The Hillsborough Conspiracy

You've certainly implied that this one is, doubtless because it validates your own opinion.

 

No, I said that I gave the opinion of the people who have sat through a two year trial and seen every piece of evidence into consideration and that it adds further credibility to the verdict. Of course I read the facts and made my mind up based on those as well. It wasn't difficult. I never once argued that juries are infallible. You can always tell that someone is fighting a losing battle when they start making strawman arguments like that.

Perhaps you could tell me what you think those Liverpool fans could have done differently that day to avoid contributing to the disaster?

 

As someone a little closer to the action I can tell you they really haven't put their lives on hold.


But that's all you get because enemies are easily made around these parts.

 

If there were thousands of sober pensioners trying to get into the game, would 93 people have been killed?

Obviously the main reason for the crush was terrible planning, and that is where the legal blame should lie, but an interesting question considering the above.

 

The short answer to that is no, there wouldn't have been a crush. You would expect the behaviour to be different. The fact you understand the behaviour of football fans to be different means you understand the need to plan how you deal with them differently. SYP dealt with them by fencing them in, funnelling them through a tunnel all at once and not having any emergency exit. They also left themselves without the correct knowledge, people or prior planning to deal with any of it.

There's a number of things that people disagree with on this thread, for example - Liverpool fans forcing the gate to open.. either you interpret this as "no, don't be an idiot, its in the report that the police opened it" or interpret it as "Liverpool fans made such a push and caused so much trouble outside the Police were forced to open it". Some mention the surge outside was caused by traffic delay, others state eyewitness accounts that Liverpool fans were known to turn up late in numbers storming the gates. In the end the only interpretation you can have is the outcome of this latest court case.

I do think the Druckenfield guy is scapegoat for a multitude of problems, but if he'd left the gate closed and the wall fell down allowing the crowd in, there would still be failings all round.

 

There were many contributing factors that have to be considered before the police were somewhat forced into making a series of poor decisions, but blaming the police wholly is wrong.
Better planning from the FA and self restraint from the fans outside would have been a starting point, irrespective of whether fans were drunk or not the CCTV images do clearly show that the fans outside were incapable of forming a queue.
The whole case was about getting justice but to an extent it was more of an official witchhunt, I am flabbergasted that the FA were not held to account in any of the questions, there were some related to Sheffield Wednesday and health and safety, yet only one about the fans that was worded in a way that the jury were bound to say no. If the question was 'Were the actions of the fans outside the stadium a contributing factor which led to further police errors?', then there may have been a different answer.

 

The more you read and understand, the less it seems the fault of the fans. 7 turnstiles for 10,000 people (23 people through each turnstile every minute for an hour by my reckoning). The way to the "side pens" being only one small gate at the top of the stand. The one entrance to the entire stand. The stewards not having a key to unlock it at the front. After it's occurred there's just one late ambulance, with one stretcher.

Was there advice to get there early? If you arrive just before kick off from the pub, is it your fault you died?

I'm with JB, the gate was opened to let them through, they went through and 96 of them died, which is not the fans fault. Their behaviour and levels of alchohol is not relevant or likely to have changed the outcome of events. 2000+ people went through at once.

 

It is difficult to judge what happened without some context. All of us that went to football in the 70s and 80s know that the attitude of many fans and the police was confrontational. As a fan, especially at away games, I was corralled like an animal both inside and outside the ground. At one level this was understandable as the police had to keep the fans apart as best as they could to minimise the violence that happened so often in those days. But it did foster a hatred of the police and a feeling that, as football fans, we had few if any rights.

This, I think, is a motivating factor in police action at Hillsborough. As far as they were concerned, keeping the crowds apart and protecting their own safety was probably paramount in they planning, like it was at most games.

As far as the fans were concerned, we regularly surged forward at games and being crushed was normal in big crowds. I remember being completely lifted off my feet in a crowd leaving Wembley after an England game in the early eighties.

