Hillsborough Inquest Finds 96 Liverpool Fans Were 'Unlawfully Killed'

[stripeyfox]

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

 

I wouldn't call Duckenfield a "scapegoat". He was in charge and not only failed to plan adequately, but then froze and dropped an almighty bollock and then almost immediately sought to abuse his position by shifting the blame onto the fans who lay dying on the pitch. He was in a position of power and responsibility with a duty of care to the 54,000 people attending the event and monumentally failed to do so and then blamed everyone but himself. 

 

And I and others have acknowledged that some Liverpool fans may well have been drunk - but this did not contribute to the disaster.

 

He isn't the only person who could be held to account, but he is the most prominent. 

 

Sheffield Wednesday knew the Leppings Lane end was dangerous and even had plans drawn up to improve them [the turnstiles], so that there would be more turnstiles and better control over the flow of people into the individual pens - but SWFC decided the improvements were "too expensive".

 

If you ask me, Duckenfield has done remarkably well to last this long without being prosecuted. And I am not entirely comfortable with the "baying mob" mentality calling for his head, but if Mr Duckenfield had been, say, a factory owner whose disregard for safety and bad decisions caused the death of workers and then tried to cover it up, he woudl have been in prison years ago.

Edited 27 April 2016 by stripeyfox

[stripeyfox]

Barry and I seem to be echoing each other!

 

I'm not attacking you, but if you haven't read the various reports, then I implore you to spare a couple of hours to do so.

[filbertway]

Were the fans blocked in, the ones right at the back that would have realised they can't go forward as there clearly wasn't enough space?

 

That's the only thing that confuses me about this, it's ridiculous that they were given the opportunity to try and squeeze into the small amount of space. It just seems like an odd choice to try and push through into an area you clearly can't get into.

 

Either way I hope this puts it all to bed.

[stripeyfox]

Were the fans blocked in, the ones right at the back that would have realised they can't go forward as there clearly wasn't enough space?

 

That's the only thing that confuses me about this, it's ridiculous that they were given the opportunity to try and squeeze into the small amount of space. It just seems like an odd choice to try and push through into an area you clearly can't get into.

 

Either way I hope this puts it all to bed.

 

They were funnelled down the tunnel. Due to the slope of the tunnel they couldn't see the pitch or what was in front of them.

 

The tunnel led to pens 3 and 4 and it had a gate which was closed routinely once those pens were full. 

 

A crowd can be a dangerous thing. An individual in a crowd like that had little effect. You become part of the "flow". Once Mr Duckenfield ordered the gate to be opened, without closing the tunnel gate, the fate of the victims was sealed. It's not like you can turn back. People at the "back" had no way of knowing what was happening at the front. I read one count of a guy who was feeling panicked by being "squeezed" in the tunnel - he said he braced his arm against the wall in an attempt to steady himself and his arm "snapped" by the force of the crowd.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Were the fans blocked in, the ones right at the back that would have realised they can't go forward as there clearly wasn't enough space?

 

That's the only thing that confuses me about this, it's ridiculous that they were given the opportunity to try and squeeze into the small amount of space. It just seems like an odd choice to try and push through into an area you clearly can't get into.

 

Either way I hope this puts it all to bed.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/media/VID0002.html

Go and watch this video - you've probably seen the BBC footage from the front of the stand - but it's only when you see the CCTV footage of the crowd gathered behind the stand when it all makes (quite simple) sense

[filbertway]

Been hunting around for some unbiased reports as I've only ever heard people talking down the pubs about it.

Cheers for the replies, will definitely try and have another look around.

[Kendal Fox]

What happened that day was truly chilling - both literally and by the cold blooded actions/reactions of the authorities on the day and in the aftermath.

I'm glad that after 27 years, the families of the 96 can at last get some closure and the dignity of justice for their loved ones. My heart goes out to them all.

[RobHawk]

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.

Thanks for clarifying Barry! I'm not as up to date with hills borough as you and others clearly are. It's good that he's apologised for the piece and you can't really blame him too much if he didn't write it, even though as editor he allowed it to print. Poor judgement but clearly an opinion which many have held in the past.

[David Hankey]

The reason Duckenfield is coming under so much fire is simple. A) he was the man in charge of the Police on that day and B) the bastard lied and continued to lie within 20 minutes of the start of this tragedy.

