The Hillsborough Conspiracy

You'd think this concept would be easy enough for a child to understand, let alone someone who claims to have policed events such as this in the past.

zztop is either on a wind up or being wilfully ignorant, either way it is despicable.

 

Yes, I had, memories!

All the more important that the potential dangers are communicated rather than suppressed. If people appreciate the dangers more, then people may just hang back themselves rather than just push with the crowd. That happens far more often than not. This will not be the first or last time that a mistake was made as a crow went to a big event, but such tragedies rarely happen. Usually the crowd get in safely and your bendy rod is lowered to the ground.

When they don't get in safely it is because they have joined in with the pushing crowd mentality rather than taking individual responsibility - which is my point.

But I liked that, thanks.

 

I'm sorry, because I do appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my posts, but I'm so not with you on this. Not one bit. I've highlighted only the part that you've written in some kind of response to me, just so we can stay with that one point (I think it's quite important).

What you've said here is:

1) The jury were wrong to answer the question quoted in the way that they did.
2) That the dichotomy between 'cause for' and 'responsibility for' essentially doesn't exist.

You say:

- They wouldn't have had to push, it was about overcrowding. I think there's this conception you have that the people 'at the back' who had just been let in are particularly at fault, but I suppose we'll get to that (again).

- It has been reiterated a few times on this thread alone that it wasn't just people at the front that were crushed. Please stop repeating this fallacy.

It's madness to think that people should have it in mind that going through a gate to see a big game of football may cause a large amount of people to die. It's an obvious message to 'put out' that pushing isn't helpful at the best of times, but to suggest that everyone that pushes has responsibility ('some' or otherwise) is in my view (and the view of pretty much everyone who saw the evidence presented over the years) absolutely false.

It was a difficult event to manage and police, but people walked through a gate opened by the police, there was no big surge once inside the ground, and people strolling through that tunnel into the middle pens in the Leppings Lane end should feel no responsibility (nor should they feel guilt) at what happened that day.

The crime here was a failure to manage an event that had the potential to injure and even kill hundreds if not thousands of people. There reasons for this failing was due to inexperience, maybe a blasé attitude towards football fans, etc etc. BUT the crime of the day was not committed by fans going into the ground.

Then of course we're largely in agreement about the cover up and the attempts to smear the dead, football fans, entire communities, so I'll leave it there.

We do disagree on something that seems very slight, but it's a very important point that leaves one of us having to disagree with the verdict, seemingly regardless of the truth or otherwise of what happened that day. For you, if a disaster happened at any event, for any particular reason almost, it seems everyone there would be in some way culpable.

 

You really are embarrassing yourself now. The only people guilty of causing danger by pushing are the police when they pushed fans trying to climb over the fences back into the pens.

Seriously, just stop.

 

It's getting silly now, I see ZZ's point as he was a police officer and has first hand experience of crowd control but if there hadn't been a crush outside in the first place then the catastrophic series of events based on poor decisions in the heat of the moment may never have happened.

However I believe that ultimately it was the poor planning leading up to the day of the event that should have been scrutinised further, yet the FA's actions for example were not listed on the questionnaire for the jurors. A safety barrier on the terrace collapsed under the surge, surely this should not have happened, the front gates were locked, there were no side gates in order to transfer pens apart from at the back. The police quite rightly are taking part of the blame for the planning but the FA have a lot to answer for when Hillsborough experienced issues on previous occasions.

Disaster could have been averted but once the external gate was opened while the tunnel entrance for the central pens remained accessible I think it's highly unlikely the disaster could have been avoided from that point in time onwards.


In 2010 a crushing disaster occurred in Germany, it took 3½ years for 10 people to be charges for manslaughter; in every case they were responsible for the organisation of the event. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26152045

 

I appreciate the time you have taken also, and it looks like we would never agree, and as someone who has spent years in Liverpool, you have been closer than most of us.

