Same old South Yorkshire Police

[xerxes]

That's how I see it as well. There were acts of negligence in many areas, the decision to appoint Duckenfield, the decision to open the gates, the omission to steward the pens, not taking any action when they could see what was happening right in front of them and on the cameras, stopping the emergency services from entering the stadium, the list goes on.

 

Certain people were criminally culpable and should be prosecuted

 

Just picking up your points.

 

Duckenfield had the rank commensurate to the role. He may not have been experienced, but there should have been enough experience there to handle a regular event- an FA Cup semi final. Criminal negligence? I don't think so. Might a wiser and more experienced head have done better? Probably.

 

The decision to open the gates was a Judgement of Solomon, do you want to risk a disaster in front of, or behind, the gates?

 

Sadly, the crushing that is all too evident as 3pm approaches was pretty common at big games. Should/could they have done better? Yes. was that situation common at such fixtures without fatalities? Yes.

 

Communications back then were crude and ineffective. The overwhelming majority of crowd incidents back then related to hooliganism. The default position would have been that, and the emergency services would normally have held back until the police had restored order. i was in the upper tier that day, many LFC fans, and many fans around the ground booed those on the lower who tried to scale the fences, thinking initially that it was a pitch invasion- that is how confused it was. The improvement in communciations and procedures post Hillsborough reflects the absence of satisfactory protocols before, not a failure to implement them. Again, criminal negligence would be a non-starter.

 

As I have posted previously, the falsification of evidence is a much cleaner area to explore. Criminally culpabale for doing so? Yes.

[zigackly]

Criminal negligence pre-disaster would be very difficult to prove. There is a big difference between mistakes, decisions made in good faith, and criminal negligence.

 

How about ten years of no safety certificate for starters? How about appointing someone with no experience of the role? How about going ahead with the planned kickoff time with loads of fans still outside? How about not effectively monitoring the cameras pointing at the crowd which clearly indicated the overcrowding before a single life was lost? Opening a gate when it should have been clear the central pen was overcrowded and the side pens empty? Not diverting people into the side pens with a line of stewards across the tunnel as had happened in previous years? Not opening the small gates allowing access to the pitch? Not allowing access for medical services in the immediate aftermath? I've barely started here as well. Sorry, but you're talking complete and utter horseshit. Try looking up criminal negligence. You might acquire some pith instead of just helmet. It was an unmitigated catalogue of avoidable disaster, and apologisers like you make me fucking livid.

Edited February 26, 2013 by zigackly

[xerxes]

How about ten years of no safety certificate for starters? How about appointing someone with no experience of the role? How about going ahead with the planned kickoff time with loads of fans still outside? How about not effectively monitoring the cameras pointing at the crowd which clearly indicated the overcrowding before a single life was lost? Opening a gate when it should have been clear the central pen was overcrowded and the side pens empty? Not diverting people into the side pens with a line of stewards across the tunnel as had happened in previous years? Not opening the small gates allowing access to the pitch? Not allowing access for medical services in the immediate aftermath? I've barely started here as well. Sorry, but you're talking complete and utter horseshit. Try looking up criminal negligence. You might acquire some pith instead of just helmet. It was an unmitigated catalogue of avoidable disaster, and apologisers like you make me fucking livid.

 

I am pretty disappointed by your post, Zig. If you don’t like the answers- don’t ask the questions.

 

You are right to highlight the issue of the Safety Certificate. Who at SWFC was responsible for ensuring that the ground had a current safety certificate ( the Club Secretary I suspect)? Who at the licensing authority was responsible for those certificates? If it had lapsed why did they not flag that up to the relevant authorities? Who at the FA was responsible for ensuring that semi final grounds were fit for purpose? What role did the LA have in ensuring that sports stadia within their authority had current certificates? There are names, and named roles, to go at there.

 

The issue of delayed kick-offs has always been contentious. Back then, sometimes they were, sometimes they were not. Failure to do so was a judgement call by the standards of the day- not criminal negligence.

 

As previously posted, overcrowding in the space behind goals for big games was commonplace back then. Until then it had “sorted itself out”, this time it did not. Again, the decision to open the gates was a question of whether the disaster was inside, or outside the stadium. The context would also have been one of it as a hooliganism, not crowd safety, issue. Gates were routinely steamed at big games back then by us, and others. The paradox of Hillsborough has always been a “non hooliganism disaster created by hooliganism”. Fortunately the mind set of fans, and the authorities, was transformed by that day.

