Hillsborough verdict: Fans unlawfully killed

[heathgate]

The biggest crime here has been the cover up. .

Really

I would suggest that the decisions that led 96 deaths were the biggest crime.... namely the decisions to play a game in a previously criricised stand in a stadium with no valid safety certificate..... without that decision, no further incorrect and fatal decisions would have had to have been made by anyone on the ground that day.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Easy 10]

A dignified response from Kelvin. Oh, hang on a minute...

He might have been 'duped' (that's a cop-out IMO), but as editor, he's responsible for everything that goes into the paper, especially front covers, and ones as controversial as 'The Truth'. Today (or even yesterday) would have been the perfect opportunity to say he was sorry, but he blew it. Big time.

Horrible little weasel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36149872

Mackenzie was apparently dissuaded from running the headline "YOU SCUM", and instead went with "THE TRUTH".

The journalist who wrote the piece, Harry Arnold, was (apparently) deeply unhappy with the headline and claims he was at pains to point out to Mackenzie that it was allegations via the White's news agency, not fact. Not sure I buy that, but Mackenzie eventually wrote the headline and published the story as fact anyway.

 

[heathgate]

It was a police decision to put an inexperienced officer in charge that day. David Duckenfield was not up to the job. The cover ups were as bad as the unlawful killing imo.

No... the killings cannot be overshadowed by the cover ups.. those issues a completely separate... and hopefully will be legally dealt with separately.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Easy 10]

Really

I would suggest that the decisions that led 96 deaths were the biggest crime.... namely the decisions to play a game in a previously criricised stand in a stadium with no valid safety certificate..... without that decision, no further incorrect and fatal decisions would have had to have been made by anyone on the ground that day.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It was a horrific crime, excaberrated by a cowardly cover-up which has caused 27 years of agony for those families.

I agree with your original point - who at the FA decided to play an FA Cup semi-final at a stadium that had no safety certificate ? Bert Milichip was chairman, he died in 2002. Graham Kelly was Chief Executive at the time - he should be answering for that decision.

The same two teams, Liverpool vs Forest, played at the same venue in the 1988 semi final, and the FA were warned back then, in a letter from a fan, about a dangerous crush that had developed in that 1988 semi. This letter was ignored.

Reported here after the 2012 inquiry http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...g-of-crushing-at-1988-semi-final-8135609.html

The FA, and Graham Kelly, need to answer for this.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Really

I would suggest that the decisions that led 96 deaths were the biggest crime.... namely the decisions to play a game in a previously criricised stand in a stadium with no valid safety certificate..... without that decision, no further incorrect and fatal decisions would have had to have been made by anyone on the ground that day.

If it were that easy to apportion blame, don't you think the police would have gone down that track? Far easier to blame the fans.

 

[heathgate]

It was a horrific crime, excaberrated by a cowardly cover-up which has caused 27 years of agony for those families.

I agree with your original point - who at the FA decided to play an FA Cup semi-final at a stadium that had no safety certificate ? Bert Milichip was chairman, he died in 2002. Graham Kelly was Chief Executive at the time - he should be answering for that decision.

The same two teams, Liverpool vs Forest, played at the same venue in the 1988 semi final, and the FA were warned back then, in a letter from a fan, about a dangerous crush that had developed in that 1988 semi. This letter was ignored.

Reported here after the 2012 inquiry http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...g-of-crushing-at-1988-semi-final-8135609.html

The FA, and Graham Kelly, need to answer for this.

Agreed

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[The Albion Roar]

Really

I would suggest that the decisions that led 96 deaths were the biggest crime.... namely the decisions to play a game in a previously criricised stand in a stadium with no valid safety certificate..... without that decision, no further incorrect and fatal decisions would have had to have been made by anyone on the ground that day.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Yes, really.

The disaster was of course awful, and no-one deserved what happened to them.

I tip my hat to the tenacious people who have had to suffer the indignity of having their loved ones accused of something they didn't do, of being lied to by the police and the authorities to cover up the original crimes. Those authorities may yet have to face the possibility of being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

All of this aftermath has gone beyond these brilliant, courageous friends and families who sought the truth. The aftermath affected all of us, a lot more directly. It allowed the authorities to continue with the treatment of football fans in a manner which they don't treat most other facets of society. It has meant the obscene allowance of the police insisting on 'bubble matches' when it suits them. People aren't allowed to drink on coaches on the way to a match. People aren't allowed to have a drink in sight of a football pitch on the day of a match (the only sport in the UK to suffer this draconian measure). It has meant intrusive surveillance in the name of 'safety'.

Society has changed. Hooliganism is nothing like the issue it was 30 years ago, yet we're still having to apologise for it.

The Inquest has shown that it has all been based on a myth. We (the fans) didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Mackenzie was apparently dissuaded from running the headline "YOU SCUM", and instead went with "THE TRUTH".