But just a couple of things.

I am not too sure how (if true) people were being killed in or near the tunnel helps your case. I have yet to see anything that suggests that in my hours of reading. But if there is a link, let me know, and I will be pleased to apologise to you and J.B.

You say It's madness to think that people should have it in mind that going through a gate to see a big game of football may cause a large amount of people to die. But that is really my point. I think that any time 60,000 crowd into an enclosed space they should have those things on their mind. If we take young children into any situation like that, most of us would at least be aware of potential dangers. It isn't a stretch to just remind everyone that crowds are potentially dangerous places, and pushing makes it more dangerous.

But, it may be that working at hundreds of public sporting events in the 80's has coloured my judgement, but I would like to think that it give me a more balanced view, particularly as I am also a football fan who has rushed in to see the kick off many times.

But, what I am not, is a despicable individual, as J.B makes out.;D

 

Going back to the idea that the people who died weren't tarnished or sullied and that everyone was aware that they had been guilty of no wrongdoing briefly - a point that zztop argued and seemed incredulous that I was making it. I read earlier that a story had come from the Police Federation rep who was briefing the press in the days after Hillsborough. He told the press how officers had relayed to him that one of the dead had been found with over ten wallets on him so had been pick pocketing on the terrace. This was a grotesque distortion of what had been recorded, which was that one of the dead had two wallets on him when they recorded his personal affects - one for notes and cards and a small coin purse.

That sort of lying is just evil and shows what sort of disgusting s**t the families of the dead had to put up with and why they fought so long and hard for justice.

 

A lot of people don't understand how the press warp things too. Tell them two wallets and they'll print ten just because it sells better.

I'm actually amazed by how much the families are still courting the press even at this stage when they were just as big a part of the misrepresentation of what happened to their relatives.

 

My point is that NOW everyone knows that the victims are totally innocent. Instead of wittering on, just give me one example of where the victims are now being blamed for the disaster. As I cant find any.

 

And why do you think that is? Because of the tireless work done by the families in the face of institutionalised blame shifting. Even as late on as the back end of the 1990s you had MPs writing letters to the families where they were told that their children died due to their own irresponsible actions. You said yourself that the people who came in late through the gate contributed to the disaster by 'pushing'. Many of the dead and injured would have been made up of this group of people as it wasn't just the people at the front who were victims as you previously incorrectly asserted. So according to you some of the victims were not totally innocent.

If you want to find people who still blame the victims to an even greater degree then look no further than Twitter or listen to the songs that come from the crowd every time Liverpool play Man Utd or Chelsea. In the past few days I've had to delete three people on Facebook after seeing them put up disgusting statuses where they blamed the victims. One of them had commented on a status put up by a newspaper saying ''Who cares? 96 less drunken animals''.

 

I'm not criticising the work the families did, you are confusing me with someone else.

 

You know full well that I never accused you of criticising the families. I said that you were wrong (a bit of a pattern emerging here) about saying that no one blames the victims.

You asked me to give you examples of people blaming the victims. I have given you examples from the time, examples from years later and examples from as late as lunchtime today. I've even given you an example from a post made by yourself.

 

Jeez.
I get it now, you are GF in disguise.
ZZ out

 

This is getting tiresome, can we please distinguish he difference between pushing and simply trying to gain entry to watch the game that had already started?

 

And about time too. Make sure you take your straw man with you.

 

The more I read about this the more of a joke it seems.

Surely the point of this whole thing was to get to the truth? The way we get to the truth in legal proceedings in this country is by examining and cross-examining witnesses who attend and give evidence on oath. It is sometimes not pretty but the truth is not served by them being given an overly easy time any more than it is by scaring them so much they can't go on. So there's a balance to be struck. To make sure this happens an impartial person (judge or, in this case, coroner) sits there throughout and will generally step in if the line is crossed.

