for police dogs to enter the stadium instead of ambulances must have been yet another crushing blow to the families.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 27, 2016, 12:28:15 AM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.

If you're talking about the unlawful killing verdict I don't agree. I can understand why there was a split over this, and I bet the seven had to think long and hard.

Out of genuine interest Hopadop what avenues were open to the jury? I must admit to agreeing with you but not understanding the legal terminology of what "unlawful killing" means in a Coroners Court, I'm maybe wrong.

Here's the jury questionnaire (http://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Jury-questionnaires.pdf)

Q6 on p13 addresses unlawful killing and refers the jury to the legal directions on pp30 and 31 - basically four matters of which they had to be sure in order to decide that the 96 were unlawfully killed.

It seems the first and second matters (that Duckenfield owed a duty of care and he breached it) would not have been difficult. Three (that the breach was at least one of the causes of the deaths) was probably a given in light of the evidence, not least from the man himself. I'd assume number four would have been the most problematic and the one which caused the split in the jury - basically would a competent match commander have foreseen the danger, and was Duckenfield's breach so bad as to be criminal - ie was he grossly negligent?

It can't have been easy.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 27, 2016, 12:41:09 AM
The only possible verdict and clearly the right one. Hopefully we will see prosecutions follow.

In future, the next time an idiot tries to blame the victims it will be possible to remind them that a jury of ordinary people having heard all of the evidence in great detail found otherwise.

If you're talking about the unlawful killing verdict I don't agree. I can understand why there was a split over this, and I bet the seven had to think long and hard.

I am with Hopadop on this.  The principal cause of the whole tragedy was a copper, who probably shouldn't have been put in charge that day, making a wrong agony of the moment decision.  Hardly gross negligence, in my opinion. The real crime was what went on afterwards with the treatment of the families, and the attempted cover ups.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure. The jury heard the evidence and a majority of them said he was. I think it was a case of wrong man, wrong place and time. I'm just not sure the right man would've done much better. Lord Taylor concluded:

284. The likeliest explanation of Mr Duckenfield's conduct is that he simply could not face the enormity of the decision to open the gates and all that flowed therefrom. That would explain what he said to Mr Kelly, what he did not say to Mr Jackson, his aversion to addressing the crowd and his failure to take effective control of the disaster situation. He froze.

I think he's a man who's been struggling with that enormity ever since.

Totally agree with your latter point.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on April 27, 2016, 12:55:11 AM
He may well have been the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was far more than a copper making a wrong decision; he was the chief copper making a catastrophic decision because he was grossly negligent in his preparation for a major event:-

"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."

If that's not gross negligence I don't know what is.  That's from this article by David Conn of The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades).  I would urge everyone to read it - particularly if you have any queries or doubts about the inquest.  Mr Conn lent his weight to the campaign for justice and has written extensively (and brilliantly) on the subject over the years; this is a superlative account of the tragedy and how the shameful conspiracy took root.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: jimmygreen on April 27, 2016, 01:23:39 AM
The Guardian also produced this piece - it's hard watching but between 3 - 6 minutes in puts to bed the ticketless and drunken idea. How would anyone even know? It's just a big, big crowd hopelessly being corralled into an inadequate space, with archaic processing and woeful control. Seven turnstiles... It looks like any big crowd did back then. It's been said about the WH game and outside the Tilton in 87 on here before. It could have been anyone at the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-inquiry-anatomy-of-a-disaster-video?CMP=share_btn_tw
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on April 27, 2016, 02:05:57 AM
The Guardian also produced this piece - it's hard watching but between 3 - 6 minutes in puts to bed the ticketless and drunken idea. How would anyone even know? It's just a big, big crowd hopelessly being corralled into an inadequate space, with archaic processing and woeful control. Seven turnstiles... It looks like any big crowd did back then. It's been said about the WH game and outside the Tilton in 87 on here before. It could have been anyone at the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-inquiry-anatomy-of-a-disaster-video?CMP=share_btn_tw

That should put paid to ant doubts about how it happened, an outstanding bit of journalism.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: ACVilla on April 27, 2016, 06:23:40 AM
I know The Sun acted disgracefully. What did The Times do? Surely nothing as bad as "The Truth"?
It's The Sun's sister paper, owned by News International. This page here shows all of today's front pages, it's an astonishing kick in the teeth for the families:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-36147007
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 27, 2016, 07:14:41 AM
I know The Sun acted disgracefully. What did The Times do? Surely nothing as bad as "The Truth"?
It's The Sun's sister paper, owned by News International. This page here shows all of today's front pages, it's an astonishing kick in the teeth for the families:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-36147007

It's exactly what I expected of any organisation under the guidance of Murdoch.

Whats galls me is that the BBC still give airtime to such an individual as McKenzie through regular appearences on Question Time, I know there are a few guests who maybe a bit suspect in the credibility stakes but to have such an odious character on the panel is something you would expect of rating chasers such as 5 and ITV.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on April 27, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
It's worth watching McKenzie getting doorstepped yesterday on C4 news. There's probably a link to to it somewhere. He's usually so keen to open his mouth...
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Tom_Mc9? on April 27, 2016, 09:29:45 AM
A man on Radio WM still saying that the fans are to blame because of 'the riot outside' and they 'trampled the victims to death' instead of picking them up. The mind boggles. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: garyfouroaks on April 27, 2016, 11:28:34 AM


As the detail emerged of the police operation that day, the toxic combination of avoidable factors blinked as they emerged into broad daylight. Yes there were mitigating factors, and yes there were many other contributing factors, as the majority verdict suggested, but the tipping point for unlawful killing had been passed.


Anyone who has experienced the loss of someone close, or seen those who have, will know that reactions vary. The media have been full of speculation of prosecutions and “making people pay”. That sense is not universal. No-one save the most junior officer and official is still working. No-one intended to kill that day. Unlawful killing is one thing, criminal negligence is another. The lackadaisical approach of Duckenfield comes pretty close to it though (David Conn article in The Guardian)- would any of us accept such disregard for responsibility if he was the pilot of our plane?

Whether extending the anguish  has sufficient likely reward is debateable. My own view is that it is the falsification of evidence offences that should be put on trial, the rest were found wanting on the day – a day when few of us would have wanted to be put to the test.

And then there are those who are never mentioned. Those that entered an already packed terrace . It was what you did, we all did it back then. The police and the ground staff  should have prevented access. They did so oblivious of the consequences, but it cannot stop them thinking of them.

What is not being widely mentioned is that the disaster was a turning point in a way that few disasters are. The Hillsborough legacy is that no-one has died at a football match in England, Scotland and Wales since, in a crowd related incident.

Unless you attended football in the 70’s and 80’s it is difficult to appreciate how much has changed.

A combination of modern stadia, intensive CCTV, numbered seating, far more season ticket holders (fewer casuals, more identifiable supporters), far better communications between officials inside and outside the grounds and to police control centres, no mass standing terraces, computerised turnstiles, far better training for police, stewards ( who know the grounds,) and medical staff, enforced banning orders on serial troublemakers, specific disaster/emergency  plans,  the removal   of perimeter and lateral fencing, the gentrification of the game and the increase in female support has all, in varying degrees, combined to revolutionised match going safety.

It is difficult to see what new lessons can be learned, as it strikes me that not only have those lessons been learned, but that remedies and solutions have all been implemented remarkably successfully.

The first paradox of Hillsborough is that it would have been impossible to have had the reasoned, balanced judgement of events at the time, the toxicity of football, and football supporters was too great. But now, almost thirty years later, it is difficult to objectively assess the cultural mores of the day. But the inquest has done a remarkable job at overcoming that problem.

The second paradox of Hillsborough is that it was a non-hooligan related disaster caused by football hooliganism. The police, after twenty five years of policing terrace battles, were geared up for that, not crowd safety, which at the time didn’t seem a significant concern of a sizeable core of supporters, or the authorities who showed virtually no concern for crowd safety whatsoever. Equally the ambulance service was geared to deal with the consequences of the boot, fist and bottle, not a crowd disaster.

The third paradox is that while the overwhelming majority of grounds have either been rebuilt, or relocated and built new, the Leppings Lane End remains largely unchanged, and LFC has been amongst the most sluggish to modernise their ground.

It is true that terracing itself was not to blame for the Hillsborough disaster. It is not true to say that seats would have made no difference. Numbered seats distribute fans equally. At Hillsborough, fans were free to go where they wished amongst the four pens with deadly consequences. If Hillsborough had offered numbered seating, the fans, once through the opened gate, would have naturally, and evenly, dispersed between the four pens.

The professionalism of the Police on this occasion fell astonishingly short of what could reasonably have been expected, the unlawful killing verdict is the right one. The subsequent cover-up was criminal, and in my view more serious than the circumstances of the immediate disaster itself. The police didn’t intend to kill supporters, gates had been opened at football before to relieve crushes without major incident. But perverting the course of justice with fabricated allegations and evidence is wrong, and they knew it. That was done in the cold light of day, not in the heat of the moment.

But we should not forget the circumstances which created a Police and Ambulance service focussed on public order, and not public safety.

It would be  myopic to focus on the performance of the Police and Ambulance service of the day. The FA’s response to the corrosive effects of hooliganism over 25 years was pathetic and negligent. All Clubs failed to place public safety on an equal footing with public order. The FA were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield City council were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield  Wednesday were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. LFC , the Football League and the FA were negligent in not holding a full enquiry into the Heysel Disaster, when so many  common denominators ( poor ground, fencing, poor policing, poor planning) existed.

The capacity of the police, and fans, to behave, badly is still there, but ground and crowd safety is immeasurably better. RIP the 96.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 27, 2016, 11:31:58 AM
It's worth watching McKenzie getting doorstepped yesterday on C4 news. There's probably a link to to it somewhere. He's usually so keen to open his mouth...

Is that where a reporter confronts him as he's going in a shop? I caught a bit of that where he was implying he was also a victim somehow as he printed what he was told on good authority and felt he was somehow being used. What a massive c*nt.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Lucky Eddie on April 27, 2016, 12:05:35 PM
It's worth watching McKenzie getting doorstepped yesterday on C4 news. There's probably a link to to it somewhere. He's usually so keen to open his mouth...

The arrogance of the man is unbelievable. These people consider themselves above an apology.

To imply that he's just another victim is beyond contempt.

Is that where a reporter confronts him as he's going in a shop? I caught a bit of that where he was implying he was also a victim somehow as he printed what he was told on good authority and felt he was somehow being used. What a massive c*nt.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: fredm on April 27, 2016, 12:09:14 PM


But we should not forget the circumstances which created a Police and Ambulance service focussed on public order, and not public safety.

It would be  myopic to focus on the performance of the Police and Ambulance service of the day. The FA’s response to the corrosive effects of hooliganism over 25 years was pathetic and negligent. All Clubs failed to place public safety on an equal footing with public order. The FA were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield City council were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield  Wednesday were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. LFC , the Football League and the FA were negligent in not holding a full enquiry into the Heysel Disaster, when so many  common denominators ( poor ground, fencing, poor policing, poor planning) existed.

The capacity of the police, and fans, to behave, badly is still there, but ground and crowd safety is immeasurably better. RIP the 96.


This. What has virtually been conveniently overlooked during all this sorry saga is the fact that no match of any description should have been scheduled to have been played at Hillsborough on that date as there was no safety certificate in force in respect of the ground. Those in charge at the FA and those below them should shoulder just as much blame as others.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air on April 27, 2016, 12:17:21 PM
McKenzie these days portraying himself as a victim is breathtaking in the extreme. The media was fed a pack of lies by The Police in the days following the disaster. A lot of papers were taken in and reported what was said but it was only The Sun with its now infamous `The Truth`front page that in their best traditions of journalism went for the jugular of football fans.

The Police lied and lied and lied again, but it was McKenzie who signed off the story in the form it was presented and stuck to it for many years after until forced into a grovelling apology.

Now he chooses to try and shift any responsibility entirely from himself once again.  The truth is The Sun has always represented the basest and worst form of the nasty sensationalist headlines in order to sell papers. Should McKenzie be blamed for this ? Again, he would probably say that's not his fault. He would then probably say blame the people who buy our papers then because this is the sort of trash they want to read. Mckenzie is just a victim of having to pander to a populist readership. But even then, it was his responsibility that such reporting was signed off to print. Was that Mckenzies fault then ? No of course not, he was just a victim of Murdoch giving him the job in the first place !   

 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 27, 2016, 12:19:39 PM
It's worth watching McKenzie getting doorstepped yesterday on C4 news. There's probably a link to to it somewhere. He's usually so keen to open his mouth...

Is that where a reporter confronts him as he's going in a shop? I caught a bit of that where he was implying he was also a victim somehow as he printed what he was told on good authority and felt he was somehow being used. What a massive c*nt.

He printed it because he believed or at the very least, wanted to believe that it was the truth. It fitted the then narative regarding football supporters and fitted the wider stereotype that still exists today about a certain section of society: feckless, lazy and savage. Immigrants, the unemployed, those on benefits, "chavs". The attack on football supporters by then then Government would have continued unabated were it not for a working class kid from Newcastle bursting into tears on national TV. The tide turned then, ironically the same people who sought to demonise Football and it's supporters then saw an opprtunity to make a lot of money, and they have, by the bucketload.

I don't think that McKenzie really thinks any different despite the events of yesterday, or for that matter Boris Johnson, Ingham or Jeremy Hunt. The worrying thing is that one of the aforementioned could be PM by the end of the year.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air on April 27, 2016, 01:06:25 PM
I don't think that McKenzie really thinks any different despite the events of yesterday, or for that matter Boris Johnson, Ingham or Jeremy Hunt.

Letter from Sir Bernard Ingham to Graham Skinner in December 30, 1996

"Thank you for your letter of December 11. I believe that there would have been no Hillsborough disaster if tanked-up yobs had not turned up in very large numbers to try to force their way into the ground.

I visited Hillsborough the day after the disaster and I know what I learned then. I have never denied that the police may have made mistakes, but I firmly believe that the Lord Chief Justice whitewashed the real culprits and I said so from the moment I read his report.

