Hillsborough

[bhaexpress]

Is kind of what I feel about it. Who knows, maybe there is going to be some kind of bombshell, but all I can see happening is confirmation that the police superintendent in charge on the day made a decision that proved to be catastrophically wrong. I'm sure he didn't make it with any kind of malevolent intent, it was just an on the spot call made in the face of serious crushing developing outside, but it was, ultimately, badly thought out and brought about the scenario of people being crushed inside. There were other factors, which no doubt prompted the decision by Duckenfield, but the call to open the gates turned a potential disaster into an actual one.

What else is expected to come out of this, out of interest?

Exactly, whilst we must never forget what a tragedy it was but a lot of changes have been made in the light of it. Suppose that any of these rumours are in fact true, what is supposed to happen next ? By all means publish these documents but what will we learn that we don't already know ? That's more how many people will not believe that even after publication thatwe don't have all the facts ?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

This is all about gaining access to all relevant government papers in order to prove / disprove suspicions that there was Govt interference with the Inquiry findings to steer the blame away from the Police towards the fans. It is understandable that the families would want transparency in order to clear their loved ones names. If it emerges that the findings were corrupted in some way then it is an injustice that is very much in the public interest.

There appears to be a lot of politically motivated agitation and conspiracy theories around this issue, desperate to show that the Govt interfered. If evidence of this emerges then this could spiral into a very politicised mess.

On the other hand there is the chance that an independent examination of the evidence will not find any evidence of a conspiracy - thereby leaving the fans in the frame. No family will really want to hear that their loved ones contributed to their own demise but would hope that some may acheive some closure in the outcome.

 

[getreal1]

I'm really not sure what new information people are hoping to obtain from this disclosure. Surely the facts are that thousands of fans turned up without tickets hoping to rush the gates (as was the norm then for most big games), the police were scared about people getting crushed outside so opened a gate to let the fans in. The incoming fans should have been shepherded to the outer pens but were not hence the crush in the centre two pens.

Sure the police made errors that day which almost certainly cost lives but everyone knows that already don't they?

Why don'tt the drunks who turned up with or without tickets and tried to storm the gates make themselves known....

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Every dead person had their blood tested for alcohol including a 10 year old boy. The crush was not caused by drunks, most of the 'late' fans were delayed by roadworks and over 50% of the fans were already in the ground by 2.30. There are some very ignorant posts on this thread.

 

[The Large One]

Why don'tt the drunks who turned up with or without tickets and tried to storm the gates make themselves known....

Which ones were they?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

and a football governing body that gave the wrong side to the wrong team

If, as Clapham says, there were still tickets available at Anfield the day before the game, that rather shoots that theory down.

Clearly Liverpool were the bigger club, but they can only sell the number of tickets physically available, and if all the other contributory factors are as stated (coaches arriving late, narrow entrance area to the ground, large number of supporters massed outside prior to kick off) then giving that end to Forest wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. It would have been Forest fans who died instead.

Which doesn't make the situation any better as far as I can tell.

 

[getreal1]

Every dead person had their blood tested for alcohol including a 10 year old boy. The crush was not caused by drunks, most of the 'late' fans were delayed by roadworks and over 50% of the fans were already in the ground by 2.30. There are some very ignorant posts on this thread.

Indeed there are. Those latecomers have to live with the blame every bit as much as the Old Bill on the day. Since when has it been acceptable to try to break into a football ground. Don't make excuses for them.

 

[The Large One]

Indeed there are. Those latecomers have to live with the blame every bit as much as the Old Bill on the day. Since when has it been acceptable to try to break into a football ground. Don't make excuses for them.

Interesting username you have - try practicing it.

 

[mikeyjh]

I'm not sure many posters have actually read the interim report, ie. the one that said what happened and why:-

http://www.fsf.org.uk/uploaded/publications/pdfs/interim%20report%20hillsborough.pdf

I've not read it all in detail, but a couple of things are apparent, it does hold the police, the stadium and authorities mainly responsible. It also does mention alcohol and ticketless fans as contributory factors. It also refutes the '1 ambulance' theory....

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Indeed there are. Those latecomers have to live with the blame every bit as much as the Old Bill on the day. Since when has it been acceptable to try to break into a football ground. Don't make excuses for them.

Nobody broke into the ground, the gates were opened. Please read the report on the tragedy before showing your ignorance of the facts.

 

[bhaexpress]

i confidently predict whatever is released it will not be the end of the matter, we will have it dragged on for another few years.

i do wonder why the PM should apologise, Rotheram's making comparisons to Bloody Sunday is new levels of victimhood.

Spot on, unless the authorities are made to total responsibiliy for everything that went wrong then some people will never accept the verdict.

 

[bhaexpress]

Which ones were they?