The journalist who wrote the piece, Harry Arnold, was (apparently) deeply unhappy with the headline and claims he was at pains to point out to Mackenzie that it was allegations via the White's news agency, not fact. Not sure I buy that, but Mackenzie eventually wrote the headline and published the story as fact anyway.

I can believe that he wouldn't have been happy, but the editor will normally have the final say on the cover. That said, there are countless examples of Murdoch meddling in the content/covers of his tabloids, that he should ultimately be held accountable. I wouldn't be surprised if the directive to run with that cover came directly from him.

 

[sydney]

tragic , needless , multi-faceted catastrophe that probably could have been avoided......very , very sad for those who perished and their loved ones......did the inquest mention how many tickets were sold for the game and how many fans were in the ground........sounds like the police just bottled it and let the disaster take it's own tragic course .........pitiful behaviour made even worse by the input of thatcher's hounds and the rag...!

 

[Easy 10]

I can believe that he wouldn't have been happy, but the editor will normally have the final say on the cover. That said, there are countless examples of Murdoch meddling in the content/covers of his tabloids, that he should ultimately be held accountable. I wouldn't be surprised if the directive to run with that cover came directly from him.

Mackenzie was an editorial version of a "shock jock", I don't think he needed any meddling from Murdoch. And of course he had final say on the cover and the entire tone of the story.

This is a man who, a few months after Hillsborough, ran the headline "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL". Mackenzie was, and is an oafish troll, who unfortunately had control of the biggest selling tabloid in the country (and bewilderingly STILL gets to regularly peddle his extreme right-wing crap to large swathes of the nation in that filthy rag).

 

[The Albion Roar]

tragic , needless , multi-faceted catastrophe that probably could have been avoided......very , very sad for those who perished and their loved ones......did the inquest mention how many tickets were sold for the game and how many fans were in the ground........sounds like the police just bottled it and let the disaster take it's own tragic course .........pitiful behaviour made even worse by the input of thatcher's hounds and the rag...!

They didn't, because it was ascertained that ticketless fans (however many there may have been) did not contribute to the tragedy.

When you say 'the police', we are specifically talking about the senior officers in South Yorkshire police like David Duckenfield and Peter Wright. While it was these senior officers at SYP, assisted (or rather, not hindered) by the Establishment, who perpetrated the lies and cover-up, I am a bit uncomfortable with blaming 'the police', especially as many individual officers behaved correctly, and have been identified and thanked by the Hillsborough families.

But for the most part, yes the authorities (who include the police) are quite rightly the ones to be held accouantable for this disaster.

 

[Danny-Boy]

If it were that easy to apportion blame, don't you think the police would have gone down that track? Far easier to blame the fans.

Im afraid at that time (the mid-late 1980's) there was a countrywide perception that Liverpool fans and people from Liverpool in general were socially unrespectable if not criminals. For all its bleating today the BBC should accept some blame for that too, the comedy show "Bread" would be considered today to be placist stereotyping, in its portrayal of life in Liverpool.

For most of that time (1986-90) I lived in Eastbourne and the animosity of locals towards Liverpudlians was worse than any racism in my view. "Scousers" was a swear word. Many people from Liverpool had moved to Eastbourne to work in the hotel trade (and were paid appallingly-low wages) but suffered from a minority who had come to the South Coast to live off benefits (and not just from Liverpool).

There was though the "Heysel factor", and I'm convinced a Liverpool fan once confided in me that a section of supporters would travel to away games ticketless, and then crowd the gates just before kick-off in the hope that the gates would be opened to relieve the pressure. Is that not what happened at Hillsborough?

 

[The Albion Roar]

Mackenzie was an editorial version of a "shock jock", I don't think he needed any meddling from Murdoch. And of course he had final say on the cover and the entire tone of the story.

This is a man who, a few months after Hillsborough, ran the headline "STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL". Mackenzie was, and is an oafish troll, who unfortunately had control of the biggest selling tabloid in the country (and bewilderingly STILL gets to regularly peddle his extreme right-wing crap to large swathes of the nation in that filthy rag).

Six months ago, he ran a small piece in his own column stating that, as David Cameron was looking to stuff the Lords with more Tory peers, he was volunteering.

'Lord Kelv of Anfield has a nice ring to it...', he said.

 

[sydney]

Im afraid at that time (the mid-late 1980's) there was a countrywide perception that Liverpool fans and people from Liverpool in general were socially unrespectable if not criminals. For all its bleating today the BBC should accept some blame for that too, the comedy show "Bread" would be considered today to be placist stereotyping, in its portrayal of life in Liverpool.