Now it seems as if Burnham, on behalf of the families, is saying that because SY Police unequivocally apologised in 2013 that should have resulted in them accepting every single accusation put their way in this inquest, no matter how bonkers or provably wrong. By instructing counsel to dispute some points, as is their right, the force have seen their Chief Constable suspended. This is despite the coroner in this case making it clear that he saw no issue with the questioning of witnesses by the SY Police counsel and nor did he believe their conduct contradicted the previous apology. That's crucial here in my opinion as he would be the first to say so if he thought otherwise.

So we're left with a Labour PCC suspending a Chief Constable after a Labour shadow minister criticises him the week before an election. That stinks.

 

I was hinting as much with my selective summary above.

In a sense, throws a bit of doubt surrounding the whole inquest, doesn't it?

 

Got to say as sad as the event was and I do remember seeing it unfold whilst sat watching on TV the over reaction is just getting too much

The cover up by the establishment whether it was the government, police or ambulance service should never be allowed to be repeated and find it baffling the lack of first page reporting in the morning papers but it's time to move on.

 

Over reaction? It's arguably the biggest scandal/cover up in British history. Every single facet of the establishment conspired to cover it up and shift the blame onto the people that they are sworn in to serve.

You say it should never be repeated or allowed to happen again and then in the same sentence say that 'it's time to move on'. The families of the victims have been being told to do just that since the day it happened and had they done so then we would have never known what occurred. As it is we are only just starting to find out and punishing those culpable - 27 years on.

 

And yet despite 'never knowing what occurred' there have somehow managed to be revolutionary advances in stadium design in this country, massive changes in public order policing and management in general and specifically at football, and no where close to a repeat incident in 27 years. I don't think it's an over-exaggeration to say it couldn't happen in 2016 and that is one hell of a legacy for those who died that day.

It's almost like we all knew what occurred all along and why most people outside of Liverpool show vague or passing interest only in the cause.

Out of interest what extent do you want to see this continue to JB? I think most would be happy to see the cover up investigated and those who orchestrated it prosecuted. But what about banging up the council licensing officials for misconduct in public office? The stadium designer for gross negligence manslaughter? Where does it end?

 

t

Bit of an over-reaction I think.

Whilst I appreciate most people involved were doing the best they could with the materials and training they had at hand some people did not. Duckenfield froze by all accounts and made spurious decisions. Unfortunately for him it was his job and he was paid handsomely to make those decision. If he was completely incompetent to police a football semi final then his superiors who employed him are at fault. Accidents never just happen they are always caused and always preventable.

 

I don't believe the line in bold is true. To be precise the punishing bit may be, but the knowledge element is not.

I may be a football stadium design geek (I went to uni in 86 to study civil engineering just so that I could build football stands*). But I am not super-human and I am far from alone in knowing way back in 89 that the design of the pens with no forward exit/escape combined with the tunnel not being closed off as in the previous years due to poor planning/reaction by the senior representatives of the SYP are ultimately the key factors that caused the disaster to happen. Others things indeed contributed to the scale of the disaster but they did not cause it to happen in the first place.

The Taylor report concluded it that way and as UEA has already pointed out that resulted in the dramatic increase in safety and policing standards at grounds.

The police cover-up/smear campaign against the fans happened and should be dealt with. People are culpable and should be dealt with legally imo (if a fair trial is possible). However what occurred on the day was always known by many people and the key changes required to avoid a repeat have been widely implemented.


*alas never happened.

 

I have a question, and this is not me shifting blame onto the fans... But what was the difference between the Leppings Lane end and the opposite Forest end? Why was there no trouble with the Forest crowd getting in?

 

Duckenfield froze (hesitated) over making the most important decision of all. Whether to open that gate or not. Had he just made the decision quickly, he could, and would, have been criticised for acting too hastily without considering things properly. The Superintendent who requested the gate be opened had 26 years of service and regularly policed Leeds Sheffield and Barnsley games (from memory), so if the decision had been his alone, he would have opened it.

