[Football] Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield will go on trial *** Not Guilty ***

[LVGull]

If you hadn't posted that I'd have been reading the replies to my post wondering what the **** the problem was. I'd never heard anything about the commentator, and thought perhaps he was giving negligent advice that affected what happened that day

Love the swerve Trig. Good effort.

 

[Triggaaar]

Love the swerve Trig. Good effort.

Thanks.

Although not sure if you're joking or not.

 

[LamieRobertson]

If you hadn't posted that I'd have been reading the replies to my post wondering what the **** the problem was. I'd never heard anything about the commentator, and thought perhaps he was giving negligent advice that affected what happened that day

Likewise

 

[glasfryn]

About time

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Duckenfield made a monumental mistake with terrible consequences and then lied to cover up for his error for many years, amplifying the pain and suffering for the many affected by the tragedy.

There is a big "what if...?" with Hillsborough though isn't there? Duckenfield shouldn't have been in charge on that day. A horrible example of wrong place/wrong time >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27779353

Sure the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Sue the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

Great post!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sue the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

I don't have the time to look it up but I'm pretty sure the inquiry found him to have ignored some procedures and also to have ignored advice. If someone in charge of a match ignores agreed procedures then I have little sympathy if they are called out on it in a court of law.
[MENTION=257]The Large One[/MENTION] is the expert in the inquiry so hopefully he can shed some light

 

[Fungus]

Sue the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

If he was making judgement calls as he went along, then his preparation was certainly negligent.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I don't have the time to look it up but I'm pretty sure the inquiry found him to have ignored some procedures and also to have ignored advice. If someone in charge of a match ignores agreed procedures then I have little sympathy if they are called out on it in a court of law.

[MENTION=257]The Large One[/MENTION] is the expert in the inquiry so hopefully he can shed some light

I haven't followed it that closely either so more than happy to be shown where the case for prosecution exists.

Advice is just advice, anyone in leadership positions can tell you that advice comes from many quarters and in varying quality. Procedures - seems a pretty special set of circumstances that happened that day.

 

[Brovion]

I have mixed views. Not out of sympathy for Duckenfield as such (although I do have a small amount and I can see where Kalimantan Gull is coming from in post #18) but I'm just scared this will make the Authorities even more risk-averse than they are at present. We know that Southern Rail refuse to run train services to events/stations if they think the crowd will be too big, and I think that mindset will only get worse in the light of today's decision.

 

[LVGull]

Thanks.

Although not sure if you're joking or not.

I’m not. Like the quick thinking though.

 

[The Large One]

I don't have the time to look it up but I'm pretty sure the inquiry found him to have ignored some procedures and also to have ignored advice. If someone in charge of a match ignores agreed procedures then I have little sympathy if they are called out on it in a court of law.

[MENTION=257]The Large One[/MENTION] is the expert in the inquiry so hopefully he can shed some light

Hardly an expert. I've been following it, if that's what you mean.

First and foremost, the 96 (or 95 as per the court direction) were unlawfully killed. That is a matter of record.

You therefore have to look at the reasons as to why and how they were unlawfully killed, and who had the duty of care that day. In this instance, it was David Duckenfield, a man with very little experience of big-match control. In short, he was in charge, having felt - against better judgement - he could deal with the situation. The person previously in charge of match control at FA Cup Semi-Finals at Hillsborough wasn't asked to take control that day. That's not to say that that is a part of any conspiracy - and I don't believe there was one - it's more that it left the match in question in the hands of someone who was very inexperienced.

As the Guardian noted in 2016... "The first planning meeting for the semi-final took place on 22 March [1989] and was attended by newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, not by Mole [the previous match commander]. No known minutes exist of this meeting. Although Mole could have been assigned the semi-final match's planning despite his transfer, that was not done. This left planning for the semi-final match to Duckenfield, who had never commanded a sell-out football match before, and who had "very little, if any" training or personal experience in how to do so."

On the day, as the Inquest noted, there was a catalogue of errors from communication breakdowns, to assumptions of violence, drunkenness and ticketlessness, through to basic common sense not being applied. There was no cohesive communication system to advise fans not to head to the central pen where the crushing was happening (remember - the side pens were sparsely populated). All of these were totally avoidable - but weren't avoided through sheer incompetence.

All of this was compounded when, in the immediate aftermatch of the tragedy, and for the following 27 years, Duckenfield (and the rest of the establishment) sought to indulge in an almighty cover-up to blame fans, and to blame junior officers, which has since led to charges of perjury against several police officers and solicitors. This is, of course, a separate charge to the one of manslaughter being brought against Duckenfield.

All of the above is a matter of record. However, and I'm sure [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] knows this, this is now a matter of criminal proceedings, and we all have to be careful what we say - even on good old NSC.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Sure the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

Surely if there is any negligence found to have occurred by the authorities responsible (not necessarily in the direct response to the incident like failing to evacuate sooner) but maybe through failure to check structures comply with fire regulations which would have been a part of someones remit to sign off on, - so checking fire doors where still intact and in place and hadn't been compromised (ie no holes drilled through and wires going through the frames which were found at the tower) checking materials complied with regulations for the building (who signs off on and who tests materials like the ones used for the windows and the cladding to provide the safety marks and sets the building regulations which state if those materials can or can't be used in the project?) and so on....