I have not seen the McGovern film. But I am long enough in the tooth to know that TV films should never be accepted as evidence. But let us suppose there is something in the film – for example, the “evidence” that the pens were already full when the gates were opened. W

What, then were all those people doing trying to get into the ground? I have never, of course, said where they came from because I do not know.

I have no intention of apologising for my views which are sincerely held on the basis of what I heard first hand at Hillsborough. I have, however, one suggestion to make: for its own good, Liverpool – with the Heysel disaster in the background – should shut up about Hillsborough.

“Nothing can now bring back those who died – innocent people who, by virtue of being in the ground early, had their lives crushed out of them by a mob surging in late.

To go on about it serves only to confirm in many people’s minds that Liverpool has a very bad conscience about soccer disasters. I think it a disgrace to the public service that South Yorkshire policemen have won the right to compensation.

But it will do Liverpool no good whatsoever in the eyes of the nation if, egged on by ambulance-chasing lawyers, those who saw their relatives killed at Hillsborough now sue for compensation for the “trauma”. Is the pain of losing a relative to be soothed away by a fat cheque?

Take my advice, Mr Skinner: least said, soonest mended for Liverpool."

Sir Bernard Ingham 26th April 2016.

Margaret Thatcher's former chief press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham once again refused to apologise for blaming Liverpool FC fans for the Hillsborough disaster.

He was speaking at the door of his Surrey home after a Warrington jury ruled 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough.

The jury also concluded Liverpool fans played no part in causing the disaster.

Sir Bernard told The Mirror he was not willing to talk about the verdicts returned after a two-year hearing.

And he said he had "nothing to say" when asked if he would be apologising for branding Liverpool fans "tanked up yobs".

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/bernard-ingham-still-refuses-say-11244412
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on April 27, 2016, 02:40:49 PM
Blimey, I thought he was dead.

Just checked the Wiki and he's a lot younger than I thought he'd be. Must have been relatively young compared to the others around Thatch
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on April 27, 2016, 03:12:43 PM


But we should not forget the circumstances which created a Police and Ambulance service focussed on public order, and not public safety.

It would be  myopic to focus on the performance of the Police and Ambulance service of the day. The FA’s response to the corrosive effects of hooliganism over 25 years was pathetic and negligent. All Clubs failed to place public safety on an equal footing with public order. The FA were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield City council were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. Sheffield  Wednesday were criminally negligent in allowing an FA Cup semi- final to be held at Hillsborough when it didn’t hold a valid safety certificate. LFC , the Football League and the FA were negligent in not holding a full enquiry into the Heysel Disaster, when so many  common denominators ( poor ground, fencing, poor policing, poor planning) existed.

The capacity of the police, and fans, to behave, badly is still there, but ground and crowd safety is immeasurably better. RIP the 96.


This. What has virtually been conveniently overlooked during all this sorry saga is the fact that no match of any description should have been scheduled to have been played at Hillsborough on that date as there was no safety certificate in force in respect of the ground. Those in charge at the FA and those below them should shoulder just as much blame as others.

Indeed, such was the culture at the time. One only has to look at the chained fire exit doors at Valley Parade to see a terrifying example just a few years before, where loss of revenue came higher on the list of priorities than loss of life

We now have a more rigorous H&S approach by way of a reaction to these types of events, which means that they are mercifully less common. But as the memory fades, then complacency can take the place of concern and H&S becomes viewed as a "pain in the arse" and something that restricts business, where one or two over-zealous rulings become an exagerated view of the norm, and where the claim culture forces commerce to protect itself against endless claims of negligence. This all costs money and now we see where the motivation to depart the EU and their "restrictive" legislation comes from for some, the need to be free of such red tape handed down by the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels in order to increase profits.


In the early days of the coaliton I recall talk of a "Great Repeal" bill to sweep away unneccesary rules and red tape but this seems to have been quietly dropped, perhaps because most regulation, particularly when considering H&S, was bought in as a reaction to accidents and incidents and when scrutinised is perfectly justifiable.

H&S is a huge part of my job and can be a major frustration at times, but when you look at the events at Valley Parade, Hillsborough and countless other incidents, it's not really that much of a burden at all.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on April 27, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
It's worth watching McKenzie getting doorstepped yesterday on C4 news. There's probably a link to to it somewhere. He's usually so keen to open his mouth...

Is that where a reporter confronts him as he's going in a shop? I caught a bit of that where he was implying he was also a victim somehow as he printed what he was told on good authority and felt he was somehow being used. What a massive c*nt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-sun-kelvin-mackenzie-hillsborough-inquiry-verdict-police-disgrace_uk_57208681e4b06bf544e0f0a7?utm_hp_ref=uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/hillsborough-disaster-kelvin-mackenzie-apologises-for-hurt-caused-by-the-sun-s-1989-front-page-a7003031.html
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: garyfouroaks on April 27, 2016, 05:06:37 PM
He may well have been the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was far more than a copper making a wrong decision; he was the chief copper making a catastrophic decision because he was grossly negligent in his preparation for a major event:-

"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."

If that's not gross negligence I don't know what is.  That's from this article by David Conn of The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades).  I would urge everyone to read it - particularly if you have any queries or doubts about the inquest.  Mr Conn lent his weight to the campaign for justice and has written extensively (and brilliantly) on the subject over the years; this is a superlative account of the tragedy and how the shameful conspiracy took root.

It looks like a craven dereliction of duty, doesn’t it?

I would be interested to hear from the match day commanders at other grounds for similar events. Was this arrogant, complacent, and lazy? Or was there a sense that if you kept rival fans apart, penned in, with coppers and dogs to deter invaders, not much could go wrong?
It was also Sheffield Wednesday’s ground, their turnstile operators, and match day staff. It never was the Police’s job to “show customers to their seats”. Where was their plan to fill the four pens safely? Or was there never any plan like there wasn’t a safety certificate? If not, why not?

It strikes me that Sheff Wed did nothing for their fee other than provide an unlicensed ground.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: ez on April 27, 2016, 05:20:31 PM
96 people unlawfully killed and it's covered up for 27 years. It really is shocking.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 27, 2016, 05:43:02 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air on April 27, 2016, 06:15:02 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

The FA had stopped using Hillsborough as a semi-final venue in 1981 after a serious crush (38 injured) during a match between Tottenham  and Wolves, but reinstated it in 1987. Despite a series of modifications to the ground and to the terracing at the Leppings Lane end, no new safety certificates were issued.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: IAmTheOneIanOlney on April 27, 2016, 06:30:01 PM
I read this earlier, about the Sun blackmailing one of the families. It is just horrific:

"They were angered by the deception used to obtain Lee's school photograph. A Sun journalist had called at the family home and was persistent in his request of a photograph of Lee. They were reluctant to respond to the request but he stated that without a "good" photograph of Lee, the paper would have to use the one taken on the pitch. To prevent the publication of the photograph of Lee's death, they provided a school photograph only to find that the Sun used both and gave the explicit photograph prominence."
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 27, 2016, 06:34:14 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

The FA had stopped using Hillsborough as a semi-final venue in 1981 after a serious crush (38 injured) during a match between Tottenham  and Wolves, but reinstated it in 1987. Despite a series of modifications to the ground and to the terracing at the Leppings Lane end, no new safety certificates were issued.

Sheffield Wednesday secretary Graham Mackrell didn't resign after Hillsborough. He did resign as West Ham secretary after the Manny Omoyinmi League Cup cock-up.  Nice to know his sense of priorities.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: andrew08 on April 27, 2016, 07:34:41 PM
Villa were ahead of the game back then a little bit with crowd control and Stewarding . Upto about 1986 ish my family were Stewards at Villa Park. From about 1978 my family were pretty much responsible for the away section in the North Stand. Most games this would mean that my Grandad, Dad, Uncles and I would stand in the empty section leaning up a stanchion watching the game and then wander up to Holte End to watch the second half. At sell out games and the Semi Finals we'd stand in front of the fences with keys in case anything went wrong, then still go up the Holte End second half. I was 15 when we won the league so had a great view of it all but in hindsight I was probably a tad young to be holding keys..

I don't know what happened to change things but at some point about 1985 we all had to undergo training, got paid for going to games and advised that watching the game wasn't really the point. We quit then and became Season Ticket holders... Which I've been ever since. And Stewarding became noticeably better from that point on.

I'm afraid to say that post Hillsborough my family were very much in agreement that Liverpool fans behaviour would have had some bearing on what happened based on what we experienced with them. They always had more sections of terrace open than what the turnstile count said... They just had this thing for 'bunking in'. Obviously over the years my view has changed but like many events in history it sometimes makes sense to have an understanding of feelings at the time.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 27, 2016, 08:54:56 PM
My brother was a student at Preston during the mid 80s and got a job as a steward at Deepdale to earn extra cash. The older guys who basically wanted to watch PNE for free took the easy positions and got my brother and the other younger ones to deal with either the away fans or where the less savoury elements of the home support congregated.  I think it would be fair to say that inexperienced/poorly trained stewarding was pretty universal in those days.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on April 27, 2016, 09:48:08 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

You've got more chance of Graham Kelly, taking a bungee of the Wembley Arch than uttering a word other than self defence on this.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on April 27, 2016, 09:55:15 PM
As a complete aside, the verdicts were headline news over here, and I was actually surprised and impressed at how much, particularly TV2 had gone into the background and politics around Hillsborough and understood that it wasn't just a one off that day, that was just the day football fans ran out of luck and Liverpool caught the short straw.

They'd also got how, to the government and the FA, football fans were a problem to be corralled into pens and treated like cattle.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 27, 2016, 10:03:46 PM
Watched the vigil this evening, very moving and powerful, the city of Liverpool has every right to feel proud.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 28, 2016, 08:13:33 AM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

You've got more chance of Graham Kelly, taking a bungee of the Wembley Arch than uttering a word other than self defence on this.

They have been very quiet on the issue haven't they, as have Sheffield Wednesday. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: JD on April 28, 2016, 08:14:09 AM
Watched the vigil this evening, very moving and powerful, the city of Liverpool has every right to feel proud.

It certainly does and it brought a tear to my eyes as well. Very moving.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 28, 2016, 08:17:59 AM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

You've got more chance of Graham Kelly, taking a bungee of the Wembley Arch than uttering a word other than self defence on this.

They have been very quiet on the issue haven't they, as have Sheffield Wednesday. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/hillsborough-inquest-why-the-fas-weasel-words-on-hillsborough-are-inadequate-a7003826.html

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on April 28, 2016, 12:39:49 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

You've got more chance of Graham Kelly, taking a bungee of the Wembley Arch than uttering a word other than self defence on this.

They have been very quiet on the issue haven't they, as have Sheffield Wednesday. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/hillsborough-inquest-why-the-fas-weasel-words-on-hillsborough-are-inadequate-a7003826.html


Some of that's new to me.  Unfortunately none of it's a surprise.

And whilst we're on no surprises, I'm in no way defending Duckenfield, but is there anything happening / mention of his boss, who directly contributed to the whole horrible chain of events by assigning someone who was woefully inexperienced for that role at that match.

If there's criminal negligence anywhere, it's right there. (in my non legalese world at least)



EDIT - Not a did at the legal profession, just an observation that the language, as a necessity is very precise in it's definitions.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 28, 2016, 02:01:27 PM


And whilst we're on no surprises, I'm in no way defending Duckenfield, but is there anything happening / mention of his boss, who directly contributed to the whole horrible chain of events by assigning someone who was woefully inexperienced for that role at that match.

If there's criminal negligence anywhere, it's right there. (in my non legalese world at least)



David Conn wrote a brilliant article that went into detail about his role, Peter Wright died in 2011 but was evidently feared by all and a bully who ran the South Yorkshire police like a regiment.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 28, 2016, 04:10:13 PM
Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?

You've got more chance of Graham Kelly, taking a bungee of the Wembley Arch than uttering a word other than self defence on this.

They have been very quiet on the issue haven't they, as have Sheffield Wednesday. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/hillsborough-inquest-why-the-fas-weasel-words-on-hillsborough-are-inadequate-a7003826.html


Some of that's new to me.  Unfortunately none of it's a surprise.

And whilst we're on no surprises, I'm in no way defending Duckenfield, but is there anything happening / mention of his boss, who directly contributed to the whole horrible chain of events by assigning someone who was woefully inexperienced for that role at that match.

If there's criminal negligence anywhere, it's right there. (in my non legalese world at least)



EDIT - Not a did at the legal profession, just an observation that the language, as a necessity is very precise in it's definitions.

He's dead.

Edit: apologies Chris. Just seen that you beat me to it. I too saw it in David Conn's magnificent piece.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: NatP on April 28, 2016, 07:15:29 PM
This is not a new article, but I always find it one of the most moving.

https://yicetor.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/hillsborough-disaster/

I believe has been shared on here before but if anyone missed it at the time... It's written by someone who was a 10 year old Wednesday fan and Sheffield resident at the time of the disaster.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 28, 2016, 09:34:10 PM
He may well have been the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was far more than a copper making a wrong decision; he was the chief copper making a catastrophic decision because he was grossly negligent in his preparation for a major event:-

"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."

If that's not gross negligence I don't know what is.  That's from this article by David Conn of The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades).  I would urge everyone to read it - particularly if you have any queries or doubts about the inquest.  Mr Conn lent his weight to the campaign for justice and has written extensively (and brilliantly) on the subject over the years; this is a superlative account of the tragedy and how the shameful conspiracy took root.


I don't disagree with any of that, but I think it's worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the unlawful killing verdict. In considering gross negligence the jury had to compare Duckenfield's competence with that of other match commanders of the time. It's a hard thing to do - did Hillsborough not happen under other commanders' watches because they were more competent, or did they just not get found out? The point about his focus being on public order rather than safety is well made, but I'd bet it was an attitude common among his peers and others in authority. Why else were the fences there?

I found it interesting that having returned unanimous verdicts on the 13 other questions, the nine remaining jurors split on this one. I can understand why the two dissenters did so, particularly as the standard of proof required for this question alone was that they were sure.