 

Now folk may not like it but they are the facts and it portrayed the Commander has a complete incompetent. And still after 27 long years he still has escaped prosecution, well let's hope the revelations of this week bring him to book.

 

As I've said before "the passage of time should not diminish the crime"!!

[stripeyfox]

The reason Duckenfield is coming under so much fire is simple. A) he was the man in charge of the Police on that day and B) the bastard lied and continued to lie within 20 minutes of the start of this tragedy.

Now folk may not like it but they are the facts and it portrayed the Commander has a complete incompetent. And still after 27 long years he still has escaped prosecution, well let's hope the revelations of this week bring him to book.

As I've said before "the passage of time should not diminish the crime"!!

This. I'm not one of those calling for blood every time there is an accident. I don't expect head to roll every time. But the evidence of Duckenfields's failings over his failure to plan, mistakes on the day, and cover it is almost unbelievable that he has avoided prosecution for so long.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Thanks for clarifying Barry! I'm not as up to date with hills borough as you and others clearly are. It's good that he's apologised for the piece and you can't really blame him too much if he didn't write it, even though as editor he allowed it to print. Poor judgement but clearly an opinion which many have held in the past.

No problem, I've had the time to look into the thing more and the more you go into it, the worse the 'cover up' gets because you consider not only the verdicts that the initial coroner and judges of appeal came to, but some of the bizarre process that was followed and it stinks.

And the Sun's "The Truth" headline is equally unbelievable given in the days before this was published the paper had been investigating and reporting the correct line of inquiry, identifying failings in crowd control and the grounds layout and structure itself.

Naturally the mood towards the fans in these reports was sympathetic and they were even pushing a charity campaign to raise money in relation to the disaster - so for the Editor to have been "duped" he would have to have been unaware of all the reporting that both the paper and other outlets had published in the days before - which is just not credible.

Sadly, dispite 27 years, I don't think we've got anywhere near to the bottom of this and other 'linked' matters - I wonder if there will be a slow domino effect that will only find deeper culprits once they're beyond prosecution.

[The Railway Man]

This. I'm not one of those calling for blood every time there is an accident. I don't expect head to roll every time. But the evidence of Duckenfields's failings over his failure to plan, mistakes on the day, and cover it is almost unbelievable that he has avoided prosecution for so long.

 

Do you really think they'll be able to secure a prosecution? They could only get a 7-2 majority verdict (something glossed over by themedia) 17.5 miles from Liverpool on the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest.

 

No way would they manage to get a 12-0 or 11-1 verdict on an individual in a trial that would have to be held miles away from Liverpool, you only have to look on the Sky News/Sky Sports Facebook page to see the amount of people who don't agree with what we've been told this week.

[RowlattsFox]

I wonder what would have happened if the Police accepted from day 1 the mistakes that were made on that day.

 

Would criminal investigations have been pursued or would it have been accepted as a tragic accident?

Edited 28 April 2016 by RowlattsFox

[stripeyfox]

Do you really think they'll be able to secure a prosecution? They could only get a 7-2 majority verdict (something glossed over by themedia) 17.5 miles from Liverpool on the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest.

No way would they manage to get a 12-0 or 11-1 verdict on an individual in a trial that would have to be held miles away from Liverpool, you only have to look on the Sky News/Sky Sports Facebook page to see the amount of people who don't agree with what we've been told this week.

I don't know. That's for a jury to decide if he is charged. But I do think there is enough for him to stand trial. If a jury cannot reach a guilty verdict then fair enough, I would accept that of course.

[Darkon84]

Looks like the families are suing the police force for £19 million now. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

[Guest MattP]

Thought there was never any intention to get financial compensation from this?

[Darkon84]

It certainly takes a shine off of the revelations of the last few days. It was issued at the high court last year but couldn't be made public until after the inquest.

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/10260849/hillsborough-families-to-sue-police-forces

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Do you really think they'll be able to secure a prosecution? They could only get a 7-2 majority verdict (something glossed over by themedia) 17.5 miles from Liverpool on the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest.

 

No way would they manage to get a 12-0 or 11-1 verdict on an individual in a trial that would have to be held miles away from Liverpool, you only have to look on the Sky News/Sky Sports Facebook page to see the amount of people who don't agree with what we've been told this week.

Something you should perhaps consider... SYP paid out compensation at the time and albeit they didn't necessarily admit liability, the initial Taylor report was quite damning.

