Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
ramboacdc

Hillsborough Inquest Finds 96 Liverpool Fans Were 'Unlawfully Killed'

Recommended Posts

I don't think anyone has ever accused any of the 96 of being drunk, yobbish, misbehaving etc - these poor people would have been the ones in the ground extremely early and near the front.

It's the thousands who turned up near kick off who people have doubts on.

My point is that the police should have been much better prepared for the type of behaviour one might expect at the event.

If Duckenfield had done his homework he might have realised that 10,000 going through 7 (yes 7) turnstiles was going to cause congestion and ought to have deployed measures to alleviate it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to assume football fans in the late 80s drank you know.

People clearly can't see all I'm pointing out is that it's very easy to criticise Duckenfields actions knowing what we now know. He had to make an instantaneous decision in a desperate situation and decided to order open the gates. It could've turned out absolutely fine in different circumstances. Unfortunately for him, the 96, their families and us as football fans it turned out to be disastrous

Whatever happened before or after that, you cannot just blame that one decision on the cause of the catastrophe.

Your not basing this on any secure factual evidence though...you're being an apologist for a similar line the South Yorkshire police pedalled.

The opening of the gate compounded earlier fallers in crowd managment. This failed management of the situation was compounded by the lack of foresight and detailed planning and the existing failings of Hillsborough itself.

AND what was even worse - you had hundreds of police officers standing on the half way line doing nothing - as people were dying. The response was also flawed.

Please understand, we're hearing your comments... But trying to highlight to you they don't in any way resemble the truth of the situation. Follow your growing doubt and investigate a little further - I guarantee, the closer you look at things the more doubt you will find in your initial view.

Edited by DJ Barry Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

My point is that the police should have been much better prepared for the type of behaviour one might expect at the event.

If Duckenfield had done his homework he might have realised that 10,000 going through 7 (yes 7) turnstiles was going to cause congestion and ought to have deployed measures to alleviate it.

 

I don't think anyone disputes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope that continues to be the case, the Times is the best read in print by far.

But sadly it made a big mistake today by not running the Hillsborough story as a front page on its first edition. As a paper it could somehow do with distancing itself from the Sun (impossible I know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone disputes that.

No, but your previous comment about "thousands turning up just before kick off" is very close to the kind of rhetoric being spouted by the police at the time. Most fans were already in the crush outside long before 1500. So it that sense they were not "late" but because of the police's failure to control the flow of fans into the area and in turn through the extremely restrictive turnstile arrangement, they couldn't get in quick enough and were no doubt anxious to not miss the game. This was another opportunity missed - the correct call here would have been to delay kick off and assure all those outside that they would get in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

No, but your previous comment about "thousands turning up just before kick off" is very close to the kind of rhetoric being spouted by the police at the time. Most fans were already in the crush outside long before 1500. So it that sense they were not "late" but because of the police's failure to control the flow of fans into the area and in turn through the extremely restrictive turnstile arrangement, they couldn't get in quick enough and were no doubt anxious to not miss the game. This was another opportunity missed - the correct call here would have been to delay kick off and assure all those outside that they would get in.

 

The idea that fans can't misbehave and add to the cause of a problem just because the police are incompetent isn't one I will ever accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that fans can't misbehave and add to the cause of a problem just because the police are incompetent isn't one I will ever accept.

 

Large groups of people can and will do stupid things, that is why we have police and security and rules and regulations to protect all fans. It has not been proven that the fans did anything wrong, they didn't force the gate, it was opened, they didn't choose to pile into pens 2 and 3 to crush people those gates had not been closed and they were the nearest they just went through them.

 

It was a tragic accident but the root cause was the police and security failings.

Edited by Captain...
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now lets put to bed the myth that fans were partly to blame, it was the policing of the fans which was to blame, it is an absolute outrage the lengths the police and the government of the day went to cover up the truth. and the journalists responsible for reporting utter garbage should face justice as well,reporting without checking there facts properly or just accepting corrupt peoples turn of events. justice for the 96 and their families.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how true this is (we know you can't trust the internet) and i dont have time to fact check, but apparently this is what Boris had to say back in 2004.

 

Boris Johnson, 2004:

Liverpool is a handsome city with a tribal sense of community. A combination of economic misfortune — its docks were, fundamentally, on the wrong side of England when Britain entered what is now the European Union — and an excessive predilection for welfarism have created a peculiar, and deeply unattractive, psyche among many Liverpudlians. They see themselves whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet at the same time they wallow in it. Part of this flawed psychological state is that they cannot accept that they might have made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it, thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance against the rest of society. The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death... but that is no excuse for Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob - I understand that Boris was editor at the time, but didn't write the article (which was an editorial). I guess you can make your own judgements on that.

He has since apologised for the piece, but doesn't appear to have commented since the inquest verdict.

Edited by DJ Barry Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has ever accused any of the 96 of being drunk, yobbish, misbehaving etc - these poor people would have been the ones in the ground extremely early and near the front.

 

It's the thousands who turned up near kick off who people have doubts on.

Look at message 62, there is a statement suggesting as much.

