Hillsborough

[Thunder Bolt]

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

I can and suggest that you read junkoid's post above mine. He has answered your statement in a far more succinct way than me.

 

[getreal1]

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.



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.



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.



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!



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.



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.

Where did I express hostiliy towards a race, creed, region or otherwise? If you don't want to hear a contrary opinion, don't post on a forum.

 

[getreal1]

Where did I express hostiliy towards a race, creed, region or otherwise? If you don't want to hear a contrary opinion, don't post on a forum.

And I do mean region for the avoidance of doubt.

 

[The Large One]

Where did I express hostiliy towards a race, creed, region or otherwise? If you don't want to hear a contrary opinion, don't post on a forum.

You're not posting 'contrary opinion'; you're posting supposition based on myth.

No-one tried to storm the gates for the simple reason being, as Taylor points out, that they couldn't.

 

[drew]

Here. Taylor says the number of ticketless fan was not a contributing factor.[/QUOTE}

Sorry but can you direct me to where in the interim report he says they weren't a contributing factor. In section 208 he identifies that small pockets of ticketless fans who may have taken advantage of the situation together with a minority of drunks aggravated the situation at the turnstiles. What he does refute is the conspiracy theory that large numbers of ticketless fans engineered a pre planned situation to get the police to open a gate.

I can't believe that anyone still believes the fans were to blame. The tunnel at Hillsborough acts as a funnel, the police opened the gate, roadworks held the fans up, they were directed into pen 3 when adjoining pens had more space, a crush barrier gave way and the cages at the front were all contributing factors.

I thought the Taylor report said there weren't any real significant delays due to roadworks. Also, not sure anyone has said the fans were to blame. The actions of some contributed to the problem but the cause of the crush was the opening of gate C with no plans to divert the fans from the centre tunnel. What we don't know and never will is whether there would have been a serious problem at the turnstiles had gate c not been opened. Taylor identifies that a small minority of drunken fans certainly aggravated the problem at the turnstiles and we all know it doesn't take too many drunks to unsettle a much larger crowd. However, this was a contributory factor to the problem and not the soleor even the main cause of it.

 

[getreal1]

You're not posting 'contrary opinion'; you're posting supposition based on myth.

No-one tried to storm the gates for the simple reason being, as Taylor points out, that they couldn't.

So no hostility toward any group or minority ...I hope you'll agree and suspend your propensity to rant. No doubt that most people regardless of obviously contrary opinions want what is right for the families. However, my original point is dealt with in Taylor, as an exacerbating factor.

 

[The Large One]

So no hostility toward any group or minority ...I hope you'll agree and suspend your propensity to rant. No doubt that most people regardless of obviously contrary opinions want what is right for the families. However, my original point is dealt with in Taylor, as an exacerbating factor.

But what you quoted ('fans stormed / tried to storm the gates') isn't what happened.

Indeed, David Duckenfield admitted it was a lie.

 

[bhaexpress]

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.

I hate to say it but serveal of the same people, all Liverpudlians half supported the Sun's view of what happened. Whether it did or not obviously I'm in no position to say but it just seems to me that some people want a scapegoat. What will be acheived for the report now though ? I still feel that there are some people who will simply not accept the report's finding unless somebody (who's long since gone) is hung out to dry.

Who's the real culprits then ? The nobhead hooligans who caused pitch invasions all over the country ? The Thatcher Government who in typical clueless Tory style had no idea about what they were doing ? YOu could also argue that the liberal approach of the Labour party was a contributing factor into the breakdown of law and order that made it okay for pitch invasions in the first place.

Where does the blame end ?

 

[The Large One]

Sorry but can you direct me to where in the interim report he says they weren't a contributing factor. In section 208 he identifies that small pockets of ticketless fans who may have taken advantage of the situation together with a minority of drunks aggravated the situation at the turnstiles. What he does refute is the conspiracy theory that large numbers of ticketless fans engineered a pre planned situation to get the police to open a gate.

OK, he doesn't say they weren't a contributing factor. Conversely, he doesn't say they were a contributory factor.

In fact, in para. 202, he concludes... Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.

You're right about para.208. He calls the small number of drunken fans and ticketless fans 'an aggravating factor'. By that, he means, they were not part of the disaster directly, more a slight hindrance anything the police were trying to do. In this instance, Duckenfield used them (wrongly) as a convenient scapegoat.

 

[Gus is god]

Was this Taylor's first report or second as there were.2

seagulls

 

[The Large One]

I hate to say it but serveal of the same people, all Liverpudlians half supported the Sun's view of what happened. Whether it did or not obviously I'm in no position to say but it just seems to me that some people want a scapegoat. What will be acheived for the report now though ? I still feel that there are some people who will simply not accept the report's finding unless somebody (who's long since gone) is hung out to dry.

