collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine

Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

* H&V Best Of

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Hillsborough  (Read 41722 times)

Offline Richard E

  • Member
  • Posts: 9391
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tipton
  • This also will pass.
  • GM : 28.02.2019
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #105 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Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?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


Offline Villa in Denmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 10882
  • Location: Lost
  • On a road to nowhere
  • GM : 02.05.2019
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #106 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Have the FA explained why the semi final was held at a ground where the safety certificate was out of date?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.

Offline Chris Jameson

  • Member
  • Posts: 21621
  • DIY guru
  • GM : May, 2014
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #107 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.

Offline Sexual Ealing

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8216
  • Location: West West Ealing
  • GM : PCM
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #108 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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 10:38:02 PM by Sexual Ealing »

Offline NatP

  • Member
  • Posts: 101
  • Location: B45
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #109 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.

Offline Hopadop

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3421
  • Location: North London
  • GM : 05.04.2021
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #110 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.  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.

Offline pete bland

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: above the gravy line
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #111 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.

Offline Hopadop

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3421
  • Location: North London
  • GM : 05.04.2021
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #112 on: April 29, 2016, 03:20:19 PM »
As you say so far so thin line.

But have a look at the Jury Questionnaire 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.

Offline Richard E

  • Member
  • Posts: 9391
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tipton
  • This also will pass.
  • GM : 28.02.2019
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #113 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.

Offline pete bland

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
  • Location: above the gravy line
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #114 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.

Online spangley1812

  • Member
  • Posts: 6390
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #115 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

Offline PeterWithesShin

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 57283
  • Location: B16
  • GM : 17.03.2015
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #116 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".

Offline Chris Jameson

  • Member
  • Posts: 21621
  • DIY guru
  • GM : May, 2014
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #117 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!

Offline cheltenhamlion

  • Member
  • Posts: 18596
  • Location: Pedmore, Stourbridge
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #118 on: May 01, 2016, 07:01:42 PM »
I wish she would shut her trap about safe standing mind.

Offline Dave Cooper please

  • Member
  • Posts: 29782
  • Location: In a medium sized launch tethered off Biarritz
  • GM : 20.04.2019
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #119 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

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal