Hillsborough debate

[ayrmad]

You'll have to point out any evidence of that.

There's plenty of evidence been posted on here over the years.

[dundeefc1783]

Has there ever actually been any reliable evidence that proves there were any ticketless fans in attendance?

[ayrmad]

I've read it and agree with it all except for question 7. Supporters couldn't reasonably forseen the extent of the consequences but I still believe their was a behavioural aspect.

It's a forum, I'm not bound by the jury's decision.

The behavioural aspect was that fans were at the back in numbers, that in itself doesn't mean they deserve blame, it could easily have been the victims who went home relatively unscathed physically that day if they'd turned up later.

 

But for some individuals the emergency services were an absolute disgrace on the day.

[ayrmad]

Has there ever actually been any reliable evidence that proves there were any ticketless fans in attendance?

No.

Edited April 27, 2016 by ayrmad

[dundeefc1783]

Sure it was mentioned on the anatomy of a disaster video that 30 of the victims were actually people who came in through the opened gate and went into the pen and within in minutes due to the force of the crush they ended up near the front of the pen.

[AyrshireTon]

Manslaughter. That is what charges would be under the terms you describe.

 

Can't explain your second point,although Liverpool did ask fans to send tickets back in to attempt to account for all those in attendance. Those who died had tickets on their person.

Thank you for the reply.

Manslaughter is a charge (or lesser verdict) which I'd imagine would be used if prosecutions come around.

I was referring more to phrase on the ruling, as putting "manslaughter" on it would have opened a real can of worms. Not arguing with the fact that the deaths occurred due to someone's actions, though - but if I'm hit by a bus then it's as a result of mine or the driver's actions - it's unlawful either way which makes me feel the phrase is a moot point.

[dogmc]

Fairly astonishing that people think they know better than a jury which sat through 2 years of evidence and came to unanimous conclusions on all but one question. Shows how much influence the tabloids still have. Also the sun refusing to give the verdict front page coverage is an utter disgrace. Cowardice of the highest order.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Fairly astonishing that people think they know better than a jury which sat through 2 years of evidence and came to unanimous conclusions on all but one question. Shows how much influence the tabloids still have. Also the sun refusing to give the verdict front page coverage is an utter disgrace. Cowardice of the highest order.

You've never been on a Jury, have you?

[Ross.]

Was changing ends not having both sets of fans coming in the "wrong" way, i.e. Leppings Lane was the end convenient for Liverpool and the other end convenient for Nottingham?

 

Read an article earlier that touched on this. I think it was the Taylor report they quoted which basically said that even if the fans had been at the opposite ends, what happened would likely have had happened anyway. The only difference would be that Forrest fans would have died instead of Liverpool fans.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Fairly astonishing that people think they know better than a jury which sat through 2 years of evidence and came to unanimous conclusions on all but one question. Shows how much influence the tabloids still have. Also the sun refusing to give the verdict front page coverage is an utter disgrace. Cowardice of the highest order.

So you've come on a forum where opinions are voiced and you're astonished that people give opinions?

And opinions by definition are not necessarily based on all the facts.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Sergeant Wilson

[fueradejuego]

Sure it was mentioned on the anatomy of a disaster video that 30 of the victims were actually people who came in through the opened gate and went into the pen and within in minutes due to the force of the crush they ended up near the front of the pen.

 

It was confirmed around 30 of the victims were still outside of the ground at 14:45.

[Falcor Roar]

The standing area of Leppings Lane was granted a capacity of 7,200 and it was decided later a safe figure should have been 5,425. 2,900 fans also accessed the corner stand from the 7 turnstiles at the back. It was a death trap and the only reason this hadn't happened sooner was because of careful planning from the previous match commander who did not meet with David Duckenfield. 

 

People can speculate that the fans were to blame all they want. The street access to the stand was a constricted bottleneck and as has been mentioned, an accordion effect can occur in these situations which can account for the crushing outside the stand. Excess drinking or numerous ticketless fans as far as i'm aware has not been proven. It certainly is not the cause of what happened which some have suggested. 