Finally (Joshua Rozenberg made these points a day or two ago) I don't understand why the jury were asked the unlawful killing question at all. It's very unusual for an inquest to proceed ahead of a criminal case - it's not a trial itself and can obviously prejudice one. The risk was overwhelming and given the amount of approval the verdicts have received, from the Prime Minister down, it's hard to argue otherwise. So why take it given the investigations we are told are ongoing? There'll rightly be an application to stay any criminal trial as an abuse of process as a result.

And specifically, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that:

(2)A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—

(a)criminal liability on the part of a named person

Which Question 6 clearly did. I don't know how that circle was squared.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: pete bland on April 29, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that:

(2)A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—

(a)criminal liability on the part of a named person

Which Question 6 clearly did. I don't know how that circle was squared.
It didn't refer to any "named person". 
"Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed"
It's a fine line, perhaps, as it's pretty clear Duckenfield is the one (rightly) most likely to be affected if the Inquest outcome were to be taken into consideration in any other procedings.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 29, 2016, 03:20:19 PM
As you say so far so thin line.

But have a look at the Jury Questionnaire (https://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/General-jury-questionnaire-FINAL-54004274_1.pdf) and the Q6 legal directions on pp30-31 which the jury are directed they must follow.

The 'essential matters' state that:

Essential Matters
As a matter of law, you may only answer “yes” to Question 6 if you are sure of each of the following
four matters:
1. First, that Chief Superintendent Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 people who
died in the Disaster.
2. Second, that Chief Superintendent Duckenfield was in breach of that duty of care.
3. Third, that Chief Superintendent Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care caused the
deaths.
4. Fourth, that the breach of Chief Superintendent Duckenfield’s duty of care which
caused the deaths amounted to “gross negligence.”

The following legal directions on each of the four matters continue to repeatedly and solely reference Duckenfield as the subject of their deliberations.

I don't see how it could be sensibly suggested that the determination doesn't clearly 'frame' him.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 29, 2016, 05:07:16 PM
I felt a sense of foreboding today when I saw that Katie Hopkins had written an article on this for the Daily Heil, but it was fine. Even they aren't that stupid.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: pete bland on April 29, 2016, 08:30:39 PM
As you say so far so thin line.....I don't see how it could be sensibly suggested that the determination doesn't clearly 'frame' him.
I think we agree, basically. My feeling is that the Inquiry was right to ask the "unlawful killing question". It's exactly IMO what needed addressing (with al the other questions). Not to have asked it because of the timing of other legal actions, or to have somehow asked it later is to me a worse option than the fine line they took. It might be against legal convention, but in this instance (as a layman) I just think it's the right path, they've taken.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: spangley1812 on April 29, 2016, 08:46:14 PM
David Conn was on this weeks Football Weekly Extra Podcast and he spoke so well about what had happened,etc

Also I think @ next weeks Newcastle game we should sing a chorus of "Justice for the 96"........Thats just my opinion of course
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: PeterWithesShin on April 30, 2016, 11:50:28 PM
MOTD ended with that Peter Jones commentary, I still get dust in my eyes when he says "and the sun shines now".
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 01, 2016, 12:02:24 PM
I've been an emotional wreck this week, always found it an emotive subject and it's something I've been passionate about for 27 years, seeing the beaming smile of Margaret Aspinall yesterday set me off again, what a woman!
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on May 01, 2016, 07:01:42 PM
I wish she would shut her trap about safe standing mind.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on May 02, 2016, 12:06:59 PM
Another superb article this time from The Observer by Adrian Tempany. You can feel the anger as you read this.

Link (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/01/hillsborough-inquest-survivor-adrian-tempany)
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: taylorsworkrate on May 02, 2016, 02:29:42 PM
Another superb article this time from The Observer by Adrian Tempany. You can feel the anger as you read this.

Link (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/01/hillsborough-inquest-survivor-adrian-tempany)

That is one hell of an emotive read
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on May 02, 2016, 02:55:57 PM
Another superb article this time from The Observer by Adrian Tempany. You can feel the anger as you read this.

Link (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/01/hillsborough-inquest-survivor-adrian-tempany)

That is one hell of an emotive read

That article and the one by David Conn really reveal in graphic detail the true human horror that people went through that day in a way that I haven't read before.  I found them very hard to read in places.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on May 02, 2016, 08:39:33 PM
I wish she would shut her trap about safe standing mind.

I've got mixed views  about her.  Sure it is the worst of the worst to lose a son or daughter, so can forgive a lot. 

She appears to give an aura out that she is a celeb and I don't like that kind of publicity. 

As for her views on safe standing I am very surprised.  Would have thought she is in the camp where that is a no no.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 02, 2016, 08:55:19 PM
I wish she would shut her trap about safe standing mind.

She appears to give an aura out that she is a celeb and I don't like that kind of publicity. 


I'd love to know how you've come to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on May 02, 2016, 09:05:01 PM
She is very media  savy - obviously had the Rooney/Beckham  tuition. 

As I said though let her be. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on May 02, 2016, 09:08:30 PM
It goes without saying that I respect her for the campaign, but her attitude over safe standing is at best misguided. She's talked about safe standing as a "battle" the justice campaigners have had to fight, as though the two are linked, and I also remember her saying something about how the German example didn't count as they've never had a Hillsborough. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 02, 2016, 09:14:19 PM
She is very media  savy - obviously had the Rooney/Beckham  tuition. 

As I said though let her be. 

The Rooney/Beckham tuition, are you for real?

If she's had media training it's because she's somebody who never wished to be in the spotlight but has to be because she lost a child 27 years ago and has had to spend that time trying to get anybody and everybody to listen. I'm not sure how the fuck that gives the impression she thinks she is a 'celeb'?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on May 03, 2016, 09:42:56 AM
This might be an interesting Twitter feed to follow over the next few months (https://twitter.com/wrong_kennedy)

He's documenting all the evidence of cover ups and altered statements after Hillsborough, laready some startling stuff on his timeline, and this tweet:

The Wrong Kennedy ‏@wrong_kennedy  22h22 hours ago
People have been shocked by the Hillsborough evidence deleted by South Yorks Police

Just wait until the evidence they *created* goes public
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on May 03, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
Another superb article this time from The Observer by Adrian Tempany. You can feel the anger as you read this.

Link (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/01/hillsborough-inquest-survivor-adrian-tempany)

That is one hell of an emotive read

The hell that people have gone through.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on May 03, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
This might be an interesting Twitter feed to follow over the next few months (https://twitter.com/wrong_kennedy)

He's documenting all the evidence of cover ups and altered statements after Hillsborough, laready some startling stuff on his timeline, and this tweet:

The Wrong Kennedy ‏@wrong_kennedy  22h22 hours ago
People have been shocked by the Hillsborough evidence deleted by South Yorks Police

Just wait until the evidence they *created* goes public

Thanks Dave, this ones going to run and run.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 03, 2016, 10:39:57 AM
Thanks Dave.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Sexual Ealing on May 03, 2016, 12:30:12 PM
This is a bit good. Apologies if already posted elsewhere:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-presenter-tears-cornered-rat-11251900
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV89 on May 03, 2016, 07:55:09 PM
This might be an interesting Twitter feed to follow over the next few months (https://twitter.com/wrong_kennedy)

He's documenting all the evidence of cover ups and altered statements after Hillsborough, laready some startling stuff on his timeline, and this tweet:

The Wrong Kennedy ‏@wrong_kennedy  22h22 hours ago
People have been shocked by the Hillsborough evidence deleted by South Yorks Police

Just wait until the evidence they *created* goes public

Thanks Dave, this ones going to run and run.

The whole thing makes you wonder that if they've have been able to cover something like this up, what else have they covered up over the years?

I was talking to a mate yesterday (Wolves fan) who was at Hillsborough for the 81 semi-final, and he remembers seeing some of the Spurs fans in Leppings Lane piling onto the pitch.  There were so many warnings about that stand, with issues in 81 and again in 87.  Plus the neglect that led to the fire at Bradford.  So many warnings and yet the authorities turned a blind eye to it.  Football fans at that time were treated like public enemy number one.

We should all be grateful that the ground of today are not the disgraceful death traps of the 1980s - but not that it took so many unnecessary fatalities to do it.

One other thing.  Now that the truth is known, hopefully this will stop some fans of certain clubs (Liverpool included) from belting out sick songs about disasters.  Sadly I wouldn't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on May 03, 2016, 08:48:57 PM
AV89, one of the links in the tweet Dave Cooper links to, has a further link to a tweet about previous injuries on the Leppings Lane terrace.

There were 5 serious injuries recorded in that Wolves v Tottenham semi final that could be attributed to crush injuries. In addition there was a fatality due to crush injuries back in 1934.

How much the 1934 terrace resembled 1989 who knows.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on May 04, 2016, 12:28:02 PM
One of single most damning things on that Twitter link is this:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChaVE8zWgAAJO_o.jpg)

Difficult to read on that image but it's a deleted line from the police log which is the order to close the tunnel leading to the central pens at 2:55.

A few  things. One, the order is probably too late as the overcrowding in those pens should have been (in fact was) spotted much earlier and the tunnel should have been shut then.
Two, there was no way the order couls have been carried out in any case as the police were so overwhelmed and disorganised in that concourse.
Three, THEY FUCKING DELETED IT!

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV89 on May 04, 2016, 12:51:05 PM
Chilling to think of the consequences had that shot from Peter Beardsley gone in rather than hitting the bar.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: taylorsworkrate on May 05, 2016, 02:54:50 AM
One of the things that has always struck me, is that even at the height of the disaster, where fans were heroically trying to save the dying and the injured whilst the emergency services looked on, the police still thought the very worst of football fans and stood across the half way to seperate the two teams supporters.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Witton Warrior on May 05, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
One of the things that has always struck me, is that even at the height of the disaster, where fans were heroically trying to save the dying and the injured whilst the emergency services looked on, the police still thought the very worst of football fans and stood across the half way to seperate the two teams supporters.

This came out strongly didn't it. Duckenfield was more worried about Public Disorder than Public Safety. I know a few of us were idiots in the 70's and 80's (more excitable than nasty I always thought) but there was a definite edge to policing where a blind eye was turned to how fans were treated. I have a mate now who was with WMids at the time and he tells horrendous tales of the Police attitudes to the general public let alone footie fans.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 05, 2016, 10:40:09 AM
Hearing the call went out for police dogs to be brought on to the pitch rather than ambulances says all you need to know about the attitudes at the time towards football supporters.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villa in Denmark on May 05, 2016, 11:00:08 PM
Well they do say that a leopard never changes it's spots.

Hillsborough: South Yorkshire police 'tried to spin' inquests evidence (http://gu.com/p/4tqhy)
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on May 08, 2016, 10:47:25 AM
BBC 2 tonight 2100 - 2305. A programme simply titled Hillsborough.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: LTA on May 08, 2016, 09:26:33 PM
BBC 2 tonight 2100 - 2305. A programme simply titled Hillsborough.

Am watching it now.  Absolutely harrowing
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: VillaAlways on May 08, 2016, 10:21:04 PM
BBC 2 tonight 2100 - 2305. A programme simply titled Hillsborough.

Am watching it now.  Absolutely harrowing
Totally
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: LTA on May 08, 2016, 11:02:26 PM
Anyone who still thinks Hillsborough happened because of the Liverpool fans need to watch this documentary.  It is an absolute disgrace to see the way the press and South Yorkshire Police tried to discredit the 96.

I feel also for the police who were there, tried to help, and then spoke the truth in their statements - only to then have them changed behind their backs.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on May 08, 2016, 11:17:26 PM
That was a very difficult watch. I didn't realise until tonight that the altered statements were done without the knowledge of the officers who wrote the originals. I'd always assumed that it was done with their connivance.
And once again the dirty fingerprints of West Midlands Police are all over this. Yet nothing much seems to be being done about their involvement in the lies and smears.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Des Little on May 08, 2016, 11:46:03 PM
Most possibly the most distressing to programme I've ever seen. Count me as one of those whose attitude towards the disaster and subsequent campaign has changed completely...I can only cite ignorance as the reason, and I take no pleasure in doing so.

Anyone yet to watch this programme has to do so at their earliest opportunity. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 09, 2016, 12:14:46 AM
This isn't the benefit of hindsight but South Yorkshire and West Midlands police had terrible reputations where football supporters were concerned, having West Midlands investigate the behaviour of South Yorkshire was like asking Cyril Smith to investigate Savile.

Never forget how much help the families got from Blair or Jack Straw either.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on May 09, 2016, 08:29:04 AM
Now on iPlayer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07bgnkn/hillsborough
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on May 09, 2016, 11:04:55 AM
I'd forgotten about the role of that objectionable toerag Paul Middup until last night, I held it together until Margaret Aspinall described waiting for the coaches to return at Lime Street, heartbreaking.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on May 09, 2016, 11:55:58 AM
I couldn't watch all of it. I'm sure some of the more horrific footage has not been shown before on British TV.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Smith on May 09, 2016, 12:31:55 PM
I am struggling to find the right word for the programme as to say I enjoyed it would be ridiculous when it reduced me to tears several times but it was an admirable effort from the BBC. It has been said before but anyone who went to football back then will be only to aware that it could have been any of us hit by that perfect storm of inadequate facilities and incompetent policing. The subsequent cover up is another level of mendacity and corruption and I hope now that those responsible finally get what they deserve.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Mortimer's Bear on May 16, 2016, 01:26:20 PM
I haven't seen it, but I will search for it on iplayer tonight.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave shelley on May 19, 2016, 08:32:58 PM
Something nice.  Lucky Boy (http://www.joe.ie/sport/video-hillsborough-survivor-meets-the-man-who-saved-his-life-after-27-years/545745)

I don't think this has been posted on here yet.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on May 20, 2016, 07:55:45 AM
Something nice.  Lucky Boy (http://www.joe.ie/sport/video-hillsborough-survivor-meets-the-man-who-saved-his-life-after-27-years/545745)

I don't think this has been posted on here yet.