Who's the real culprits then ? The nobhead hooligans who caused pitch invasions all over the country ? The Thatcher Government who in typical clueless Tory style had no idea about what they were doing ? YOu could also argue that the liberal approach of the Labour party was a contributing factor into the breakdown of law and order that made it okay for pitch invasions in the first place.

Where does the blame end ?

Which report are you referring to? The Taylor Report?

I think it's understood that 'both sides' - the fans and the authorities - have plenty of culpability in the culture of football.

Perversely, Hillsborough was a watershed. I don't think anyone is after a scapegoat for the culture - there won't be just one. I've no idea where the 'liberal approach of the Labour Party' comes in here. Hooliganism and pitch invasion have happened since... well, football began, I expect.

 

[Brovion]

.....

 

[drew]

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.

Sorry but I'm not sure I've seen anything that suggests that all 96 or for that matter, those that were injured as well, were even in part at fault for their suffering. Indeed, the Taylor report only identifies only 6 with greater than 120milligrams of alcohol in their blood. Of the 730 odd that were injured, it is estimated that 30% came through gate c so it you might argue they may have contributed to the problem but to be fair that would be disengenuous as you don't know whether they were at the front of the crush or at the back slowly pushing forward. We don't know what levels of alcohol, if any, they had and whether they had tickets. But with regard to the 96 that died, the vast majority were at the front of the pens and therefore had been in the ground for some time.

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

He doesn't blame them but he certainly says the behaviour of a drunken minority outside aggravated the situation which of course eventually led to gate c being opened.

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. but surely the point is that the disaster was about the events that led to the injuries. There were plenty of people who were injured, about 730, whose injuries didn't miracuroulsy heal at 3.16. From the point of view of the circumstances that led to the disaster,surely all the contributing factors had occured by 3.16. The fact that in teh aftermath the emergency services were far from organised, a factor that could well have contributed to the death or suffering of supporters would not change the circumstances of the cause of the catastrophe


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. can you tell me where in the interim report where it says this


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?

How many fans who were outside, either pushing to get in either because they were late, drunk, without tickets or whatever has put their hand up and said they have regretted their actions on that day. Duckenfield has most to apologise for in respect of the subsequent actions but as Edna says, his initial order to open gate C was done with the best of intentions to alleviate one problem.

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!

 

[drew]

OK, he doesn't say they weren't a contributing factor. Conversely, he doesn't say they were a contributory factor.

In fact, in para. 202, he concludes... Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.

You're right about para.208. He calls the small number of drunken fans and ticketless fans 'an aggravating factor'. By that, he means, they were not part of the disaster directly, more a slight hindrance anything the police were trying to do. In this instance, Duckenfield used them (wrongly) as a convenient scapegoat.

That's not how I read it. Para 208 relates to the problems outside the turnstiles, the situation that led to the fatal decision of Duckenfield to open gate C so i don't think you can be so dismissive of their involvement in the build up to the disaster. Duckenfield overstated their involvement by suggesting they were trying to break in etc but Taylor still accepts they contributed to the problem Duckenfield had to deal with.

 

[Storer 68]

Was this Taylor's first report or second as there were.2

seagulls

No there was one.

There was an INTERIM report.

and then there was the FINAL report.

All the same officially.

 

[Gus is god]

No there was one.

There was an INTERIM report.

and then there was the FINAL report.

All the same officially.

They were different very different.

seagulls

 

[The Large One]

That's not how I read it. Para 208 relates to the problems outside the turnstiles, the situation that led to the fatal decision of Duckenfield to open gate C so i don't think you can be so dismissive of their involvement in the build up to the disaster. Duckenfield overstated their involvement by suggesting they were trying to break in etc but Taylor still accepts they contributed to the problem Duckenfield had to deal with.

Gate C was opened because there was a crush outside, not because of the pissheads or ticketless fans. Taylor is clear in that. The 'drunken' and 'ticketless' fans were an aggravating factor. He does not say they were a contributory factor. There is a difference.

 

[drew]

Gate C was opened because there was a crush outside, not because of the pissheads or ticketless fans. Taylor is clear in that. The 'drunken' and 'ticketless' fans were an aggravating factor. He does not say they were a contributory factor. There is a difference.

Semantics.

 

[hitony]

This is obviously a very emotive subject, play nicely

 

[The Large One]

Semantics.

Not semantics at all.

It's a fundamental difference.