For most of that time (1986-90) I lived in Eastbourne and the animosity of locals towards Liverpudlians was worse than any racism in my view. "Scousers" was a swear word. Many people from Liverpool had moved to Eastbourne to work in the hotel trade (and were paid appallingly-low wages) but suffered from a minority who had come to the South Coast to live off benefits (and not just from Liverpool).

There was though the "Heysel factor", and I'm convinced a Liverpool fan once confided in me that a section of supporters would travel to away games ticketless, and then crowd the gates just before kick-off in the hope that the gates would be opened to relieve the pressure. Is that not what happened at Hillsborough?

careful...?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Im afraid at that time (the mid-late 1980's) there was a countrywide perception that Liverpool fans and people from Liverpool in general were socially unrespectable if not criminals. For all its bleating today the BBC should accept some blame for that too, the comedy show "Bread" would be considered today to be placist stereotyping, in its portrayal of life in Liverpool.

For most of that time (1986-90) I lived in Eastbourne and the animosity of locals towards Liverpudlians was worse than any racism in my view. "Scousers" was a swear word. Many people from Liverpool had moved to Eastbourne to work in the hotel trade (and were paid appallingly-low wages) but suffered from a minority who had come to the South Coast to live off benefits (and not just from Liverpool).

There was though the "Heysel factor", and I'm convinced a Liverpool fan once confided in me that a section of supporters would travel to away games ticketless, and then crowd the gates just before kick-off in the hope that the gates would be opened to relieve the pressure. Is that not what happened at Hillsborough?

I know you're a Palace fan, but even you cannot be that stupid.

 

[LlcoolJ]

There was though the "Heysel factor", and I'm convinced a Liverpool fan once confided in me that a section of supporters would travel to away games ticketless, and then crowd the gates just before kick-off in the hope that the gates would be opened to relieve the pressure. Is that not what happened at Hillsborough?

That's either a really sick joke or you are a complete moron, or both. Can't you read?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

tragic , needless , multi-faceted catastrophe that probably could have been avoided......very , very sad for those who perished and their loved ones......did the inquest mention how many tickets were sold for the game and how many fans were in the ground........sounds like the police just bottled it and let the disaster take it's own tragic course .........pitiful behaviour made even worse by the input of thatcher's hounds and the rag...!

Yes, the inquest said that the number of fans at Hillsborough matched the number of tickets sold. There were no ticketless fans. That was another lie.
The gate wasn't kicked down, it was opened by the police. Yet another lie put out by the police and it took years before they admitted it.

 

[The Albion Roar]

There was though the "Heysel factor", and I'm convinced a Liverpool fan once confided in me that a section of supporters would travel to away games ticketless, and then crowd the gates just before kick-off in the hope that the gates would be opened to relieve the pressure. Is that not what happened at Hillsborough?

Even IF that was the case, what's that got to do with the disaster?

The gates being opened in themselves didn't cause the disaster. A number of things happened (or didn't happen) which caused it - all of which would have avoided it happening, given the the appropriate behaviours and responses from the authorities.

They could still have got in, and no disaster happened, but Duckenfield himself said he assumed the police were there to stop trouble. He didn't know that the police were supposed operate in a safety capacity as well (in fact, first and foremost).

It has been ascertained in the Taylor Report, and in the subsequent reviews that ticketless fans were not a contribtory factor. This point was made 25 years ago - and still people ignored it.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Yes, the inquest said that the number of fans at Hillsborough matched the number of tickets sold. There were no ticketless fans. That was another lie.
The gate wasn't kicked down, it was opened by the police. Yet another lie put out by the police and it took years before they admitted it.

Hours, actually.

David Duckenfield told Graham Kelly that the gate was forced. Peter Wright (Duckenfield's boss) found out himself an hour after he got to the ground that it was opened on Duckenfield's say so. He had to issue a complete reversal of the original story.

However, after that, Wright stood by Duckenfield in blaming the fans. He died in 2011, still convinced (publicly at least) that the fans caused the disaster.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Even IF that was the case, what's that got to do with the disaster?

The gates being opened in themselves didn't cause the disaster. A number of things happened (or didn't happen) which caused it - all of which would have avoided it happening, given the the appropriate behaviours and responses from the authorities.

They could still have got in, and no disaster happened, but Duckenfield himself said he assumed the police were there to stop trouble. He didn't know that the police were supposed operate in a safety capacity as well (in fact, first and foremost).

It has been ascertained in the Taylor Report, and in the subsequent reviews that ticketless fans were not a contribtory factor. This point was made 25 years ago - and still people ignored it.

The police lined up across the pitch to stop the fans reaching the Forest end as they were told the 'pitch invasion' was down to Liverpool fans wanting to fight.
The call went out for police dogs instead of ambulances. Fans were pushed back into the pen by police, when they were trying to climb out. It was firmly in their minds that the fans were hooligans, not trying to survive.