Lovely. I saw the appeal on Facebook but didn't realise they had managed to meet each other.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: PeterWithe on May 20, 2016, 08:05:44 AM
Edit. Wrong thread.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Sexual Ealing on July 13, 2016, 10:50:06 PM
Fair play to Colin Murray: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/13/colin-murray-quits-talksport-sun-owner-news-corp
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on August 24, 2016, 08:28:10 AM
19 witnesses wanted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-37167290
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on January 12, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38582111

Quote
Files on 23 people and organisations involved in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.
An inquests jury concluded last April that the 96 victims of the FA Cup semi-final tragedy were unlawfully killed.
The jury found match commander, Ch Supt David Duckenfield, responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence.
Prosecutors will now decide whether to bring criminal charges against the unnamed 23.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 15, 2017, 08:10:55 AM
UKIP Shitbiscuit Arron Banks in "being an utter c***" shock with his views on Hillsborough.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on February 15, 2017, 08:13:27 AM
UKIP Shitbiscuit Arron Banks in "being an utter c***" shock with his views on Hillsborough.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks

He's a fucking charmer isn't he?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on April 15, 2017, 01:30:49 AM
I'll put it here simply because of who it is and the people he decided to "joke" about. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39603942) Two things are immediate. McKuntzies response of he didn't know he didn't know he was from a mixed family is very similar to his "We wuz told that by other people". So essentially he still hasn't learnt anything almost 30 years on that just because you were ignorant is not exactly a good defense. Secondly, I'm surprised Everton allow Sun reporters in. I thought they were in solidarity about that. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 15, 2017, 08:15:21 AM
Never forget, never forgive. There but for the grace of god went all of us. RIP.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on April 15, 2017, 12:07:23 PM
That paper now banned from Goodison.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 15, 2017, 01:55:08 PM
MacKenzie's "defence" what he didn't know Ross Barkley's ancestory beggars belief. That he was allowed to publish such a piece, that is a character assassination of every Liverpudlian male, on the anniversary of Hillsborough tells you everything you need to know about the him as an individual and the paper's editorial standards.  A truly despicable individual and paper.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on April 15, 2017, 02:40:17 PM
I totally agree Topdeck. Forgetting the Barkley comparison, but for both the paper and Kuntzie to decide to denigrate the character of the city so close to Anniversary of one of their most despicable front pages of modern times just shows what type of scum they all are. I just wish the country would wise up to them but too many want their picture of tits in the morning.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: PeterWithe on April 15, 2017, 03:06:48 PM
They must think we are stupid to be fobbed off by offering up McKenzie as a sacrificial lamb for their obnoxiousness.

RIP the 96.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: lovejoy on April 15, 2017, 10:11:21 PM
Surely the answer here is to not buy the newspaper - simple as that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 30, 2017, 09:09:08 PM
I still look at people who buy the sun as if they two heads. Worse for me though is the attitude of sheff wed. You would have thought they would have demolished or rebuilt their leppings lane whose tunnel is still more than a nuisance
Title: Hillsborough
Post by: four fornicholl on June 27, 2017, 11:07:02 PM
Going over really old ground, can't find the thread, but a decision over who will be charged will be made tomorrow.
Police cover up,Four individuals, The council, and the Ambulance service? Sad times.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on June 27, 2017, 11:09:39 PM
I hope they finally get justice.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on June 28, 2017, 04:13:18 AM
Thread is in 'Other Football'

http://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=55877.0
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 11:38:04 AM
Six charged. Five for perverting the course of justice and/or misconduct in office. Manslaughter charge for Duckenfield. I hope I have reported that right from what I just quickly heard.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 28, 2017, 11:49:58 AM
Six charged. Five for perverting the course of justice and/or misconduct in office. Manslaughter charge for Duckenfield. I hope I have reported that right from what I just quickly heard.

You have. What a great day for justice.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: garyshawsknee on June 28, 2017, 11:59:56 AM
I had an awful feeling this morning that no one would face prosecution. Great reward for the families who have been through hell and can finally get the justice they fully deserve.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 28, 2017, 12:05:37 PM
A good day.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: aj2k77 on June 28, 2017, 12:12:49 PM
A long long time coming, let's hope sufficient sentences are now handed out. A shame on our system that it's taken nearly 30 years.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 28, 2017, 12:21:21 PM
A long long time coming, let's hope sufficient sentences are now handed out. A shame on our system that it's taken nearly 30 years.

If proved beyond reasonable doubt of course, innocent until proven guilty etc etc.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: LeeB on June 28, 2017, 12:25:45 PM
A long long time coming, let's hope sufficient sentences are now handed out. A shame on our system that it's taken nearly 30 years.

If proved beyond reasonable doubt of course, innocent until proven guilty etc etc.

Of course, but you don't go to the lengths they did to cover it up if there's nothing to cover up.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on June 28, 2017, 01:02:48 PM
I am hoping the fact that Duckenfield was promised by the Judge at his original trial that he would not be jailed even if convicted will not be a bar to a prison sentence if he is found guilty.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 01:09:43 PM
I am hoping the fact that Duckenfield was promised by the Judge at his original trial that he would not be jailed even if convicted will not be a bar to a prison sentence if he is found guilty.

My knowledge of the law is sketchy but that comment by the judge seems a bit 'iffy' to me. Clearly the offence of manslaughter has been de criminalised. So am I right in saying I am now allowed to smoke cannabis and commit manslaughter without fear of reprisal?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: maidstonevillain on June 28, 2017, 01:35:59 PM
I think Duckinfield will be found innocent. He was a copper put in a position where he was out of his depth, and panicked.  Not gross negligence in my view.

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 01:39:54 PM
For me it isn't about punishing people for mistakes. It is about covering up, lying and deflecting blame. And a distinct lack of genuine empathy or sorrow.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on June 28, 2017, 01:40:02 PM
See wm police are still being investigated over a possible cover up

To be honest I think it is about time things get wrapped up and people move on. If you lived where I live just outside from Liverpool you would understand my comment. It dominates far to many people's minds  who had no direct involvement

Hill borough was tragic but where does it end.  On the flick people like Bettison appear on the surface to be well let's say not my kind of folk

I do feel sorry for duckinfield in that he appears to have been made a scapegoat. He panicked. His only real mistake in my eyes was trying to cover it up.

If you do want to proportion blame then surely the fa should be included for not checking the grounds safety certificate

Finally despite everything the leppings lane remains the same. Something we all need to take responsibility for
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 01:47:59 PM
See wm police are still being investigated over a possible cover up

To be honest I think it is about time things get wrapped up and people move on. If you lived where I live just outside from Liverpool you would understand my comment. It dominates far to many people's minds  who had no direct involvement

Hill borough was tragic but where does it end.  On the flick people like Bettison appear on the surface to be well let's say not my kind of folk

I do feel sorry for duckinfield in that he appears to have been made a scapegoat. He panicked. His only real mistake in my eyes was trying to cover it up.

If you do want to proportion blame then surely the fa should be included for not checking the grounds safety certificate

Finally despite everything the leppings lane remains the same. Something we all need to take responsibility for



I don't think I could dismiss his cover up as a 'mistake'. I'm sure it is a bit more serious than that as the phrase 'manslauter suggests. But I do totally agree that the FA appear to have got off very lightly.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: aj2k77 on June 28, 2017, 01:55:58 PM
His only real mistake was to put the blame for the incident on innocent people who for years were demonised in some quarters as drunken scum when the people who were paid to ensure their safety let them down. That's not just a mistake, it's cowardly, disgusting and criminal.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on June 28, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
Well I hope it doesn't end, I hope people continue to fight for justice, continue to shout and scream when it is not served, to demonstrate, to petition, to seek truth and to hold those in the wrong to account. Without those strong hearts and minds the world would be a much poorer place

From Amnesty to Anti-Aparthied, from the glorious beacon of the Hillsborough families to the small group of concerned residents at Grenfell. Call the bastards out. Every time.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on June 28, 2017, 02:14:30 PM
See wm police are still being investigated over a possible cover up

To be honest I think it is about time things get wrapped up and people move on. If you lived where I live just outside from Liverpool you would understand my comment. It dominates far to many people's minds  who had no direct involvement

Hill borough was tragic but where does it end.  On the flick people like Bettison appear on the surface to be well let's say not my kind of folk

I do feel sorry for duckinfield in that he appears to have been made a scapegoat. He panicked. His only real mistake in my eyes was trying to cover it up.

If you do want to proportion blame then surely the fa should be included for not checking the grounds safety certificate

Finally despite everything the leppings lane remains the same. Something we all need to take responsibility for



I don't think I could dismiss his cover up as a 'mistake'. I'm sure it is a bit more serious than that as the phrase 'manslauter suggests. But I do totally agree that the FA appear to have got off very lightly.

Agree Damo.  They seem to have been absolved of any blame which is very questionable given as semi finals are 'their' matches.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 02:27:04 PM
I seem to remember that sour faced tw*t Graham Kelly from the FA like a rabbit stuck in the headlights desperately searching for excuses and somebody to blame. I've just Googled him. Take a wild guess which year he quit. I will give you a clue. It was between 1988 and 1990.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 28, 2017, 02:36:44 PM
I seem to remember that sour faced tw*t Graham Kelly from the FA like a rabbit stuck in the headlights desperately searching for excuses and somebody to blame. I've just Googled him. Take a wild guess which year he quit. I will give you a clue. It was between 1988 and 1990.

That was the year he joined the FA.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: maidstonevillain on June 28, 2017, 02:37:04 PM
His only real mistake was to put the blame for the incident on innocent people who for years were demonised in some quarters as drunken scum when the people who were paid to ensure their safety let them down. That's not just a mistake, it's cowardly, disgusting and criminal.

But it's not manslaughter.  It was also others that were allegedly more involved in the blame game, and who quite rightly are being charged.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: aj2k77 on June 28, 2017, 07:06:03 PM
His only real mistake was to put the blame for the incident on innocent people who for years were demonised in some quarters as drunken scum when the people who were paid to ensure their safety let them down. That's not just a mistake, it's cowardly, disgusting and criminal.

But it's not manslaughter.  It was also others that were allegedly more involved in the blame game, and who quite rightly are being charged.

Fair point, I don't know the full ins and outs of the case and the personalities involved but at the very least he's perverted the cause of justice.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on June 28, 2017, 07:15:21 PM
But hasn't been charged with that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on June 28, 2017, 07:23:08 PM
Satisfied to see that someone from Sheff Wed has been charged.  I hate the way they call  it the Liverpool Disaster.  Could easily have been  the Tottenham tragedy (their semi v  Wolves had shades  of a similar  issue)  or some other club.  Still can't believe they think that filter tunnel is safe.

Sheff Wed away is a good by pricey day out, pity they didn't rebuild the stand.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Ads on June 28, 2017, 09:02:06 PM
The coroner of the original enquiry was a bellend. Refusing to take evidence of anything that happened after 15:15 because "all victims were dead", despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on June 28, 2017, 09:32:20 PM
See wm police are still being investigated over a possible cover up

To be honest I think it is about time things get wrapped up and people move on. If you lived where I live just outside from Liverpool you would understand my comment. It dominates far to many people's minds  who had no direct involvement

Hill borough was tragic but where does it end.  On the flick people like Bettison appear on the surface to be well let's say not my kind of folk

I do feel sorry for duckinfield in that he appears to have been made a scapegoat. He panicked. His only real mistake in my eyes was trying to cover it up.

If you do want to proportion blame then surely the fa should be included for not checking the grounds safety certificate

Finally despite everything the leppings lane remains the same. Something we all need to take responsibility for

A couple of things here that I have to take issue with.

David Duckenfield's lies were not "his only real mistake". Duckenfield gave the order to open the gates. At the same time he failed to recognise the need to close the central pens. These decisions, his decisions, led directly to the deaths of 96 people. It was a catastrophic error of judgment. Had he done his homework and familiarised himself with the stadium layout he may not have made these terrible decisions. But he did not do that, hence he was unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with the scenario. That was gross negligence.

When he realised his error, he compounded it by claiming that he had not ordered that the gates be opened, and that the fans had stormed them. That was an outright lie.

It really mustn't be forgotten that that lie, and the whole cover-up, started right there, right then, in that stadium while the dead were still dying.  The seeds of conspiracy were being sown by Duckenfield and his employers as early as that.

Duckenfield is no scapegoat, he richly deserves his manslaughter charge, as do the others who stand accused of perjury and whatever else their corruption has been labelled. None of them deserves an ounce of sympathy.

I agree that the FA has got off very lightly here. I'm not sure how or why.

Where does it end? It ends when justice has been done. When those responsible for the tragedy and the conspiracy have been held to account.

Over the last twenty-five years I've heard plenty of calls for the people of Liverpool to move on; let it go, Liverpool, you've made your point, stop wallowing. Thankfully they didn't; the families - with the support of the whole city, including those you'd deem not directly involved - wouldn't let it go, and it's that persistence from that huge number of people that's got them this far.

You can only admire the incredible resilience and tenacity shown by the Hillsborough families, and to echo Nev's earlier post, I hope it inspires other victims of injustice to keep fighting until they get the answers they deserve. As far as I'm concerned they can't shout loud or long enough.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 28, 2017, 09:43:02 PM
I would guess that the FA could argue that they hired the venue expecting it to be safe. Sheffield Wednesday were responsible for the running of the event and therefore any negligence lies with them.

I don't know why you're saying you hate them calling it the Liverpool Disaster. 96 Liverpool supporters died.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on June 28, 2017, 09:48:53 PM
See wm police are still being investigated over a possible cover up

To be honest I think it is about time things get wrapped up and people move on. If you lived where I live just outside from Liverpool you would understand my comment. It dominates far to many people's minds  who had no direct involvement

Hill borough was tragic but where does it end.  On the flick people like Bettison appear on the surface to be well let's say not my kind of folk

I do feel sorry for duckinfield in that he appears to have been made a scapegoat. He panicked. His only real mistake in my eyes was trying to cover it up.

If you do want to proportion blame then surely the fa should be included for not checking the grounds safety certificate

Finally despite everything the leppings lane remains the same. Something we all need to take responsibility for

A couple of things here that I have to take issue with.

David Duckenfield's lies were not "his only real mistake". Duckenfield gave the order to open the gates. At the same time he failed to recognise the need to close the central pens. These decisions, his decisions, led directly to the deaths of 96 people. It was a catastrophic error of judgment. Had he done his homework and familiarised himself with the stadium layout he may not have made these terrible decisions. But he did not do that, hence he was unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with the scenario. That was gross negligence.