In my view, the police and fans attitude and behaviour on the day was understandable because it was 'normal' for the times. Unfortunately the numbers and circumstances took it to a new extreme that ended in tragedy. All involved must share some blame, except those at the front who were the innocent victims in all this. But I don't think anyone could have foreseen what happened and to blame individuals, in my opinion, is not helpful.

The fact that so much has been learned about crowd control, both inside and out of the grounds, and football violence is all but gone, should be seen as a permanent legacy to those that died.

 

7 turnstiles for 10,000 is ridiculous but then that's the fault of Sheffield Wednesday / The FA. But it doesn't excuse the pushing at the turnstiles that forced the police hand to open the gate. I think the biggest faults of the police were (1) not delaying kick-off (2) not directing fans away from the tunnel that led to the middle pens and (3) not having a plan in case of emergency.

Advice to get there early? Most if not all of the people who died, probably did get there early. Advice to get in somewhere early only applies to people with common sense, while the bottleneck at the turnstiles may have included people who'd waiting quite a while, amongst some moronic football fans arriving early doesn't apply to them as they have a god given right to turn up at 2:55 and get to see the kick off. We've seen very busy nights outside of the Vic, yet somehow we managed to queue properly, what the CCTV doesn't show is a self-policed queue.

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

People push to get in, it still happens. People don't die.

This is because buildings are fit for purpose (they have valid certificates which Hillsborough did not) and there are crowd control plans in place. Remember that this wasn't the first semi final match at Hillsborough and yet any lessons from previous years were ignored. The only plan was "firm but fair policing".

After being ground down in the courts Duckenfield admitted the lies he had spread and admitted his actions contributed to the deaths.

Let me repeat the fans were no different to a large crowd today. People arriving late still push to get in on time for an event or a train. They very rarely die.

The compensation issue has been raised today as well despite that being a misconception. South Yorkshire police ruled in 2013 the families were too late to make a claim. The money they received was minimal but even if they got millions listen to what the families went through afterwards and decide if you'd prefer the money. I wouldn't.

Ultimately 96 innocent people, male, female, young, old, upper, middle and lower class died. RIP

 

The other point regrading the turnstiles - there were known issues with area around the turnstiles causing injury and crushing (relatively minor to what occured afterwards). Once the supporters were there, they were in trouble.

My comment about getting there early was rhetorical, if you turn up late you shouldn't be at risk of death, just missing the kick off.

I'd say the risk was 90% the design and miscalculated capacity of the stadium. 10% with the actions of the commanding officer and the failure to act on previous warning signs.

 

Yes, that was because the gate was opened initially and fans went in. Then it was closed. Then it was re opened something like about 6 or 7 minutes later.

Yesterday I watched a video that was a "highlights" record that was shown at the enquiry. It had labels on some of the victims going through the gates the first time, walking towards the tunnel quite normally. They were killed after the gate was opened the second time, when they were well inside the actual terracing.

I really get the fact that the police decisions were to blame. I also get that the fans were doing no more than happened back then at most big football matches. I know that from experiences as I was policing many local derbies in London in the 80's and because I used to go games myself.

There is little doubt that the desperate need to get in the ground at the last minute, or just after the game started as the crowd roars at events on the pitch, means that all reason goes out the window and the crowd just pushes and pushes to get a view, with the "expectation" that it will all be ok in the ground. Personally, I have been swept into a ground where my feet didn't touch the ground for about 10 yards. It was very dangerous and frightening.

As people at Hillsborough, were crushed by people that somewhere back down the line had the choice not to push, I just think that crowd mentality must have been a factor.

 

I don't mean to be insensitive, but this is a genuine question, those in legal profession maybe able to answer it but how do you pick a jury for a case that lasts two years ? I know it is a bit off topic, are they there or on call 5 days a week 9 to 5 ? How does it work ?

 

I do understand ZZTop's pushing point and I do understand the scepticism of those who witnessed the behaviour of Liverpool fans in the 70s and 80s.