Well, I couldn't say but as I was working in Liverpool at the time several of the people I was working with went to the game and they said that there were quite a few seriously drunk people there. As a matter of fact one of the victims was the husband of a friend of mine.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Spot on, unless the authorities are made to total responsibiliy for everything that went wrong then some people will never accept the verdict.

The issue in my mind is that (and I'm honestly not trying to defend the bloke because of my profession), the decision to open that gate that day must have been made with the best of intentions. I can't believe for a single second that someone in charge of that situation thought "Oh f*** 'em, let 'em all pile in and we'll see what happens". He was under huge pressure, presumably, because he was getting reports left right and centre of people being crushed outside, and he made the ill-fated call to try and ease that. He must live with that every day (I'm assuming, without looking it up, that he is still alive). Not many of us are in a position where a single mistake would end up costing so many lives.

On the other hand, I understand from my limited knowledge of the report, that Duckenfield is thought to have lied about a number of the issues that arose from the disaster, either to cover his own arse, or those of his force. That would be unacceptable, and you can easily see why people feel like something important has been missed out. I presume it's this kind of thing that the JFT96 campaign are after transparency on.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Well, I couldn't say but as I was working in Liverpool at the time several of the people I was working with went to the game and they said that there were quite a few seriously drunk people there

This is no doubt true, but then again you could go to any Albion game and find plenty of individuals who'd had a lot to drink. I'm confident there are a few NSC regulars already making the most of the pubs around London Bridge as we speak

Taylor acknowledged that (ie that there were plenty of fans there who were three sheets to the wind) but stated that it was not a major contributory factor I think.

 

[The Large One]

Well, I couldn't say but as I was working in Liverpool at the time several of the people I was working with went to the game and they said that there were quite a few seriously drunk people there.

Taylor acknowledges that there were drunken fans there. However, he does not place the blame on them.

Regarding the storming of the gates (which is what I was querying), Taylor said this (my square brackets)...

"283. Most surprisingly, he [David Duckenfield - police officer in charge that day] gave Mr [Graham] Kelly [then Chief Executive of the FA] and others to think that there had been an inrush due to Liverpool fans forcing open a gate. This was not only untruthful. It set off a widely reported allegation against the supporters which caused grave offence and distress. It revived against football fans, and especially those from Liverpool, accusations of hooliganism which caused reaction not only nationwide but from Europe too. I can only assume that Mr Duckenfield's lack of candour on this occasion was out of character. He said his reason for not telling the truth was that if the crowd became aware of it there might be a very hostile reaction and this might impede rescue work. He did not wish to divulge what had happened until he had spoken to a senior officer. However, reluctance to tell Mr Kelly the truth did not require that he be told a falsehood. Moreover, although Assistant Chief Constable Jackson was at hand, Mr Duckenfield did not disclose the truth to him until much later."

As a matter of fact one of the victims was the husband of a friend of mine.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[APACHE]

To all those who went reguly to big games with large attendances back then, think about how it was. Lots of fans with no tickets, plenty of drink before the game, grounds where you were packed in and couldn't move,fans looking for a fight and the police most of the time wanted to be somewhere else. It was a time of disaster after disaster at home and abroad and I hate to say it but 1 club was involved more than anyother. No side will come out of this untainted.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Taylor acknowledges that there were drunken fans there. However, he does not place the blame on them.

Regarding the storming of the gates (which is what I was querying), Taylor said this (my square brackets)...

"283. Most surprisingly, he [David Duckenfield - police officer in charge that day] gave Mr [Graham] Kelly [then Chief Executive of the FA] and others to think that there had been an inrush due to Liverpool fans forcing open a gate. This was not only untruthful. It set off a widely reported allegation against the supporters which caused grave offence and distress. It revived against football fans, and especially those from Liverpool, accusations of hooliganism which caused reaction not only nationwide but from Europe too. I can only assume that Mr Duckenfield's lack of candour on this occasion was out of character. He said his reason for not telling the truth was that if the crowd became aware of it there might be a very hostile reaction and this might impede rescue work. He did not wish to divulge what had happened until he had spoken to a senior officer. However, reluctance to tell Mr Kelly the truth did not require that he be told a falsehood. Moreover, although Assistant Chief Constable Jackson was at hand, Mr Duckenfield did not disclose the truth to him until much later."



I'm sorry to hear that.

Sadly, and I guess not without reason, the assumption of a great many people once fans started spilling on to the pitch, was that it must involve hooliganism. That's just the way people were at the time where football was concerned. Look on YouTube: there is footage of the likes of Jimmy Hill and Des Lynam saying that their first reaction was that it must be some kind of hooliganism. Even the BBC Radio Merseyside reporter says the same in the minutes immediately after the match is stopped, although he obviously changes his tune once the reality emerges.