When he realised his error, he compounded it by claiming that he had not ordered that the gates be opened, and that the fans had stormed them. That was an outright lie.

It really mustn't be forgotten that that lie, and the whole cover-up, started right there, right then, in that stadium while the dead were still dying.  The seeds of conspiracy were being sown by Duckenfield and his employers as early as that.

Duckenfield is no scapegoat, he richly deserves his manslaughter charge, as do the others who stand accused of perjury and whatever else their corruption has been labelled. None of them deserves an ounce of sympathy.

I agree that the FA has got off very lightly here. I'm not sure how or why.

Where does it end? It ends when justice has been done. When those responsible for the tragedy and the conspiracy have been held to account.

Over the last twenty-five years I've heard plenty of calls for the people of Liverpool to move on; let it go, Liverpool, you've made your point, stop wallowing. Thankfully they didn't; the families - with the support of the whole city, including those you'd deem not directly involved - wouldn't let it go, and it's that persistence from that huge number of people that's got them this far.

You can only admire the incredible resilience and tenacity shown by the Hillsborough families, and to echo Nev's earlier post, I hope it inspires other victims of injustice to keep fighting until they get the answers they deserve. As far as I'm concerned they can't shout loud or long enough.

This. Every single word of this.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 28, 2017, 09:52:53 PM
I would guess that the FA could argue that they hired the venue expecting it to be safe. Sheffield Wednesday were responsible for the running of the event and therefore any negligence lies with them.

I don't know why you're saying you hate them calling it the Liverpool Disaster. 96 Liverpool supporters died.


Would the FA have not had a safety assessment officer check the ground out beforehand? Or would that have been irrelevant if it was down to the lack of competence of Duckenfield and the police in general?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 28, 2017, 09:56:45 PM
I would guess that the FA could argue that they hired the venue expecting it to be safe. Sheffield Wednesday were responsible for the running of the event and therefore any negligence lies with them.

I don't know why you're saying you hate them calling it the Liverpool Disaster. 96 Liverpool supporters died.


Would the FA have not had a safety assessment officer check the ground out beforehand? Or would that have been irrelevant if it was down to the lack of competence of Duckenfield and the police in general?

I'm not sure such a post existed then. It was usually a case of what the police says, goes.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on June 28, 2017, 10:04:11 PM
I would guess that the FA could argue that they hired the venue expecting it to be safe. Sheffield Wednesday were responsible for the running of the event and therefore any negligence lies with them.

Actually that sounds quite likely, in which case the CPS may well have felt there was little chance of prosecution.

I suppose it's in light of the fact that there had been previous close calls (including in the semi-final the previous year) that had not been acted upon that made me wonder if the FA might be found culpable in any way.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on June 28, 2017, 10:13:20 PM
Sheffield Wednesday always seem to have got a free pass over the disaster, bearing in mind they were the owners of the death trap where this catastrophe happened.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on June 28, 2017, 11:10:48 PM
Hadn't there been a near-miss at Hillsborough before, or hadn't it failed a safety certificate? I'm sure I remember reading something like that, with the suggestion that the FA were at least party-culpable for the choice of venue.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on June 28, 2017, 11:28:43 PM
The Chinchilla has saved me commenting on the judgement, I can't add anything to his excellent post.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on June 28, 2017, 11:35:56 PM
Hadn't there been a near-miss at Hillsborough before, or hadn't it failed a safety certificate? I'm sure I remember reading something like that, with the suggestion that the FA were at least party-culpable for the choice of venue.

Yes (Tottenham v Wolves in 1981 as mentioned earlier).
And yes, the safety certificate had run out some years previously, there had been "improvements" to the Lepping Lane terrace between '84 and '89 and no safety certificate had ever been signed off during or after this work(for improvements read more fences including the internal fences making it into pens which prevented the natural spreading of fans across the terrace therefore exacerbating the crush).

My son has just finished his dissertation on Safe Standing and the Hillsborough disaster, the research we did together was revealing and frightening at times.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cdbullyweefan on June 28, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Thanks Dave. On the basis that much of the FA has, traditionally, consisted of ageing white blokes, are many of the people who may have had some say in deciding the venue still alive?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on June 29, 2017, 01:50:28 AM
Well certainly not the Chairman at the time, Bert Millichip, he died in 2002. And you can't really pin anything on Graham Kelly (chief Executive) as he had literally only just taken over from Ted Croker who died in 1992.
 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: peter w on June 29, 2017, 03:31:17 AM
Six charged. Five for perverting the course of justice and/or misconduct in office. Manslaughter charge for Duckenfield. I hope I have reported that right from what I just quickly heard.

Wow. I'm Stateside at the moment so just catching up with this. Never thought it would get this far. Maybe being a fan of that era I still expect the cover ups to see this not get the real justice and punishments it deserves.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: sid1964 on June 29, 2017, 06:43:29 AM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on June 29, 2017, 07:24:46 AM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

Ding! And here we go again.....
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 29, 2017, 08:16:18 AM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

<must not bite, must not bite>

I humbly suggest you do some research.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 29, 2017, 08:22:02 AM
I'm glad Mackrel had been bought to book. In one of David Conns excellent books about the changing face of football he did a chapter on Mackrell and I came away genuinely shocked at the attitude he displayed it really upset and annoyed me. Ever since reading it I researched more and it led to me reading the Taylor Report properly for the first time. It's amazing really the facts laid out clearly before us, hiding in plain sight and ignored by many.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on June 29, 2017, 08:36:37 AM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

No justice for them apart from the people who served prison sentences for manslaughter?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 29, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
I'm glad Mackrel had been bought to book. In one of David Conns excellent books about the changing face of football he did a chapter on Mackrell and I came away genuinely shocked at the attitude he displayed it really upset and annoyed me. Ever since reading it I researched more and it led to me reading the Taylor Report properly for the first time. It's amazing really the facts laid out clearly before us, hiding in plain sight and ignored by many.

He didn't think 96 deaths were worth resigning over but the West Ham sub mistake was.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Tugby Villain on June 29, 2017, 08:54:24 AM
Hadn't there been a near-miss at Hillsborough before, or hadn't it failed a safety certificate? I'm sure I remember reading something like that, with the suggestion that the FA were at least party-culpable for the choice of venue.

Yes (Tottenham v Wolves in 1981 as mentioned earlier).
And yes, the safety certificate had run out some years previously, there had been "improvements" to the Lepping Lane terrace between '84 and '89 and no safety certificate had ever been signed off during or after this work(for improvements read more fences including the internal fences making it into pens which prevented the natural spreading of fans across the terrace therefore exacerbating the crush).

My son has just finished his dissertation on Safe Standing and the Hillsborough disaster, the research we did together was revealing and frightening at times.

What were his conclusions Dave?  Genuinely interested in the safe standing debate.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: JD on June 29, 2017, 09:58:02 AM
The Chinchilla has saved me commenting on the judgement, I can't add anything to his excellent post.

Totally agree. Brilliant post Chinchilla.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: maidstonevillain on June 29, 2017, 12:32:53 PM
The coroner of the original enquiry was a bellend. Refusing to take evidence of anything that happened after 15:15 because "all victims were dead", despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.


Which is a bit ironic, considering one was still alive in 1993
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on June 29, 2017, 12:41:24 PM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

Every. Fucking. Time.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on June 29, 2017, 12:42:40 PM
The honours system is a load of bollocks but if they're going to have one then every single person who has fought for justice for the 96 should be given the top honours. Liverpool as a city has been magnificent.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on June 29, 2017, 12:42:53 PM
He may well have been the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was far more than a copper making a wrong decision; he was the chief copper making a catastrophic decision because he was grossly negligent in his preparation for a major event:-

"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."

If that's not gross negligence I don't know what is.  That's from this article by David Conn of The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades).  I would urge everyone to read it - particularly if you have any queries or doubts about the inquest.  Mr Conn lent his weight to the campaign for justice and has written extensively (and brilliantly) on the subject over the years; this is a superlative account of the tragedy and how the shameful conspiracy took root.


I don't disagree with any of that, but I think it's worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the unlawful killing verdict. In considering gross negligence the jury had to compare Duckenfield's competence with that of other match commanders of the time. It's a hard thing to do - did Hillsborough not happen under other commanders' watches because they were more competent, or did they just not get found out? The point about his focus being on public order rather than safety is well made, but I'd bet it was an attitude common among his peers and others in authority. Why else were the fences there?

I found it interesting that having returned unanimous verdicts on the 13 other questions, the nine remaining jurors split on this one. I can understand why the two dissenters did so, particularly as the standard of proof required for this question alone was that they were sure.

Finally (Joshua Rozenberg made these points a day or two ago) I don't understand why the jury were asked the unlawful killing question at all. It's very unusual for an inquest to proceed ahead of a criminal case - it's not a trial itself and can obviously prejudice one. The risk was overwhelming and given the amount of approval the verdicts have received, from the Prime Minister down, it's hard to argue otherwise. So why take it given the investigations we are told are ongoing? There'll rightly be an application to stay any criminal trial as an abuse of process as a result.

And specifically, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that:

(2)A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—

(a)criminal liability on the part of a named person

Which Question 6 clearly did. I don't know how that circle was squared.

I'm not at all surprised by the decision to prosecute, but I'd be a lot more confident of justice being done in Duckenfield's case if he hadn't already been 'convicted' by the inquest jury.

Unless I've missed something (quite possible) there could and should be an application on his behalf to stay as an abuse of process and it could and should be successful. I'd be surprised if it was though.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 29, 2017, 12:53:52 PM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

What police and government cover up took place over Heysel?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on June 29, 2017, 01:32:10 PM
Hopadop- I think you're right that an abuse of process application won't succeed because no Judge would dare grant it. Do you think the previous promise of no jail strengthens the application?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 29, 2017, 06:29:30 PM
I'm glad Mackrel had been bought to book. In one of David Conns excellent books about the changing face of football he did a chapter on Mackrell and I came away genuinely shocked at the attitude he displayed it really upset and annoyed me. Ever since reading it I researched more and it led to me reading the Taylor Report properly for the first time. It's amazing really the facts laid out clearly before us, hiding in plain sight and ignored by many.

He didn't think 96 deaths were worth resigning over but the West Ham sub mistake was.

That was it, quite staggering. What a grade A copper bottomed wanker.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 29, 2017, 07:44:21 PM
I am relieved for the families of this tragedy, that they may hopefully get some justice for there loved ones that perished on that awful day, however I do wonder how the families of the Italians who lost there lives at Heysel must be feeling today, 30 + years on and still no justice for them!

Every. Fucking. Time.

It's all they have left now the lies have been nailed.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on June 29, 2017, 08:05:11 PM
As much as I'm pleased that criminal prosecutions are being made, the old adage of justice delayed is justice denied sprung immediately to my mind.   As Chinchilla so eloquently put it, this appalling sequence of events, and the conspiracy on the part of the authorities, is a sordid soiling of the very concept of justice.   
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 30, 2017, 12:18:32 AM
As for Heysel, in my opinion two massive European clubs with massive travelling support were put into a crumbling stadium with little segregation and little expertise when it came to security.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on June 30, 2017, 11:30:58 AM
Hopadop- I think you're right that an abuse of process application won't succeed because no Judge would dare grant it. Do you think the previous promise of no jail strengthens the application?

I can't really see how it would Richard - he did nothing to his detriment as a result of the assurance. Assuming Hooper's stay is overturned I'd say it's a clean sheet so far as it goes.

As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the judge in question was Anthony Hooper - he was one of the more humane judges in the court of appeal. It's all relative of course but it's a bit of a shame for him. To be fair, back in 2000 I remember the feeling generally was the private prosecution was a misconceived one.

Hooper thought it was impossible for Duckenfield to get a fair trial in 2000 - that has to go double now given the way the inquest was allowed to go. It should be a cast iron application (even if the original is overturned) but you're right - it would be a very brave judge.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on July 01, 2017, 08:22:24 AM
Hopadop- I think you're right that an abuse of process application won't succeed because no Judge would dare grant it. Do you think the previous promise of no jail strengthens the application?

I can't really see how it would Richard - he did nothing to his detriment as a result of the assurance. Assuming Hooper's stay is overturned I'd say it's a clean sheet so far as it goes.

As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the judge in question was Anthony Hooper - he was one of the more humane judges in the court of appeal. It's all relative of course but it's a bit of a shame for him. To be fair, back in 2000 I remember the feeling generally was the private prosecution was a misconceived one.

Hooper thought it was impossible for Duckenfield to get a fair trial in 2000 - that has to go double now given the way the inquest was allowed to go. It should be a cast iron application (even if the original is overturned) but you're right - it would be a very brave judge.

Interesting- thank you.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on July 02, 2017, 02:17:05 PM
Hadn't there been a near-miss at Hillsborough before, or hadn't it failed a safety certificate? I'm sure I remember reading something like that, with the suggestion that the FA were at least party-culpable for the choice of venue.

Yes (Tottenham v Wolves in 1981 as mentioned earlier).
And yes, the safety certificate had run out some years previously, there had been "improvements" to the Lepping Lane terrace between '84 and '89 and no safety certificate had ever been signed off during or after this work(for improvements read more fences including the internal fences making it into pens which prevented the natural spreading of fans across the terrace therefore exacerbating the crush).

My son has just finished his dissertation on Safe Standing and the Hillsborough disaster, the research we did together was revealing and frightening at times.

What were his conclusions Dave?  Genuinely interested in the safe standing debate.

I haven't actually read all of it. I'll get back to you.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: The Laughing Policeman on July 02, 2017, 04:48:48 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see the co-relation between the terraces of yesteryear and modern safe standing.
I remember being in The Holte back in the day when it was rammed and every surge brought the risk of injury and not just at VP, remember West Ham? In those days it wasn't a case of could it happen but when it would happen.
Modern standing has rail standing /seating which makes it impossible for surges to happen and coupled with modern ticketing systems there is no way that we would see a Hillsborough type overcrowding catastrophe happening again.
Safe standing has been in use for years in Germany and other European countries with no reported problems after deep scrutiny by EUFA. And yes it does have an impact on the atmosphere, just watch the Bundesliga on TV or a bit nearer to home ask Celtic fans who had safe standing last year. Even those that don't stand say it improves the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 15, 2018, 08:06:04 AM
Never forget, never forgive.