But ten pertinent facts are not in dispute:

1) There were 7 turnstiles for 10,000+ fans to enter and that caused a crush outside and delays getting in. I worked the Vic Road turnstiles for several years in the 80s and never got to more than 1,000 entries

2) The count on those turnstiles totalled 7,300 at 15.05. The estimate of the numbers entering the gate (various parties presented to the inquest after counting those on the video in slow motion) was 150 the first time it opened and something over 2,000 the second (I cant find the precise number at hand in the evidence now - apologies). Hence the whole terrace was not overcrowded in total. This is supported by video of the side pens taken at 14.59 showing clear gaps.

3) The pens 3+4 were already full before Gate C was opened at 14.45 to let approx 2,000 people in. They officially held just 2,200 people.

4) The tunnel leading to them is the obvious route to the whole terrace when coming through the turnstiles/gate and the only one signed "standing". The two other routes to the side are not obvious, were not signed and there were no stewards at 14.45 directing flow. The tunnel gates was left open. The tunnel gates had been shut in previous semi-finals to avoid over-crowding in the central pens

5) The tunnel floor is not flat. It has a defined slope from its entrance down to the terrace. Professionals presented at the inquest that a crowd in the tunnel would therefore likely excert a downward pressure on those on the terrace even in a relatively static crowd environment.

6) Once out of the tunnel and at the back of the terrace a fan in the crush there had to push down and forward to get round a 2 metre wall to get round it and back up to the top step of the terrace to be able to move sideways into the corner pens.

7) The gangways to allow lateral movement on the terrace were left unmanned by stewards/police and became blocked

8) Barriers in pens 3 and 4 were insufficient and at one point buckled

9) Once in the tunnel and unable to turn round forced by the weight of those joining behind (see point 5, compounded by points 6 and 7) there was no exit from the situation for any fan other than forwards, where of course there was no exit either.

10) Kick-off was not delayed to ease the tension. The police commanders had agreed in advance that merely having fans stuck outside turnstiles would not be sufficient cause to delay kick-off. This had been the practice in the past.

I was not at the inquest and of course I only paint one side of the story above. But I remain convinced that whilst some fans will not have had tickets, some will have been drunk, some will have been boorish, some pushing and even some may have been violent or aggressive it is those facts above that have led the jury to soundly find that the disaster itself was not caused by fan behaviour. I believe a fatal crush could have happened at semi-finals previous to 1989 if the same management of the situation had been in place then.

 

There is another fact or two, worth mentioning, I think.

Each ticket had the Leppings Road stand entrance shown on it. A, B, D etc. The fatal tunnel was for A + B, I believe.

It is strange that the distribution inside the ground was so lopsided, where the two central pens were full, whilst there was space in the others. There is little doubt that the poor signs would not have helped at all but at past semi's there were stewards directing fans, but the only mention of a possible steward on the day was of an "official looking man" or something similar, directing people in. In London from the mid 80's onwards, it was always stewards that directed fans inside the turnstiles. I know there was surprise from some senior officers that there was no sign of stewards, but I dont know whose responsibility it was.

It certainly seems that Duckenfield should not have been in charge. It is the fault of his seniors that he was. However, there were many very experienced Senior Officers around and assisting.

But much play was made of Duckenfield apparently for "freezing" before making the decision to open Gate C. It seems strange that he is blasted for hesitating to make what turned out to be the single worst decision of the day, even though the request was made by Superintendent Murray, who had 27 years experience and policed many football matches.

Of course, however, the following cover up was terrible and there is no excuse for that.

I know that I have been a bit sensitive over this issue, it obviously comes from my own experience as a police officer when I saw many critically urgent decisions made, and made a few myself whilst under extreme pressure. I just do not believe I or any of the others should be held criminally accountable if I made the wrong judgement call.