If there were people failing to do their role, and if it contributed to the tragedy through their negligence (which would be tested through a court case) then yes, there should be individuals who work for the authorities who should be held accountable and should stand trial for their failings if their actions did break the law

The authorities are quick to investigate and prosecute private business owners for failings, but when failings occur in the public sector, aren't they just as responsible for an incident as if it had been the responsibility of those if it had all been in the private sector so should face the same consequences?

Being a part of a public body shouldn't excuse poor working practices and allow negligent practices to take place

 

[Triggaaar]

I’m not. Like the quick thinking though.

Thanks.

Although not sure if you're joking or not.

I’m not. Like the quick thinking though.

Then don't be a tw@. I misread it, nothing more.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I have mixed views. Not out of sympathy for Duckenfield as such (although I do have a small amount and I can see where Kalimantan Gull is coming from in post #18) but I'm just scared this will make the Authorities even more risk-averse than they are at present. We know that Southern Rail refuse to run train services to events/stations if they think the crowd will be too big, and I think that mindset will only get worse in the light of today's decision.

Agreed. We are never going to stop disasters from happening; we can only try and put appropriate plans in place to prevent them and if the worst happens ensure that they are not repeated. There are alwayss disasters waiting to happen, especially in crowds. Examples - Preston Park Station platform after a game at Withdean with an express train going through, or the stairs at the old Wembley Stadium where 25% of those evacuating the stadium didn’t physically tread on any of the steps but were carried down in the packed crowd. Shit happens - unfortunately Hillsborough was the worst kind. I like to think that our safety at the Amex is partly due to the lessons learned.

 

[blue-shifted]

Hmmm, Manslaughter? Difficult to attribute this to one person. Perverting the course of justice would be a more likely conviction, but we'll see the evidence I suppose

 

[pork pie]

Then don't be a tw@. I misread it, nothing more.

You did not misread it Trigs, it was definitely changed as I read the same originally and wondered the same thing.

 

[Triggaaar]

You did not misread it Trigs, it was definitely changed as I read the same originally and wondered the same thing.

So you're saying the OP said commentator to start with, then edited it?

Could TomandJerry or a mod confirm? My honour is at stake here.

 

[The Large One]

Surely if there is any negligence found to have occurred by the authorities responsible (not necessarily in the direct response to the incident like failing to evacuate sooner) but maybe through failure to check structures comply with fire regulations which would have been a part of someones remit to sign off on, - so checking fire doors where still intact and in place and hadn't been compromised (ie no holes drilled through and wires going through the frames which were found at the tower) checking materials complied with regulations for the building (who signs off on and who tests materials like the ones used for the windows and the cladding to provide the safety marks and sets the building regulations which state if those materials can or can't be used in the project?) and so on....

If there were people failing to do their role, and if it contributed to the tragedy through their negligence (which would be tested through a court case) then yes, there should be individuals who work for the authorities who should be held accountable and should stand trial for their failings if their actions did break the law

The authorities are quick to investigate and prosecute private business owners for failings, but when failings occur in the public sector, aren't they just as responsible for an incident as if it had been the responsibility of those if it had all been in the private sector so should face the same consequences?

Being a part of a public body shouldn't excuse poor working practices and allow negligent practices to take place

I've spoken to a couple of friends who are fire officers, and the way tower blocks are designed (including Grenfell), the advice to stay put is sound - assuming that the correct procedures and safety measures are put in place by those who are supposed to do so.

The issue here is that the narrative appears to be heading ONLY towards the fire officer's advice, and not towards the circumstances which led to the start of the fire and the subsequent inferno. In short, we're getting a kind of inquiry which is not dissimilar to the first Hillsborough inquest, which included the totally arbitrary '3.15 cut off point' to announce everyone who had died that day had done so by that time - something which was proven to be false later.

If you're going to draw a parallel between Grenfell and Hillsborough, then it would mean those responsible for the construction of the building in question should be brought to book - and many people believe that should be the case. However, nearly everyone who was at Sheffield Wednesday back then has since passed on.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Whilst I have every sympathy with those who died and their friends and families I find it hard to understand how the inactions of one or two individuals can be so catestrophic. Froma policing point of view I think the cover up following this was their biggest error. The fact that their previously successful crowd control initiatives failed miserably in this instance should have been the focus post Hillsborough.
I agree that Sheffield Weds should bear a significant proportion of the blame as their arrangements were woeful.
The bottom line is though, whoever allowed, if there was a single person responsible, all those poor people to flood into the central terrace needs stringing up.

From the BBC article quoted in the OP,

Former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell is charged with health and safety, and safety at sports grounds offences.

Three other men are also charged with perverting the course of justice, which relates to the cover up.

Former solicitor Peter Metcalf and former police officers Donald Denton and Alan Foster are scheduled to go on trial in January 2019 charged with perverting the course of justice.