RIP and justice for the 96.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Ads on April 15, 2018, 08:54:20 AM
I can't understand why they've never pulled that away end down.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 15, 2018, 11:08:56 AM
I can't understand why they've never pulled that away end down.

BFR's first game was my first trip to Hillsborough. It was a strange feeling being in the away end.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 15, 2018, 07:23:46 PM
What I cannot Get my head round and what is not acceptable is that the leppings lane stand us still potentially an accident waiting to happen nearly 20 years on. Talk about football refusing to wake up
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 15, 2018, 07:46:09 PM
Never forget, never forgive.

RIP and justice for the 96.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 15, 2018, 09:06:22 PM
As always on this day, what everyone else has said. And never, ever buy the Sun.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: oldhill_avfc on April 16, 2018, 01:58:32 PM
What I cannot Get my head round and what is not acceptable is that the leppings lane stand us still potentially an accident waiting to happen nearly 20 years on. Talk about football refusing to wake up

Why do you say that?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Pete3206 on April 16, 2018, 08:32:45 PM
What I cannot Get my head round and what is not acceptable is that the leppings lane stand us still potentially an accident waiting to happen nearly 20 years on. Talk about football refusing to wake up

You got me there. What's up with it?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: curiousorange on April 16, 2018, 08:45:57 PM
What I cannot Get my head round and what is not acceptable is that the leppings lane stand us still potentially an accident waiting to happen nearly 20 years on. Talk about football refusing to wake up

You got me there. What's up with it?

I've never been there, but I was led to believe it has the same gate/tunnel complex as in 1989. Maybe that was what wittonwarrior was getting at?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 16, 2018, 09:35:04 PM
The same tunnel remains in the lower and the exits are extremely narrow upstairs.  I can't honestly believe that he gets a safety certificate.

The whole Hillsborough thing and Sheffield is just not right.  There are those there who still call it the Liverpool disaster.  Even the trams to the ground on match day are rammed.  Talk about not learning from your mistakes.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 16, 2018, 11:14:14 PM
As always on this day, what everyone else has said. And never, ever buy the Sun.

Applause.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on April 17, 2018, 12:16:10 PM
I was surprised they only recently banned their reporters from the ground. Didn't Souness make himself deeply unpopular by selling the story of his heart op as an exclusive to the rag?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 17, 2018, 08:24:54 PM
I was surprised they only recently banned their reporters from the ground. Didn't Souness make himself deeply unpopular by selling the story of his heart op as an exclusive to the rag?

I seem to recall that not only did he give the exclusive about his heart op to the paper hated on Merseyside but it's timing also coincided with the anniversary of the disaster.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 18, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
At the time he was recovering from his heart operation just before a semi final if I recall
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Behind Bluenose Lines on June 09, 2018, 11:01:29 AM
Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.

Whatever peoples' views about the honours system/Liverpool FC/Hillsborough, Kenny Dalglish's knighthood is truly deserved, if scandalously overdue.

More deserving than some of the other idiots who've been honoured over the years...

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on June 09, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.

Whatever peoples' views about the honours system/Liverpool FC/Hillsborough, Kenny Dalglish's knighthood is truly deserved, if scandalously overdue.

More deserving than some of the other idiots who've been honoured over the years...



Absolutely, I'm no fan of the honours system but he was long overdue.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dcdavecollett on June 09, 2018, 06:59:08 PM
A shame his rep was tainted by the Suarez/racism serial.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on June 09, 2018, 08:53:06 PM
He took a lot on his shoulders after Hillsborough and deserves it for that. Admittedly, even allowing for sticking together and a siege mentality he did get it badly wrong over the Suarez incident.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave on June 29, 2018, 11:25:16 AM
Manslaughter charges brought against Duckenfield.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 29, 2018, 12:09:24 PM
Good. And just as importantly against SWFC club secretary at the time Mackrell.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 29, 2018, 02:15:31 PM
Good. And just as importantly against SWFC club secretary at the time Mackrell.

Two more loathsome men it would be difficult to find.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 29, 2018, 03:31:56 PM
Manslaughter charges brought against Duckenfield.
About 25 years too late.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 29, 2018, 03:52:57 PM
I'll repeat the words of FSA co-founder Peter Garrett - "We only want one man to say 'I'm sorry. I made a mistake'."
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on June 29, 2018, 03:59:04 PM
I'll repeat the words of FSA co-founder Peter Garrett - "We only want one man to say 'I'm sorry. I made a mistake'."

One specific man, or one in general. Because it definitely looks like the accumulation of at least 3 major mistakes for this tragedy.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 29, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
I'll repeat the words of FSA co-founder Peter Garrett - "We only want one man to say 'I'm sorry. I made a mistake'."

One specific man, or one in general. Because it definitely looks like the accumulation of at least 3 major mistakes for this tragedy.

Ultimately it was Duckinfield. I'm convinced that had he not acted in the way he did afterwards, Liverpool supporters might have accepted that they were, possibly, 1% to blame for behaving in the same way as all football supporters, always.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on June 29, 2018, 09:51:24 PM
I do have a little bit of sympathy with Duckinfield as he has been laid out as the main culprit - Even imprisonment would not be enough for some people they will then want to commence civil proceedings. 

A  lot of bad issues occured that day, but one man (and I am fully aware others are being sent to trial) has already been found  guilty, when in fact it was negligence not intended that caused the event.

Compare  Duckinfield to a person who kills whilst driving holding a mobile phone.  I know who I would reserve my anger towards.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on June 29, 2018, 10:40:25 PM
I do have a little bit of sympathy with Duckinfield as he has been laid out as the main culprit - Even imprisonment would not be enough for some people they will then want to commence civil proceedings. 

A  lot of bad issues occured that day, but one man (and I am fully aware others are being sent to trial) has already been found  guilty, when in fact it was negligence not intended that caused the event.

Compare  Duckinfield to a person who kills whilst driving holding a mobile phone.  I know who I would reserve my anger towards.

That's as crass a statement as I think I've ever read on here.  Strangely enough you showed sympathy for Duckenfield a year and a day ago as well, and it was unwarranted then as it is now.  I was going to suggest you skip back four pages and read my response to you then, but instead I'm going to paste part of it here for you and anyone else who still thinks this man has been hard done by.   


Duckenfield gave the order to open the gates. At the same time he failed to recognise the need to close the central pens. These decisions, his decisions, led directly to the deaths of 96 people. It was a catastrophic error of judgment. Had he done his homework and familiarised himself with the stadium layout he may not have made these terrible decisions. But he did not do that, hence he was unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with the scenario. That was gross negligence.

When he realised his error, he compounded it by claiming that he had not ordered that the gates be opened, and that the fans had stormed them. That was an outright lie.

It really mustn't be forgotten that that lie, and the whole cover-up, started right there, right then, in that stadium while the dead were still dying.  The seeds of conspiracy were being sown by Duckenfield and his employers as early as that.

Duckenfield is no scapegoat, he richly deserves his manslaughter charge, as do the others who stand accused of perjury and whatever else their corruption has been labelled. None of them deserves an ounce of sympathy.


There were tens of thousands of documents released as part of the independent inquiry that tell the story and show the magnitude of Duckenfield's crimes.  I believe they're still available to read should my words not be convincing enough.

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on June 29, 2018, 10:48:07 PM
As I think someone from the HFSG said about 20 years ago, all we wanted was an apology for someone to say sorry and that mistakes had been made. If Duckinfield had done that rather than lie and try to get his mates to cover up his incompetence we wouldn’t be here now. He deserves everything he gets, the craven coward. As do the others charged today.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on June 29, 2018, 10:57:02 PM
Precisely. An ounce of responsibility taken and remorse shown and things might have been very different.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Jameson on June 30, 2018, 12:01:36 PM


Compare  Duckinfield to a person who kills whilst driving holding a mobile phone.  I know who I would reserve my anger towards.

This deserves a special H&V award.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: JD on July 01, 2018, 03:09:26 AM
As I think someone from the HFSG said about 20 years ago, all we wanted was an apology for someone to say sorry and that mistakes had been made. If Duckinfield had done that rather than lie and try to get his mates to cover up his incompetence we wouldn’t be here now. He deserves everything he gets, the craven coward. As do the others charged today.

Agree with this. If he had come out and said it was all a mistake and everyone was sorry for the tragic events that unfolded that day then it would have been accepted. Instead family and friends of innocent victims had to go through years of grief, knockbacks and heartache to prove the supporters were innocent and not responsible for causing these deaths.
Therefore by his actions, his lies and arrogant attitude, he deserves everything that now gets thrown at him. As AV82 has stated, the man is a coward. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on July 01, 2018, 07:56:05 AM
As I think someone from the HFSG said about 20 years ago, all we wanted was an apology for someone to say sorry and that mistakes had been made. If Duckinfield had done that rather than lie and try to get his mates to cover up his incompetence we wouldn’t be here now. He deserves everything he gets, the craven coward. As do the others charged today.

Pete Garrett from the FSA said it to me. I don't know if the campaign groups have ever had that position.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 01, 2018, 08:26:45 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ypE5TG2UPNk

Some interesting stuff on here on the night it happened.  Jimmy and Des worked out the issue of the gate and the central pen pretty insightfully for me here.  Also featured on this are The Secretary of Sheff Weds - looking suitably worried as well as Graham Kelly and Bert ‘not my problem guv’ Millichip as well as an interesting interview with the Chief Constable.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on July 01, 2018, 09:05:10 PM
Duckinfield (and Mackrell) being found guilty will hopefully finally bring closure for the families in the sense that criminal justice will seen be be done. 

Duckinfield was a liar from the outset and subsequently a coward. He ultimately, if belatedly, deserves whatever he gets.  I do though have a minuscule amount sympathy for him on a human level, insomuch that whilst what he did and said remains unforgivable, he's had to live with the consequences of his actions for nigh on thirty years.  He also must have known full well which way the wind was now blowing from the moment the Hillsborough Independent Panel published its report and one day criminal charges would be brought. I really don't know how anyone can be anything other than crushed with the enormity of that mental burden. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on July 01, 2018, 09:15:17 PM
He chose to live with that burden for thirty years. At any point he could have taken responsibility and told the truth, but instead he chose to sit tight and hope he'd never be found out, while hundreds of families suffered real pain as a result of his actions.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on July 01, 2018, 09:41:03 PM
I don't disagree: he has done nothing but compound his original catastrophic error of judgement. That and sowing the seeds of the cover-up mean he deserves to be punished. However, as I said, I can't imagine how he can live with that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on July 02, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
It's a pity Thatcher isn't alive, she should be in the dock along with the others.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on July 02, 2018, 12:10:59 PM
Bernard Ingham's still kicking around, he could always be strung up on both his and Thatcher's behalf.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on July 02, 2018, 06:28:29 PM
Duckinfield (and Mackrell) being found guilty will hopefully finally bring closure for the families in the sense that criminal justice will seen be be done. 

Duckinfield was a liar from the outset and subsequently a coward. He ultimately, if belatedly, deserves whatever he gets.  I do though have a minuscule amount sympathy for him on a human level, insomuch that whilst what he did and said remains unforgivable, he's had to live with the consequences of his actions for nigh on thirty years.  He also must have known full well which way the wind was now blowing from the moment the Hillsborough Independent Panel published its report and one day criminal charges would be brought. I really don't know how anyone can be anything other than crushed with the enormity of that mental burden. 

You are more compassionate man than me. I don't really care about any personal torment he has felt. If the shit hadn't spent 30 years fibbing on a frequent basis then those families would not have suffered what they did.

He was arrogant, fucked it up and hurled shit every which way to cover his arse from the outset.

I hope the bastard can feel some more torment as he ends his days in a prison cell.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on July 02, 2018, 08:09:55 PM
Duckinfield (and Mackrell) being found guilty will hopefully finally bring closure for the families in the sense that criminal justice will seen be be done. 

Duckinfield was a liar from the outset and subsequently a coward. He ultimately, if belatedly, deserves whatever he gets.  I do though have a minuscule amount sympathy for him on a human level, insomuch that whilst what he did and said remains unforgivable, he's had to live with the consequences of his actions for nigh on thirty years.  He also must have known full well which way the wind was now blowing from the moment the Hillsborough Independent Panel published its report and one day criminal charges would be brought. I really don't know how anyone can be anything other than crushed with the enormity of that mental burden. 

You are more compassionate man than me. I don't really care about any personal torment he has felt. If the shit hadn't spent 30 years fibbing on a frequent basis then those families would not have suffered what they did.

He was arrogant, fucked it up and hurled shit every which way to cover his arse from the outset.

I hope the bastard can feel some more torment as he ends his days in a prison cell.

The bits I've highlighted just aren't true.

He lied to Graham Kelly at the time in the control box about the police opening the exit gate. He admitted to Lord Taylor months later that he hadn't told Kelly the truth and exonerated the supporters of blame (but by then The Sun et al were following their own narrative). He admitted the lie in his evidence to the second coroner's hearing and that his actions led to the deaths.

That aside he's been silent so far as I know. Certainly not fibbing on a frequent basis or hurling shit around.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on July 03, 2018, 07:23:10 AM
Perhaps I was too harsh because it touches a close nerve with me. I still hold him responsible for starting to implement "The fix" from the outset, telling porkies in the immediate aftermath and at the first enquiry, and not having the common decency to apologise and admit his errors for donkeys years after. And he did hurl shit. Like the fans breaking down the gates and being compliant with the Police and Government in the subsequent cover up. I don't think it was my best worded post but that is where it was coming from. And I still have zero compassion for him.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on July 03, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
When commenting on this thread please bear in mind that the matter is now sub judice pending trials taking place.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on July 03, 2018, 03:26:26 PM
Perhaps I was too harsh because it touches a close nerve with me. I still hold him responsible for starting to implement "The fix" from the outset, telling porkies in the immediate aftermath and at the first enquiry, and not having the common decency to apologise and admit his errors for donkeys years after. And he did hurl shit. Like the fans breaking down the gates and being compliant with the Police and Government in the subsequent cover up. I don't think it was my best worded post but that is where it was coming from. And I still have zero compassion for him.