[Danno]

Yeah how dare families want to be compensated after having their relatives killed and nationally smeared for 27 years.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Looks like the families are suing the police force for £19 million now. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

If you divided the £19 million by 96... Then by 27... just over £7,000 a year per victim.

[pleatout]

Looks like the families are suing the police force for £19 million now. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

I would infer from your comment that at least part of you thinks that this whole thing has been about money.  "Ambulance chasing".  If you do, then join the line that includes Thatcher, Ingham and all the others that have attempted to cover it up.

 

This is a civil action - civil actions require a lower level of proof, balance of probability v beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Criminal prosecutions come via the Crown Prosecution Service (erm part of the government, that covered it up for 27 years), although it is possible to bring a private criminal prosecution, it is very difficult and expensive.

 

The action is for Misfeasance in a Public Office "Misfeasance in public office is a civil action against the holder of a public office, alleging that the office-holder has misused or abused his or her power. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance_in_public_office

 

 

Don't fall into the trap that this is about compensation, it is about getting the courts to acknowledge that a crime was committted.  The inquest did that in part, but only part.

 

This is a side issue to help build a criminal case in a similar way the Sheff United v Sth Yorks Police issue proved that SYP WERE responsible for crowd safety.

 

Background for those that dont know - SUFC refused to pay SYP for policing their games, after SYP said, of Hillsborough "not our problem, we aren't responsible for crowd safety".  SUFC didnt pay, SYP took them to court and SUFC  used the defence that SYP weren't responsible for crowd safety and therefore were there as part of their normal policing duties.  SUFC lost and by default it meant that SYP WERE responsible for crowd safety. 

Edited 28 April 2016 by pleatout

[Darkon84]

At no point did I, or have I ever mentioned anything regarding ambulance chasing or anything of the sort. I just feel that in my opinion, this has slightly taken the edge off of what should have been the end of the chapter and finally give the families peace of mind which they have been fighting for for. Instead of more headlines about justice, there might be an opportunity for some papers and people to make a big point out if it, and be able to turn and point the finger back at the families and say it has been about the money etc.

[pleatout]

No, you didn't.  It was my inference, based on your statement "I'm not quite sure what to make of that"

 

The families were aware, when they began this action last year, that this would raise the issue - yet again - that this is all about money.

 

Be under no illusions, it isn't.  Personally, having  a relative that you depend on (father, husband, mother, wife etc) taken from you is going to have a financial impact.  If they were taken unlawfully, I believe there should be compensation.  But this isn't what this is about.  Anyone that believes that is pedalling the same untruths that have been there for 27 years.

[Darkon84]

I admit, it could have been worded better. Whether anyone likes it or not though, it will raise questions from individuals and groups of people who have had doubts over the families eventual end game etc unfortunately. As much was evident in the jury voting of 7-2, and that was only amongst 9 people.

Edited 28 April 2016 by Darkon84

[DJ Barry Hammond]

At no point did I, or have I ever mentioned anything regarding ambulance chasing or anything of the sort. I just feel that in my opinion, this has slightly taken the edge off of what should have been the end of the chapter and finally give the families peace of mind which they have been fighting for for. Instead of more headlines about justice, there might be an opportunity for some papers and people to make a big point out if it, and be able to turn and point the finger back at the families and say it has been about the money etc.

If the families have been attending a 2 year inquiry every day it sat, they'll no doubt have considerable costs to recover. Yes £19 million sounds a lot initially, but this is potentially between 96 families so divided down would be under £200,000 each.

Plus this is not the end of the matter - all the inquest does is establish the cause(s) of the deaths and the verdict given here takes away the notion that the deaths were purely "accidental". It finds that there were clear failings in procedure and actions that to the extent that they could be considered criminal acts.

With this now confirmed criminal prosecutions can be considered and perused and I expect this to go much further than just the South Yorkshire Police Force - the deceit may have started there, but it was only able to continue due to complicity in other areas, such as the frankly astonishing decision at the initial inquest to only consider matters up to 3:15 on the day meaning key evidence against the polices roll was curtailed, plus what appears to be other stark irregulaties in due process that were just ignored - it is / it was disgusting.

The sad thing is, this sort of thing doesn't appear to have been an isolated incident either - so I am hopeful further probing will get to the people at the very top of all this.