I remember blocking off the Holloway Road in the rush hour when there was a suspect package outside Highbury Corner Magistrates Court. It was the 4th suspect package I had dealt with in a month. The other three I had dismissed fairly quickly and raised the "all clear". It caused hours of delays and I was the source complaints and abuse at the time from the public and of ridicule on Capital Radio when it was found that the package contained judges robes, and not a bomb. A few days later an IRA package blew up in a burger bar in Oxford Street, killing several people. It is just not that easy to make correct judgements, every time, when under pressure. It is so much easier with hindsight.

Also, I am well aware of the crowd mentality at football matches in the 80's. If a police officer tried to direct 20 fans in a certain direction, at least 5 would go in the opposite direction just to make a point. If we told the crowd to stop pushing, they would push harder, and my colleagues and I were regularly pulling out people who were getting squashed at the front of terraces. It was so obvious that a serious incident would occur at some time in the future. That is why I believe it is important not to totally absolve hundreds of fans that crushed their fellow fans to death of any fault at all. Just by acknowledging their contribution would perhaps make future crowds, perhaps, to just take a step back rather than pushing with all their might to ensure they saw the kick off, or One Direction's opening song.

 

Personally I don't believe you have been over sensitive in this thread ZZTop. I believe you have given your view thoughtfully and consistently.

It is disappointing imo that there is some mud slinging from both sides this past 24 hours when the subject is such a serious issue and that 96 lives were lost. Although I do understand that the severity of the situation heightens emotions.

BTW - I didn't know you were a police man (I post infrequently). You weren't the Herts Inspector with black bushy beard who gave the match day briefings 30 years ago are you? If you are I tell a funny story about you every so often to my friends.

 

They have been absolved though. Because there is zero evidence to suggest that they did anything wrong and a huge amount of evidence to suggest that they didn't do anything wrong and that the blame lies elsewhere.

You can talk about pushing all you want, but that is what people do in crowds - it's completely normal and natural and is what will inevitably happen when you pack people together like sardines, which occurred a number of times to Liverpool fans that day. To blame them for pushing is like blaming people on the Titanic for hitting the iceberg. I urge you to visit the Hillsborough Independent Panel website and watch the CCTV footage showing the fans outside of the turnstiles. If you do you will see that there was no trouble, no excessive, unnecessary pushing etc. It is all lies, just like the idea that it was only the people directly at the front of the stand who were killed or injured.

You clearly have an agenda given your past and in a way it's understandable, but ultimately this is not a grey area. There is no evidence to show that Liverpool fans should take any blame for this and your continued insistence otherwise is hugely disrespectful and ignorant considering that there is nothing of value to back up your argument other than conjecture and age-old untruths that you have repeated on here and that have since been proven to be completely fabricated.

 

I have spent a considerable amount of time on the website you mention.

There is one fact that is not in dispute, and that is the people crushed were crushed by other football fans. There were no police or stewards shoving from the back. You and most others believe that does not mean that those crushing were in any way contributing to the disaster, not even 1% because "that is what people do in crowds" therefore it is ok.

But I disagree that it is OK. I believe that those in a crowd pushing from the back, to get into a venue, are contributing to the crush near the front. Call me disrespectful and ignorant if you like. But I disagree and it isn't an agenda as you call it. It is just plain old physics (mass x velocity) and a sense of personal responsibility for our own safety and everyone else's. and I don't see what sort of evidence is necessary for that.

 

I was talking to my wife about that yesterday. You have to wonder about the nature of and how representative a jury can be if it has to sit for 2 years. I can only assume anyone with a life or full time job was excused at the outset.

Practically speaking it's not like the States. We don't sequester juries and lock them up in hotels and keep them separate from the public for the duration of proceedings. Essentially overnight and during adjournments they're free to come and go. They're just instructed not to view the media and to grass each other up if they get a hint one might have broken the rules. And if the inquest was anything like a Crown Court trial the hours are leisurely to say the least. 10 am start and 4pm finish most days.