[throbber]

The 30 for 30 documentary was a great insight to the entire story. Many people probably don't know that Duckenfield was only appointed because the regular officer in charge of matches at Hillsborough (who was a good football man who knew the ground and how to handle crowds very well) got in trouble because officers under his watch played an initiation prank on a newly recruited officer, where they faked an armed robbery on the man in very poor taste. The poor man on the receiving end rightfully complained which made the news at the time and the regular Hillsborough Officer who had nothing to do with this got moved to Barnsley as punishment.

 

That aside the entire idea of having pen systems during crowd control was an absolute disaster waiting to happen, who ever is responsible for that brainwave is equally responsible as the officers on the day. The Leppings lane was and still is a bottle neck, the fans there couldn't go to the sides of the stand like you could in most stadiums as it is just so narrow, there is a little bridge way that goes towards the main stand which is 2 people wide at best. 

 

All these things considered gives me some sympathy towards the officers who fucked up on that day as there were so many flaws already, but how or why people still want to blame the supporters is beyond me .

[itzdrk]

The innocent surging fans

Absolutely mental

[Tom Rogic]

The innocent surging fans

Absolutely mental

Aye you clearly know better than the thousands of witnesses and legal proffesionals and jurors who sat through two years worth of evidence

[Falcor Roar]

I think the South Yorkshire police are just as culpable as the system which allowed the stadium to exist in that state. Some people seem certain that the fans behaviour had to have played a part in the event. The onus would be on them to show that to have been the case though. 

[Pull My Strings]

Thank you for the reply.

Manslaughter is a charge (or lesser verdict) which I'd imagine would be used if prosecutions come around.

I was referring more to phrase on the ruling, as putting "manslaughter" on it would have opened a real can of worms. Not arguing with the fact that the deaths occurred due to someone's actions, though - but if I'm hit by a bus then it's as a result of mine or the driver's actions - it's unlawful either way which makes me feel the phrase is a moot point.

 

No, it's not unlawful to accidentally walk in front of a bus, nor to accidentally run someone over in a bus (unless acting without proper care). It is unlawful to act in a grossly negligent manner and thereby cause the death of someone else. That's what happened here. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

I think the South Yorkshire police are just as culpable as the system which allowed the stadium to exist in that state. Some people seem certain that the fans behaviour had to have played a part in the event. The onus would be on them to show that to have been the case though.

It might not pass the threshold of criminality, but people continued to go into areas that were overcrowded, was there a rush near the kick off, was there no pushing at all?

As I said, they probably couldn't anticipate what followed, but a crush happened. In hindsight the sensible thing to do was not try to get in.

[dogmc]

You've never been on a Jury, have you?

Yes...twice as it happens.

[williemillersmoustache]

It might not pass the threshold of criminality, but people continued to go into areas that were overcrowded, was there a rush near the kick off, was there no pushing at all?

As I said, they probably couldn't anticipate what followed, but a crush happened. In hindsight the sensible thing to do was not try to get in.

 

I'm not sure how you think from floor level, before you enter a stand you can know if it was overcrowded or not.  More importantly once you're in the crowd, once you are in the crush you'd have no choice as to what to do. Unless you think someone all the way at the back, outside the ground, somehow knew there was a problem?

 

 

The police have been found at fault but you've got to remember that the society we lived in back then was different and we are judging the situation by our standards.

The climate at the time was that football fans were all uncontrollable thugs who literally needed caged in therefore concerns over security took precedence over safety. That's a product of the thatcher government, actual behaviour and other factors. So choices that they made that day would probably have been made by most other police forces around the country.

 

Nonsense, this same force at this same ground knew how to deal with the problem of crushing at the leppings lane entrance. Through a combination of bad luck, mismanagement and a fair bit of arrogance, a wholly unqualified senior officer was in charge that day, who made no plan for crowd safety, made no recce and took no advice from his highly experienced predecessor. The well established procedures were not followed. They even had a name for the tactic they should have used.