It's not nice to hear, but it seems to me that attitude was inevitable following the years of appalling behaviour surrounding football games.

 

[junkoid]

Does the report actually say all 95 were dead at 15:16? Does it say that everyone was drunk? Does it say that everyone was ticketless?
Sympathy that you were there but don't fall into the trap of making generalisations just based on yourself.

No: the official inquest "determined" due to materially altered reports from policemen that everyone was dead by 15:16 despite first hand accounts from said policemen and off-duty nurses that children were still alive at 16:00, dying in their arms and calling out for their mum. This fictitious "fact" means that the sh*t organisation of the police and stadium staff was "irrelevant" and nobody got sued for prevent help getting in and saving lives.

So you do accept that there were ticketless fans and that some were drunk?

Out of 20,000 people I'm sure a reasonable number had had beers, like every football match before or since.
The inquiry (and subsequent CCTV analysis) showed that between 9,600 and 10,100 people entered the stand after the external gate had been opened. The capacity of the stand was 10,000, so at worst the stand was 1% over capacity.
Hence Taylor concluding that ticketless fans made NO SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION to the disaster, and was likely pure hearsay.

If the relatives get some closure out of it then great but I am not sure what they are hoping to get out of this.
Easy for me to say, but unless something sensational comes out of the released papers then I think it is time to let it lie.

Not one specific person has ever been charged with anything over the instutional death of 96 men, women and children, nor over the subsequent institutional and governmental cover-up, and deliberate mis-briefing of journalists; the relatives of the dead would like someone, somewhere to accept some blame, or make an apology. Not much to ask is it?

Assuming you're old enough to breed or marry, imagine for a second your husband and both your daughters died at the cinema.
Would you be happy to say "ah well, shit happens. Wonder what's on at the Vue this weekend?". No, you'd want some f*cker somewhere to swing for it.
And if you had one iota of humanity in you, you'd fight for their memory until someone did.

i confidently predict whatever is released it will not be the end of the matter, we will have it dragged on for another few years.

i do wonder why the PM should apologise, Rotheram's making comparisons to Bloody Sunday is new levels of victimhood.

Actually, no it isn't. Given the scale of governmental cover-ups of gross negligence, media mis-briefing and attempting to smear a group of families, and an entire cultural group, it's easily comparable. And the police only managed to kill 13 people in 1972. They managed to get their high-score up to 96 in 1989. Go team!

Why don'tt the drunks who turned up with or without tickets and tried to storm the gates make themselves known....

A total myth. You are either a troll, a c*nt or an idiot. Whichever it is please hurry up and f*ck off eh?
Duckenfield gave the order to open the gate when he panicked about numbers outside, having NEVER PREVIOUSLY run a football match before. Any remotely competent PC would have radioed the match officials and told them kick off should be delayed, as happened the year before.
Instead, having made a catastrophic decision he then lied, briefed the FA and the media that "fans stormed the gates" and was caught out when the inquiry showed records (and video) of him giving the order, and police opening the gates calmly and deliberately. He then perjured himself later in the enquiry.

Indeed there are. Those latecomers have to live with the blame every bit as much as the Old Bill on the day. Since when has it been acceptable to try to break into a football ground. Don't make excuses for them.

In case I wasn't clear above: you're a massively ignorant tw*t, who probably enjoys peddling this sh*t so that in your mind there's some kind of justification for the horrific prejudice that rattles around it 24/7. Got a particular reason to hate scousers, or do you just spread the hate around nice and evenly for jocks, fags, and n*ggers too? I bet you're a lovely piece of work.

You'd do well to remember they were mostly just families going to a big football match - a cup game, so probably mostly casuals - before you pour more filth out of your hole.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm not sure many posters have actually read the interim report, ie. the one that said what happened and why:-

http://www.fsf.org.uk/uploaded/publications/pdfs/interim%20report%20hillsborough.pdf

I've not read it all in detail, but a couple of things are apparent, it does hold the police, the stadium and authorities mainly responsible. It also does mention alcohol and ticketless fans as contributory factors. It also refutes the '1 ambulance' theory....

Copied and pasted from that pdf
89. At 3.13 pm a St John's ambulance came onto the pitch at the north-east corner and drove to the
perimeter fence close to gate 3. There was no call for doctors and nurses on the public address system until
nearly 3.30 pm. Nevertheless, as the minutes ticked past, some of them came onto the pitch to help of their
own accord when they saw the casualties and the ambulance and realised the gravity of the situation

 

[getreal1]

Nobody broke into the ground, the gates were opened. Please read the report on the tragedy before showing your ignorance of the facts.

Can you read? I said 'try to'. I did not state that anybody broke into the ground.