 

Compare this post to the stuff that you were posting yesterday in this thread and the climbdown is extraordinary.

Whereas previously you were arguing that fans were fighting outside and that only those at the front died or were injured you are now arguing on a technicality and an incorrect one at that. People didn't die on the Leppings Lane terrace because there were people pushing at the back. They died because there were too many people instructed to enter that particular pen by authority figures. Those people couldn't move enough to expand their chests to breathe, let alone push.

You were wrong and that's fine. This is a very complicated case and one where for the last thirty odd years people serving their own interests have peddled lies and spread misinformation on - it's understandable that confusion still exists. What isn't fine is continuing to be ignorant of what went on and argue against the facts when all the evidence is there for everyone to see. You should have more respect for those who were there that day, those who died and their families who have given everything financially, emotionally and physically for the past 27 years exposing what really happened.

 

I think you might be misusing the words 'contributing to' in this case. I don't mean to say you're doing anything deliberately, but nonetheless I felt the need to comment here.

No one is arguing that it wasn't because there were too many fans going into too small a space that killed those people that day, to suggest that you're arguing against people who believe that fans had no part in the disaster is completely false. Obviously the sheer amount of fans contributed to the disaster; that was the disaster in one sense.

I don't get where you go from there though. It's been shown that the fans were not culpable for the deaths of the 96, but obviously one by one, added up, their being within the pens or the tunnel, etc etc meant that those 96 people died and so they of course just by brute fact, if you can call it that, caused those deaths.

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at, and believe there is no actual endpoint to your line of reasoning. I think it's been unravelled, and I don't think there's any shame in that, it's just where that train of thought ends up, as well-formed as its starting point may have been.

If you could make anything you're saying here clearer, by all means do. I'll admit I haven't read every single post on this thread, but I've tried to follow your most recent line of argument and this is basically my response to that.

EDIT: I think I can sum up where I think the main confusion lies here. I think it's the mangling of the two notions of cause and effect and responsibility that's making this discussion murky.

 

I agree with your sentiment but can assure you 'minimal' doesn't cover a fraction of it. That 2013 claim was one amongst many and not all of them saw daylight.

 

For what it's worth, I (like many) believe the cover up and attempts to smear the victims (etc etc) are far more worthy of contempt than the seemingly smaller decisions that came together to cause the deaths of those poor people.

(EDIT: It's like weighing up whether you can call the disaster a tragedy, or whether that places too much of the element of chance into the equation. Because at the end of the day, as the inquest and 27 years of fighting has shown, it was preventable, and there are people that are more culpable than others. So 'tragedy' just seems to cover up the fact that this wasn't some naturally-occurring or unpredictable event.)

For example, Duckenfield was inexperienced, of that I am sure, but then took the wrong course of action in trying to cover up what he must have realised was a big mistake. (Of course, him being in the position he was in was also a hugely important factor too.) That initial lie about who opened the exit gate then multiplied and became a swarm of lies, and the rest is history.

Lots went wrong that day, and I feel like inexperience and naivety is far more excusable than lying to cover one's back. That no respect was given to the dead initially is criminal, and I am in awe at the families' willingness to fight for so long against an almost impossible opponent in the form of the British establishment.

All been said before, but seeing as I came out of the wilderness to comment on a pretty nuanced element of this whole discussion, I felt the need to write something more general as well. Of course, this is all quite off the cuff stuff, and I'm just trying to sum up my general feelings on the matter. I'm by no means an expert on the events of that day and the following 27 years, but I feel I'm probably about as informed as many on here.

 

Thanks for that, does this mean people cant go on holiday for 2 years, I assume every member of the jury has to see every bit of evidence, and surely people without "a Life" or full time work would not make a suitable
jury, I am not disputing for a minute what you are saying just interested how on earth they could choose a Jury.

 

There have been breaks in the inquest of a few weeks at a time so I suppose it's more of a case of holidays fitting around the schedule rather than having none at all. It hasn't been 2 years solid of sitting hearing evidence and I imagine it has been relatively well timetabled.