Edited by David Hankey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about it being a falsehood but it doesn't stop some folk still, erroneously saying they were drunk.

i think the more fair comment would be to say some people there were drunk. lets be honest here its a saturday afternoon cup semi final, who isnt going to have had 1 too many in a group of how many thousand? but to say they were all drunks is a very broad brush to tar them all with. there may have been drunk people in the crowd but to say it was a contributing factor and then to blood test all the victims (including children) to blood alcohol tests to try and back up this story was wrong. in many ways wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the more fair comment would be to say some people there were drunk. lets be honest here its a saturday afternoon cup semi final, who isnt going to have had 1 too many in a group of how many thousand? but to say they were all drunks is a very broad brush to tar them all with. there may have been drunk people in the crowd but to say it was a contributing factor and then to blood test all the victims (including children) to blood alcohol tests to try and back up this story was wrong. in many ways wrong.

That's the thing. Obviously there would be people there who were "drunk". But is this relevant to causing the disaster? No.

I had five pints before the Swansea game. I'm sure some people drank more than that. By anyone's measure I was "drunk". Certainly too drunk to drive (obviously I wasn't driving), but was I impaired to a sufficient degree as to affect my safety in the stadium? No, of course not. And fortunately for me, and the other people there last Sunday, the game was well policed and stewarded in a safe environment.

Even if some fans were p1ssed, so what? It is a ridiculous argument (I know you're not making this argument rambo btw).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing. Obviously there would be people there who were "drunk". But is this relevant to causing the disaster? No.

I had five pints before the Swansea game. I'm sure some people drank more than that. By anyone's measure I was "drunk". Certainly too drunk to drive (obviously I wasn't driving), but was I impaired to a sufficient degree as to affect my safety in the stadium? No, of course not. And fortunately for me, and the other people there last Sunday, the game was well policed and stewarded in a safe environment.

Even if some fans were p1ssed, so what? It is a ridiculous argument (I know you're not making this argument rambo btw).

exactly my point and you are right to say it is a ridiculous argument because it really was. i watched the 2013 panorama on it last night and it took 13 minutes for them to start this lie and he didn't spread it out and it Chinese whispered, he said it to the head of communications at the FA. unbelievable really. i do hope they file criminal prosecutions of negligence or even manslaughter against the head of police at that game. I get some peoples point here that you cant blame it all on one man but if someone manages a team wrong who gets the axe? the players or the manager? so he should shoulder the blame and if wants to take others down with him, so be it. But these poor families have had to fight for the whole of my life (i was born august 89) to finally be told their paranoia of a cover up was correct and that their family members could have been saved if the guy in charge had saw the fans as people and not a mob of football fans and like lower class people. 

 

 

 

 

 

also 5 pints before the game?! i wouldn't be making it up the stairs but everyone has their threshold. I would be spending more time visiting the toilet for a slash than watching the game!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also 5 pints before the game?! i wouldn't be making it up the stairs but everyone has their threshold. I would be spending more time visiting the toilet for a slash than watching the game!

Normally I drive, but didn't have the kids with me this week so got the train. Had to have a few snifters to ease the pre match nerves! Five pints is more than enough for me these days!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bollocks mate I never implied that I thought the 96 were drunk. It doesn't even read that way to me.

If it does it's because you're looking for things ive said to twist

 

You said:

"He's no way responsible for the deaths of the 96 than the Liverpool fans drunk that day"

 

It actually isn't brilliantly worded now I read it back but the implication I got from it was that He (Duckenfield, presumably) was no [more] responsible for the deaths of the 96 than the Liverpool fans drunk that day?

 

So were you in fact saying that Duckenfield was no more responsible than the drunk Liverpool supporters (though not the ones who died)?

 

Or have I misunderstood something?

Edited by stripeyfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed but I don't see why SOMEONE has to take the blame 27 years on. He's no way more responsible for the deaths of the 96 than the Liverpool fans drunk that day.

And of course fans would've been drunk. Any away support in that situation would've had fans who'd been drinking.

Looking at your post, a word that wasn't there but could easily be read is the ''more" I've inserted - because people do automatically correct or make sense of incomplete sentences.

But simple question about your main contention on why someone has to take the blame here - how much have you read of the inquest verdict, the reporting around it, etc, etc, etc. What basis have you taken your stance on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its very poorly worded in fairness.

It feels like Duckenfield has become a scapegoat for the whole thing whilst it also feels like it's now 'fact' that no Liverpool fan would've been under the influence that day. Both would'be played a part in the disaster.

I know about the alcohol testing of the dead and you'd have to be a bit of a moron to want to throw accusations aroun like that on s public forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its very poorly worded in fairness.

It feels like Duckenfield has become a scapegoat for the whole thing whilst it also feels like it's now 'fact' that no Liverpool fan would've been under the influence that day. Both would'be played a part in the disaster.

I know about the alcohol testing of the dead and you'd have to be a bit of a moron to want to throw accusations aroun like that on s public forum

You haven't grasped the situation well enough then... The reason Duckenfield is coming under so much heat is because he was in charge of the police operation, his preparation for the job was poor beforehand, he made key decisions that were a huge factor, his subsequent actions were also found wanting and to cap it all off, he was part of what became a concerted conspiracy to hide the truth.

However, the inquiry has found fault in many other areas, including in the design and maintenance of the ground, the ambulance service, etc, etc, etc.

Please consider, the responses you are receiving are not personal attacks against you, they're trying to highlight you are missing key information, that you're coming to an unsafe opinion because you've not looked at enough of the case to dispel your current position.

There is nothing wrong in enquiring and then changing ones mind. Listen to the doubts coming your way and find information that will either strengthen your option or change it. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...