Compassion or not, I think you may be getting him confused with others now alleged to have perverted the course of justice?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on July 03, 2018, 03:28:01 PM
When commenting on this thread please bear in mind that the matter is now sub judice pending trials taking place.

Always good advice, but it's going to be a stretch for everyone to pretend the massively reported and celebrated findings of the inquest jury never happened.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on July 03, 2018, 04:15:52 PM
When commenting on this thread please bear in mind that the matter is now sub judice pending trials taking place.

Always good advice, but it's going to be a stretch for everyone to pretend the massively reported and celebrated findings of the inquest jury never happened.

For clarity, are you saying we could be endangering the forthcoming trials simply by discussing Hillsborough here, even though, as you say, a lot of the information is already widely known? In which case, can we be clear about what is or isn't allowed?  I know nowt about law and this is important. Thanks for the reminder, Richard.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on July 03, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
I'm afraid clarity is one thing you won't get. The law's got a lot of catching up to do, if it ever can, when it comes to social media.

As a starting point, Sue Hemming (CPS) when announcing the charges said, "Criminal proceedings have now commenced and the defendants have a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."

"Could in any way" is obviously very broad. A few years ago the then Attorney General said he didn't want legislation to unduly curb free speech, so there's obviously a balance. It's only really been used to go after obvious and flagrant contempts like the naming of the complainant in the Ched Evans case and Tommy Robinson recently.

As you say, when it comes to Hillsborough it's all out there. I doubt there's a football forum in the country that hasn't reported and argued over it at massive length, and the findings of the jury in 2016 obviously received enormous coverage, including by the PM in the commons. I said what I thought about it on here at the time, as did many others. No doubt it will be the subject of the abuse of process application in August.

In reality I don't think there's much of a danger of anyone on here publishing something that could prejudice the trial but the simple answer is now proceedings have commenced contempt is a live issue, and if in doubt don't say it. It would be a shame, but if this was my site I'd be tempted to lock the thread until the end of the trial.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chinchilla Bathhouse on July 03, 2018, 05:24:06 PM
Thanks Hopadop. In light of your response I too am wondering whether the thread ought to be locked to stay on the safe side (that said, there's nothing stopping people mentioning the subject on other threads, so maybe that wouldn't achieve much). I guess the best thing is for everyone to remain cautious and to think hard before posting.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: cheltenhamlion on July 03, 2018, 05:33:10 PM
Can I quickly call Duckenfield, Mackrell, Kelvin McKenzie and the Thatcher government a bunch of c***s then before the lock?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Dave Cooper please on July 04, 2018, 09:57:58 AM
Perhaps I was too harsh because it touches a close nerve with me. I still hold him responsible for starting to implement "The fix" from the outset, telling porkies in the immediate aftermath and at the first enquiry, and not having the common decency to apologise and admit his errors for donkeys years after. And he did hurl shit. Like the fans breaking down the gates and being compliant with the Police and Government in the subsequent cover up. I don't think it was my best worded post but that is where it was coming from. And I still have zero compassion for him.

Compassion or not, I think you may be getting him confused with others now alleged to have perverted the course of justice?

Difficult to believe that Dukinfield didn't know (and therefore keep quiet about) the, for instance, altering of police notebooks. Those perverting the cause of justice were doing it to keep him out of the shitstorm because ultimately he was in charge of those doing the acts.
 I have absolutely no sympathy for him, he put the families and thousands of survivors through hell for decades, fuck him.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on July 04, 2018, 09:09:39 PM
Think it’s fair to say the strategy for dealing with the aftermath came from the top. I believe the denials, editing out of notes etc was way above the direction of individual police officers
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on August 21, 2018, 11:04:11 AM
Norman Bettison - charges dropped

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45258766
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on December 06, 2018, 04:48:54 PM
Duckenfield’s application for a stay of the proceedings fails so the trial goes ahead in January.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on January 13, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
Trial due to start tomorrow.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: UK Redsox on January 15, 2019, 01:54:22 PM
Prosecution case outlined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46878778
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on January 15, 2019, 02:53:32 PM
Prosecution case outlined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46878778

Have they entered a plea? That article seems to suggest Mackrell is pleading not guilty but doesn't indicate Duckenfield's plea.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on January 15, 2019, 03:19:15 PM
Follow David Conn on Twitter, he is reporting from the courtroom.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 15, 2019, 09:05:19 PM
Is he related to Alfie Conn?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on March 18, 2019, 11:14:42 AM
Prosecution closing... (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47545202)

...and defence. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47582434)

There'll also be a closing speech on behalf of the Wednesday club secretary. The judge will then sum up the case to the jury, after which they'll be sent out to start their deliberations.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 18, 2019, 01:38:07 PM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2019, 01:39:10 PM
Some things never change, eh?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on March 18, 2019, 08:24:07 PM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.

Hasn't that been debunked in multiple legal-led inquiries?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AV82EC on March 18, 2019, 09:13:50 PM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.

Hasn't that been debunked in multiple legal-led inquiries?

It was in the Taylor Report!
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Mortimer's Bear on March 19, 2019, 11:25:51 AM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.

Hasn't that been debunked in multiple legal-led inquiries?

It was in the Taylor Report!

At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant, why is he being charged with the gross negligent manslaughter of 95 people and not 96?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 19, 2019, 11:32:18 AM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.

Hasn't that been debunked in multiple legal-led inquiries?

It was in the Taylor Report!

At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant, why is he being charged with the gross negligent manslaughter of 95 people and not 96?

The 96th victim died more than a year later.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on March 19, 2019, 11:32:48 AM
Duckinfield's counsel are blaming late-arriving, drunk, ticketless fans.

Hasn't that been debunked in multiple legal-led inquiries?

It was in the Taylor Report!

At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant, why is he being charged with the gross negligent manslaughter of 95 people and not 96?

Duckenfield can't be charged over Tony Bland's death because too much time elapsed between the actual incident and Bland's death.

I think
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Lastfootstamper on March 19, 2019, 11:35:18 AM
Tony Bland spent 4 years in a coma. In law at the time, too much time (over a year and a day) had elapsed between.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: villasjf on March 19, 2019, 11:36:05 AM
People have to die within a year and a day following the incident. Hence 95
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Mortimer's Bear on March 19, 2019, 11:55:27 AM
Thank you, I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on March 19, 2019, 01:51:18 PM
The rule made sense when there needed to be an obvious link between the act / omission and the death. It became an anachronism when life support machines could maintain life indefinitely, but without breaking that link.

It was abolished in the 1990s, some time after Hillsborough. I remember hearing of a case years before where a life support machine was to be turned off (there was no possibility of recovery) on the anniversary of the assault in order for the death to be 'eligible'. That would have been a horrible thing for a family to have to consider.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 01, 2019, 02:38:51 PM
Jury about to deliver verdict.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 01, 2019, 07:35:25 PM
Jury about to deliver verdict.

Nope. They've been given a majority direction. The judge will have asked them to continue to try to deliver verdicts on which they're all agreed, but if that's not possible he'll accept verdicts on which at least 10 of them agree.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on April 01, 2019, 08:04:14 PM
Must be an extremely hard thing to sit on that jury. Emotions say throw the book and all the jurors be influenced to some degree from past media commentaries. I am sure if the offences they are being tried on were not not serious they would have been found guilty but there will always be the flip side and given the time gap how do you decide
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 03, 2019, 12:25:36 PM
A hung jury on Duckenfield.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 03, 2019, 12:29:51 PM
Mackrell found guilty.  Failed to reach a verdict on Duckenfield.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 03, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Mackrell found guilty.  Failed to reach a verdict on Duckenfield.

Does that mean we are awaiting a sentence on Mackrell and looking at a retrial for Duckenfield?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 03, 2019, 03:23:25 PM
Sentence on Mackrell, the arguments for and against a retrial for Duckenfield are continuing in court.  I would be amazed if there isn't one mind.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 03, 2019, 06:24:22 PM
BBC News suggesting Mackrell is only facing a fine. Ant McPartlin was fined £86,000 for drink driving. I am guessing we will find out how that compares with the fine for 96 people losing their lives.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 03, 2019, 11:37:38 PM
I'm sure this question has been asked before, but how have the FA not faced any charges over Hillsborough?  Semi finals are 'their' games aren't they and am I right in thinking the ground had not got a safety certificate?  Along with the fact that there had been problem there in previous years, surely the FA had just as much responsibility as Sheffield Wednesday?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 04, 2019, 10:58:11 AM
BBC News suggesting Mackrell is only facing a fine. Ant McPartlin was fined £86,000 for drink driving. I am guessing we will find out how that compares with the fine for 96 people losing their lives.

You're not really comparing like with like with the offences, and the (record) fine was means tested and would've been a reflection of his massive salary, not the seriousness of the offence per se.

The Health & Safety Act offence Mackrell was convicted of was punishable only by a fine back when he committed it. Now it carries a two year maximum sentence. It's a bit confusing because he was tried for another offence which could've led to custody (not complying with the safety certificate), but that was dropped mid trial.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on April 04, 2019, 11:00:51 AM
I'm sure this question has been asked before, but how have the FA not faced any charges over Hillsborough?  Semi finals are 'their' games aren't they and am I right in thinking the ground had not got a safety certificate?  Along with the fact that there had been problem there in previous years, surely the FA had just as much responsibility as Sheffield Wednesday?

The ground had a 'valid' safety certificate, but the jury heard evidence that it was outdated having been issued years before.

This all happened in the days before 'health and safety went mad'.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: tomd2103 on April 10, 2019, 02:27:35 PM
I'm sure this question has been asked before, but how have the FA not faced any charges over Hillsborough?  Semi finals are 'their' games aren't they and am I right in thinking the ground had not got a safety certificate?  Along with the fact that there had been problem there in previous years, surely the FA had just as much responsibility as Sheffield Wednesday?

The ground had a 'valid' safety certificate, but the jury heard evidence that it was outdated having been issued years before.

This all happened in the days before 'health and safety went mad'.

Again, I have to ask how the FA have not faced any charges if that was the case?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave shelley on April 10, 2019, 03:21:17 PM
I'm sure this question has been asked before, but how have the FA not faced any charges over Hillsborough?  Semi finals are 'their' games aren't they and am I right in thinking the ground had not got a safety certificate?  Along with the fact that there had been problem there in previous years, surely the FA had just as much responsibility as Sheffield Wednesday?

The ground had a 'valid' safety certificate, but the jury heard evidence that it was outdated having been issued years before.

This all happened in the days before 'health and safety went mad'.

Again, I have to ask how the FA have not faced any charges if that was the case?

Maybe there are laws in place now that weren't in situ back then.  I'm not legally qualified to state that but I offered it as a suggestion.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: TopDeck113 on April 14, 2019, 03:14:42 PM
A friend of mine and published poet has penned this poem to mark the thirtieth anniversary.  Never forget - and never buy The Sun.

TWO TICKETS

Two tickets
For just twelve pounds.

Two tickets
For the match
For the semi final
For the excitement
And the dreams
And the glory
Of a 50/50 shot at the cup

Two tickets
For a boy and his Dad
Building memories together
In a far off city
A day on the train
With crisps and coke
To share the hopes
And dreams
Of another mighty double

Two tickets
Admittance
To the stand
To the terrace
With flags and scarves
And songs
And pies
To watch heroes
From posters on bedroom walls
Make their mark on history

Two tickets
To the noise
And the crowds
To the angry shouts
And the horses and batons
And whistles
And screams
To the constant push
And the inevitable crush
To climbing and scrambling
And the blind panic
Running from sights we can’t unsee.

Two tickets
To the pitch
To the chaos
And the struggle
To find help
On a field of endless confusion
To scavenged stretchers
And impromptu bandages
Underscored by a soundtrack
Of far off sirens

Two tickets
To watch broken men slumped
On a kerb
Devoid of emotion
Sobbing inside
Tears streaming away
As the adrenaline of crisis
Makes room for the
Unbelievable reality -
Their world turned upside down

Two tickets to the interviews
To the reporters
And the cameras
And the endless line
Of journalists
Asking questions
You can’t answer
To photos in the paper
And the quotes you didn’t say

Two tickets
To the crem
To the church
To ninety six orders of service
To ‘Ferry Cross The Mersey’
On a perpetual loop
An endless stream of memorial plaques
And candles lit in prayer

Two tickets
To the house in the street
With the curtains constantly closed
To seas of floral tributes
And the world’s eye
Watching you
Twenty four seven

Two tickets
To one more angry meeting
With fists
Pounded on tables
Newspapers angrily ripped in two
Mothers screaming at the TV
While making banners
And writing slogans on placards
Buckets shaken
For yet another fundraiser.

Two tickets
For the speeches
And the petitions
And the campaigns
And the years
And the years
And the years
Of shouting
Across a despatch box
From people who you’ve never met
And never ever
In a month of Sundays
Were ever there

Two tickets
To sleepless nights
And regular visits to the doctor
To pills
And prescriptions
And talking -
A lot of talking
And to never ever really
Explaining it to anyone

Two tickets
To the courtroom
To cross examination
To disbelief and scorn
At outright lies
To lawyers and barristers
And judges
To sharp suits and clever words
To false sorrow
And blinding injustice
To technicalities
And legal loopholes
Enquiries, hearings and trials

Two tickets.
Twelve Pounds.
Just six minutes of football.

But a game that goes on forever.

(C) Paul Jenkins 2019
@teacherwriterPJ
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 15, 2019, 10:58:54 AM
Thirty years today.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 15, 2019, 05:54:42 PM
Thirty years today.

Were we playing away that day? I was going home and away by then but I remember I watched Hillsborough unfold on the telly at home when I was still living with my parents, possibly Grandstand. I think I was laid up with my knee in plaster after hurting it playing football.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on April 15, 2019, 06:49:28 PM
We didn’t have a game that day.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: LeeB on April 15, 2019, 06:53:40 PM
We didn’t have a game that day.