Duckenfield obviously cocked up, but it is all so darned easy to criticise him from our keyboards and with hindsight, after 27 years and 2 years of inquest. But, I reckon, that the majority of people placed in his position without the benefit of hindsight would probably have opened the gate as well when requested by the experienced man on scene who was screaming, that "people will die out here".

The only way someone could be properly 100% prepared for what happened was to have dealt with something identical previously.

It is very common for major events or major operations in many organisations to be run ultimately by someone without the specific experience, but who has plenty of experience below him. 99 times out 100 things tend to go well. But if things go wrong, then absolutely, the person in charge still takes the blame and the superiors who put him there.

The cover up was a disgrace, but when the call is for tragic errors to be construed as criminal acts, it will always make it more likely that people will try and cover up tragic errors. Not an excuse, though.

 

Getting in - The North Stand at Hillsborough (the big one opposite the tv cameras) was for Liverpool fans that day. In a league game it has turnstiles for entry at both ends. On that day just the west end turnstiles were used for segregation purposes Thus Liverpool fans has less than 30 turnstiles to get in, Forest fans 60. Forest fans are recorded as being in the ground earlier. Specifically for the Leppings Lane terrace there were 7 turnstiles for more than 10,000 ticket holders. Crushes outside had happened in previous years and the infamous Gate C had been opened to release pressure in 1981.

More importantly is the caged pens though - that is what underlying factor leading to the disaster, not the problems getting in. The Kop for Forest fans had no such pens.

 

Exactly. This wasn't just a well-meaning idiot out of his depth.

He was grossly negligent and his first instinct was to lie in a calculated and sophisticated manner. He made errors at first, but then his lack of ability to control the situation he had created and lying about them both on the day and afterwards led to further people dying on the day and the survivors being blamed, which in most cases led to depression and in one or two cases contributed to them eventually committing suicide.

 

We all knew what happened? About how the police doctored statements and completely lied about the actions of the fans? About how 41 lives could have been saved had the police acted better, something which they constantly denied? Not until at least a few years ago did that come out, which was the catalyst for the inquest that has just concluded.

I'd like to see those responsible for the deaths and those responsible for the cover up prosecuted and punished accordingly. Not just the police officers who gave the orders, but the FA, politicians and Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.

 

I'm referring to the cover up, which only really began to be exposed a few years ago, and the ruling that the fans were in no way responsible, which only came two days ago.

 

Yes, I agree, I was merely replying to the post I quoted, which spoke about that decision.

I have said in earlier in the thread that the preparation was terrible. Duckenfield signed off the operational plan which was almost identical to the previous years plan which was between the same two teams, without visiting the ground, but that wouldn't be unusual in that he would be unlikely to change a tried and tested plan, written by his predecessor, in his first big match. The operational plan would normally contain the safety issues, and the layout of the ground. He also had 3 or 4 operational meetings about the game before the game with local senior officers and I would have thought those matters would also have been covered then. Thereafter, the man in total control doesn't tend to leave the central command position, as that is where all the info gets sent.

But you are right, he was ill prepared and probably shouldn't have been given it in the first place. It definitely was not about the single decision.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hillsborough-cops-receive-93k-payout-1326463

This might be a good place to start looking for the answer to your question.

 

Obviously I can't speak for the families, but I'd imagine that it's about holding people accountable. Also, the victims are all from different backgrounds and parts of the country, but there will have been a lot of working class families who lost the breadwinners in their family at Hillsborough. There will have also been a lot of people who were there that day and suffered extreme PTSD or physical destabilising injuries, which meant that they were unable to work for large periods. There was a programme on 5live last night that detailed this.

There is also the case of legal costs and expenses, which the families have had to fund themselves for the past 27 years. Given that the inquest have now found the state to be at fault and the families to be in the right surely they should get some sort of compensation after such a lengthy and financially demanding campaign?