I've no idea how they chose them or the compromises that had to be made to make it work. As they're the longest sitting jury in known English legal history I imagine they will be the subject of some research in the coming months and years. You'd certainly need a very forgiving employer to allow you to disappear for 2 years to be a juror!

 

I havn't climbed down at all, I was just pointing out one particular issue as I cant be arsed to go over it all again with you.

Honestly, JB. Have you ever been to a big football match and arrived at kick off time, and experienced the extra urgency to get inside. I think not.

 

I have. Are you saying the fans outside the turnstiles are not at fault then?

 

The question the Jury answered was this.

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

My line of reasoning is quite simple.

I just believe that a crowd pushing to try and get into a full pen should take some responsibility for crushing people at the front. So they "contributed" and, in my view, and it is a good message to send out that everyone that pushes has some responsibility in those circumstances. Just because the police open the gate and then "someone in authority" points you in a direction (who could have been a steward working to get a free view of the game) it doesn't mean that personal responsibility goes out of the window. I think that is a reasonable message to send out.

I just know that if I had been in that crowd pushing to get in, I would be partly blaming myself for not being more patient. Regardless of "what crowds do".

The Police in particular, and other agencies have a ****load to learn from their mistakes, I absolutely agree with you. But I also think that they already will have learnt. This result will do nothing in that respect.

If the families think that a criminal prosecution of Duckenfield and/or other officers will now be a walk in the park, then I think they are mistaken. The burden of proof will be so much higher in criminal court and that "cause and effect" will be examined more closely than they have so far. The link between (for example) Duckenfield agreeing to open Gate C and the actual crushing on the terracing will be covered in minute detail. That might not be such a comfortable examination for the fans. They would also have to show that he "showed such disregard for the life and safety of others" in the case of criminal negligence. That may be a bit difficult as he opened the Gate to save lives outside, and with the open space behind the gate it might not be construed that he could have foreseen the crush near the pitch side.

The closure, justice or revenge they may now be seeking through a criminal court might just open it all up again. For a start, if the CPS decide that they have little chance of conviction of manslaughter or criminal negligence and so decide not to prosecute, do we think the families will accept that as a fair judgement, or do we think they will complain of some sort of cover-up?

There might be some sort of corporate criminality though, as the preparation was pretty crap.

But anyway, I don't know much about that side of things, either.

The "Cover Up" though was, I agree with you, the most serious (criminal) aspect of it all. Terrible and they deserve what they get.

 

No, you've been proven wrong and are now just windmilling with points that have been proven to be irrelevant.

 

Was that "no" you have never been to a football match?

 

Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has been suspended.



The PCC had expected inquest questioning to avoid upsetting the families of the bereaved. Andy Burnham said in the House today that the CC had overseen the over tough questioning of witnesses in the Inquest, which continued the cover up and so his position was untenable.

So the PCC suspended him.

Well that is a turn up!

 

You wouldn't know there was a PCC election next week...

 

Haha, good one.

 

Have you ever heard of the helium pencil team building exercise?

It's where a long but very light bendy pencil width rod is held up by a small group, whose goal is to lower it to the floor. the only rules are it can only be held on top of your index fingers and all in the group must keep contact with both fingers at all times. Sounds easy right? Well what happens is when one end lowers the other end raises - in following the rules the people at the end that raises must maintain contact and thus, instead of lowering it the team lift it up and up and up.

What's that got to do with it? Well in a group where the expectations are getting to pitch view safely, I'm sure fans didn't get the communication to stop and go back until they themselves were in the middle of it, by which time hundreds more had taken the position at the back pushing through. The helium pencil needs concise and immediate communication, just as would be needed at Hillsborough for all fans to move back in an organised fashion. It's just not something that is very easy, if it's even possible. Getting 6 people to move in a coordinated fashion proves tough, getting 3500 to do it? Impossible