Due to the other semi I guess?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dcdavecollett on April 18, 2019, 08:11:24 PM
yep.

As I recall, the other semi was Everton v Norwich.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on April 19, 2019, 11:41:42 AM
yep.

As I recall, the other semi was Everton v Norwich.

'The forgotten semi final' as they tend to call it. Although I seem to recall Pat Nevin scored the only goal of the game.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on November 28, 2019, 03:46:42 PM
Duckenfield acquitted of manslaughter.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Drummond on November 28, 2019, 03:59:24 PM
I think he's a very lucky man.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on November 28, 2019, 04:05:27 PM
So basically the equivalent of two coach loads of men, women and children leave a football match in body bags and not one single person is held to account for that.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: luke95 on November 28, 2019, 04:08:13 PM
Fucking disgraceful.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: p_ad on November 28, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
Shameful
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on November 28, 2019, 04:44:04 PM
Predictable.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Behind Bluenose Lines on November 28, 2019, 04:56:18 PM
Funny handshakes involved, I suspect.

Those poor families.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on November 28, 2019, 05:11:06 PM
I'm not at all surprised. It was always going to incredibly hard for the two juries that have been involved.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Nev on November 28, 2019, 05:22:01 PM
Predictable.

And it will be repeated with Grenfell.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Percy McCarthy on November 29, 2019, 07:40:07 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Lastfootstamper on November 29, 2019, 07:57:51 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.

What a c***. In what context, any idea Percy? On the day itself, or in a "if they hadn't all been hooligans they wouldn't have been in cages in the first place" kind of way?
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Ian J on November 29, 2019, 07:57:58 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.
Outrageous decision. Why the hell was hooliganism even anything to do with the summary.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on November 29, 2019, 08:13:19 AM
I defy anyone to read ‘And The Sun Shines Now’ by Adrian Tempany and/or ‘Hillsborough:The Truth’ by Phil Scraton and not be filled with the most profound anger, outrage and sense of gross injustice.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on November 29, 2019, 10:42:10 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.

Isn't this the second one anyway? First one was a hung jury so they started again.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on November 29, 2019, 11:18:24 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.

Isn't this the second one anyway? First one was a hung jury so they started again.

Third one. There was also a hung jury in a previous trial 19 years ago.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on November 29, 2019, 11:34:39 AM
There should be a retrial. Terrible guidance from the judge apparently. Brought up football hooliganism in his summing up after it had been shown to be completely irrelevant by the evidence.
Outrageous decision. Why the hell was hooliganism even anything to do with the summary.

In his summing up the judge does just that - sums up the evidence the jury's heard. He doesn't introduce new evidence.

So the jury did hear about issues facing those policing football matches of the day. They had to for some context. A primary concern was crowd control as well as, or more than, crowd safety. That's why the fences were there.

I read that the defence wanted to show the jury videos of some of the worst cases of hooliganism of the day for the purpose of context. The prosecution objected and the judge agreed they shouldn't be shown. It's an adversarial system and an exercise in balance for the judge.

It was always going to be the case that an acquittal would be seen as failing the dead and their families, particularly after the inquest verdicts (which encroached on the role of the criminal court) but the trial wasn't supposed to be for show, and given the burden and standard of proof it was never a foregone conclusion. It must have been incredibly difficult for the 11 jurors that made it to the end, and they deserve credit for returning a verdict that was always going to be very unpopular.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: wittonwarrior on November 29, 2019, 12:23:04 PM
I've always taken the view that Duckinfield has been made a scapegoat.  Yes he lied but was put in a position which was far beyond his capabilities.

The real culprits are The SYP bosses, Sheffield City Council, the FA, Sheff Wed and the police in general

SYP for putting such an understated person in charge of the event at such short notice.
Sheffield City Council for failing to ensure that a safety cert was in place at one of the major sporting arenas in their area,
The FA knowing the recent history of issues with overcrowding on the leppings lane allowing the match to be allocated to Hillsborough
Sheff Wed for being greedy gits, for being totally negligent with no safety cert in place
The police for their constant lies and cover ups.

Sheffield and the ground up to today should also be taken to task.  Why has such a death trap been allowed to stand even today.  The narrow gangways, the tunnel of death which remains in the lower tier and to the fact that they have the fuckin cheek to charge in excess of £40

Sheffield City Council for allowing trams rammed before proportions to and from Hillsborough on match days

The police for their continued hatred towards us football fans.

Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on November 29, 2019, 03:38:32 PM
On the one hand I feel that Duckenfield has been treated lightly. On the other hand I would not want to have lived in his shoes for the past thirty years.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chris Smith on November 29, 2019, 03:44:41 PM
I've always taken the view that Duckinfield has been made a scapegoat.  Yes he lied but was put in a position which was far beyond his capabilities.

The real culprits are The SYP bosses, Sheffield City Council, the FA, Sheff Wed and the police in general

SYP for putting such an understated person in charge of the event at such short notice.
Sheffield City Council for failing to ensure that a safety cert was in place at one of the major sporting arenas in their area,
The FA knowing the recent history of issues with overcrowding on the leppings lane allowing the match to be allocated to Hillsborough
Sheff Wed for being greedy gits, for being totally negligent with no safety cert in place
The police for their constant lies and cover ups.

Sheffield and the ground up to today should also be taken to task.  Why has such a death trap been allowed to stand even today.  The narrow gangways, the tunnel of death which remains in the lower tier and to the fact that they have the fuckin cheek to charge in excess of £40

Sheffield City Council for allowing trams rammed before proportions to and from Hillsborough on match days

The police for their continued hatred towards us football fans.


Not sure how he can be a scapegoat when he was in charge, made the bad decisions than caused the crush and then lied repeatedly to cover up his culpability.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on November 29, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
I think when people use the word scapegoat they are not excusing Duckenfield's behaviour but suggesting that there are a number of other individuals who should have joined him in facing the music but have got off lightly.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on November 29, 2019, 04:09:22 PM
Duckenfield lied within hours of the disaster, blaming Liverpool fans for charging down the gates that he had opened himself. He’s not a scapegoat in my eyes, he’s the chief suspect
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: p_ad on November 29, 2019, 04:47:30 PM
Anyone listen to the Jeremy vine show today?, I didn't catch the woman's name she was talking about her brother who died at Hillsborough. One of the most powerful interviews I have heard in a long time, and she did not hold back on her views of the people responsible .
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Drummond on November 29, 2019, 05:08:54 PM
I have to say I massively regret not having an argument on the bus in to work this morning. An old woman (75+) when looking at the front page of Metro, said 'that's disgusting that' referring to the headline re the outcome of the trial. As I, and others, nodded in agreement, to my utter disbelief she then said 'what they put that man through is disgraceful'.

The old guy next to her said 'I'm not sure football fans would agree with you'. And all I could feel myself doing was nodding again. I couldn't face arguing with an old person on public transport.

There are many in Sheffield who still believe that what happened that day was as a result of the Liverpool fans' behaviour. Because of what was said locally, because of the reports locally of what they saw (drunken fans behaving badly etc.) it's still the feeling.

I'm disappointed in myself for not taking up the argument. Sorry.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: BC Villain on November 29, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
I have to say I massively regret not having an argument on the bus in to work this morning. An old woman (75+) when looking at the front page of Metro, said 'that's disgusting that' referring to the headline re the outcome of the trial. As I, and others, nodded in agreement, to my utter disbelief she then said 'what they put that man through is disgraceful'.

The old guy next to her said 'I'm not sure football fans would agree with you'. And all I could feel myself doing was nodding again. I couldn't face arguing with an old person on public transport.

There are many in Sheffield who still believe that what happened that day was as a result of the Liverpool fans' behaviour. Because of what was said locally, because of the reports locally of what they saw (drunken fans behaving badly etc.) it's still the feeling.

I'm disappointed in myself for not taking up the argument. Sorry.

Sadly there are a lot of narrow minded people who still wont accept that what happened that day was down to gross incompetence, and then made worse by the years of arse covering and lies.  These people simply want to go by the stereotypical "football fans are drunken lots, so its down to them".

A mate of mine was at Hillsborough when we played there a few months before it happened and he said you could see what a death trap it was.  That's before you think about the previous incidents at Hillsborough before 1989.

Probably not the right time to bring up safe standing,  but I'm all in favour of it.  However,  the blessing to come out of it is that we now have excellent stadiums, rather than the death traps fans had to frequent in the 80s.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on November 29, 2019, 10:13:25 PM
Of everything I've read about Hillsborough, this is the most heartbreaking.


https://twitter.com/charlhennessy1/status/1200372275658285056
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Villan For Life on November 29, 2019, 10:29:54 PM
Of everything I've read about Hillsborough, this is the most heartbreaking.


https://twitter.com/charlhennessy1/status/1200372275658285056

I’m speechless
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Damo70 on November 29, 2019, 10:38:04 PM
Of everything I've read about Hillsborough, this is the most heartbreaking.


https://twitter.com/charlhennessy1/status/1200372275658285056

I’m speechless


I am speechless too and that is pretty rare for me.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: p_ad on November 29, 2019, 11:57:50 PM
Honestly what can you say, the stories get more damming as more evidence becomes available, words really do fail me
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on November 30, 2019, 11:34:58 AM
Am I missing something?  Wasn’t he found not guilty by 10 good men and women true?  Genuine question as I’m struggling with the outrage.  That’s the judicial process we follow isn’t it? And this one has had two trials is it? I know it sounds ridiculous on the face of it given what happened but what else could have happened apart from the bloke going on trial and facing his accusers.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: p_ad on November 30, 2019, 12:00:56 PM
Read the tweet posted by Dave woodhall , that's the outrage
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on November 30, 2019, 12:15:25 PM
Do we just keep having trials until he’s found guilty then?  If we were in the same position then we would accept that?  I accept that him being found not guilty and the victims being unlawfully killed doesn’t square.  But again I’m struggling to see what else could be done.  In Mackrells case If I remember correctly he got off relatively lightly which I found to be a total disgrace given the obvious cesspit condition this ground was in (as others were) during that period and the lapses safety certificate.

Going back to the allegations of one sided summing up by the judge then that would need to be looked into.  Not sure if they can appeal anything on those grounds and If so then they should do so.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: AVH87 on November 30, 2019, 08:37:04 PM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: JD on November 30, 2019, 09:02:03 PM
Of everything I've read about Hillsborough, this is the most heartbreaking.


https://twitter.com/charlhennessy1/status/1200372275658285056

I’m speechless

K'in hell. Me as well. Disgraceful.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on November 30, 2019, 09:20:50 PM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.

You don’t have to be a murderer to be criminally culpable for someone else’s death. Nobody is suggesting he did it deliberately.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Rico on December 01, 2019, 10:53:58 AM
I remember going to Hillsborough that season. It was the first time I had been to that stadium. If memory serves me right I think it was quite early in the season, and I spent the first half of the match in that central pen. I also remember thinking that we must have took thousands to that match because it was packed in that middle pen. It wasn't until the second half that Villa fans started to spread out into the other pens to the left and right that the overcrowding ended and you could see that we hadn't actually took that many fans to that match. Maybe 1500 or so.

When the disaster happened I immediately thought back to that day and remembered the tunnel was the first thing that visiting fans could see on entering the ground. You could also see a small glimpse of the pitch which sort of enticed you into the central pen. It goes without saying that the Leppings Lane end was a disaster waiting to happen and for the life of me I can never understand why Liverpool who are a much bigger club than Forest were allocated that end rather than the Kop.

In my opinion the Leppings Lane end should have been demolished as a mark of respect to the dead Liverpool fans. It was not fit for purpose before and it still isn't. Anyone who went to Sheffield when we played there for BFR's first game in charge will remember that it was still dangerously overcrowded and the South Yorkshire Police had learnt nothing from the experience and still treated fans like vermin. Disgraceful!

UTV
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: dave.woodhall on December 01, 2019, 10:55:20 AM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.

But they do get found guilty of manslaughter and go to prison.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Somniloquism on December 01, 2019, 10:56:21 AM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.

But they do get found guilty of manslaughter and go to prison.

And probably get stiffer sentences for lying, coverups and not admitting guilt.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Richard E on December 02, 2019, 04:53:26 PM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.

But they do get found guilty of manslaughter and go to prison.

The Judge at Duckenfield's first trial told him at the outset that he would not be sent to prison even if he was convicted! What an absolutely remarkable thing to say to a defendant accused of causing nearly 100 deaths through negligence so gross it meets the criminal standard.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: purpletrousers on December 02, 2019, 05:54:19 PM
Of everything I've read about Hillsborough, this is the most heartbreaking.


https://twitter.com/charlhennessy1/status/1200372275658285056

I’m speechless

K'in hell. Me as well. Disgraceful.

Remarkably shocking. 
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Marlon From Bearwood on December 02, 2019, 09:44:52 PM
I totally agree that the Leppings Lane stand should’ve been demolished and rebuilt. The fact that the only thing that’s changed is fixing some seats onto the old terrace is pretty unbelievable.

I was sat (stood) in the lower tier for our game back in April so had to walk ‘the tunnel’ to get to and from my seat. Something about that still didn’t quite feel right.
Title: Re: Hillsborough
Post by: Hopadop on December 02, 2019, 10:43:28 PM
If I was in their position I'd want someone to blame too, but, he didn't open the gate with the deaths of innocent people in mind, he isn't a murderer. Same as people on a night out who drink too much and accidentally kill someone with one punch, it's awful, but they aren't murderers.

But they do get found guilty of manslaughter and go to prison.

The Judge at Duckenfield's first trial told him at the outset that he would not be sent to prison even if he was convicted! What an absolutely remarkable thing to say to a defendant accused of causing nearly 100 deaths through negligence so gross it meets the criminal standard.

The judge dealt with the question of prison at pp36-37 of his Ruling dealing with the application to stay the prosecution:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/duckenfield-and-murray-ruling.pdf

It was unusual, but as he says it was an unusual case and he was a brave judge. He was clearly influenced by the fact the families (or at least those represented by the HFSG at the time of the private prosecution) didn't want prison sentences. It was a mistake, and in hindsight a bad one, but he was a decent and humane judge.

Anyway the whole Ruling is interesting.