 

When gates were opened back then at Hillsborough, and other grounds, sometimes the full pens were cordoned off- sometimes they were not. Although the Police may claim that there was no time, should the growing problem have been identified? Yes. But failure to do so did not guarantee the disaster, it contributed to it. Many, and several of my friends, upon seeing the crowds leading into the central tunnel, and anticipating that they would be packed at that time, simply opted for the wing pens. So again, the test of criminal negligence is likely to fail.

 

The crushing looked to many to be routine. Pitch invasions were a far greater concern back then than crush injuries. That is how it was. At the point where it was clear that something was terribly wrong the communications between pitch side officers and command control were just not good enough to cope. The default position would have been to keep the fans behind the fences to prevent them from attacking opposition fans, not to let them out.

 

Access to medical services being delayed was due to the perception that this was a crowd disorder issue, not a crushing one, and it was routine for the police to sort it out before the medics went in. Compound that with the incompatibility of radio between the police and ambulance service and the result is predictable.

 

I take great exception to being described as an “apologist”. I was there. I am a veteran of the era, home and away. We talk about searching for “the truth”, then you don’t want it, just your received second hand version of it. I deal with what I saw, not a dressed up version of it. I don’t doubt your sincerity, just your ability to balance the evidence.

 

In many respects you make my original point well. As time goes on it does become increasingly difficult to remember what it was like back then. Stadia and crowd management are unrecognisable now, from then, and that is the positive legacy of Hillsborough.

[LFC64]

I am pretty disappointed by your post, Zig. If you don’t like the answers- don’t ask the questions.

 

I take great exception to being described as an “apologist”. I was there. I am a veteran of the era, home and away. We talk about searching for “the truth”, then you don’t want it, just your received second hand version of it. I deal with what I saw, not a dressed up version of it. I don’t doubt your sincerity, just your ability to balance the evidence.

 

.

 

Problem is the fact that he is perhaps a bit younger than you and wasn't there doesn't invalidate Zig's opinion one jot.

I remember that very same line being used by Brian Clough and Forest fans to dismiss anything that didn't fit in with the 'tanked up mob' story shortly after the disaster and before Lord Justice Taylor's report when hearsay ruled.

They were there alright but were they in a position to form an overview of events that day? Certainly not.

As it seems to be crucial to you I wasn't there but I probably fit your description as ' a veteran of the era' and one thing I know from back then is when recounting experiences in the pub or in the schoolyard they rarely tallied as you would expect at an event attended by tens of thouands.

In what way would say Zig is 'dressing up' his version of events by the way because I don't see that at all?

You might want to re read some of your above post and concede that it's patronising tone is overbearing.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

I am pretty disappointed by your post' date=' Zig. If you don’t like the answers- don’t ask the questions.

 

You are right to highlight the issue of the Safety Certificate. Who at SWFC was responsible for ensuring that the ground had a current safety certificate ( the Club Secretary I suspect)? Who at the licensing authority was responsible for those certificates? If it had lapsed why did they not flag that up to the relevant authorities? Who at the FA was responsible for ensuring that semi final grounds were fit for purpose? What role did the LA have in ensuring that sports stadia within their authority had current certificates? There are names, and named roles, to go at there.

 

The issue of delayed kick-offs has always been contentious. Back then, sometimes they were, sometimes they were not. Failure to do so was a judgement call by the standards of the day- not criminal negligence.

 

As previously posted, overcrowding in the space behind goals for big games was commonplace back then. Until then it had “sorted itself out”, this time it did not. Again, the decision to open the gates was a question of whether the disaster was inside, or outside the stadium. The context would also have been one of it as a hooliganism, not crowd safety, issue. Gates were routinely steamed at big games back then by us, and others. The paradox of Hillsborough has always been a “non hooliganism disaster created by hooliganism”. Fortunately the mind set of fans, and the authorities, was transformed by that day.

 

When gates were opened back then at Hillsborough, and other grounds, sometimes the full pens were cordoned off- sometimes they were not. Although the Police may claim that there was no time, should the growing problem have been identified? Yes. But failure to do so did not guarantee the disaster, it contributed to it. Many, and several of my friends, upon seeing the crowds leading into the central tunnel, and anticipating that they would be packed at that time, simply opted for the wing pens. So again, the test of criminal negligence is likely to fail.

 

The crushing looked to many to be routine. Pitch invasions were a far greater concern back then than crush injuries. That is how it was. At the point where it was clear that something was terribly wrong the communications between pitch side officers and command control were just not good enough to cope. The default position would have been to keep the fans behind the fences to prevent them from attacking opposition fans, not to let them out.

 

Access to medical services being delayed was due to the perception that this was a crowd disorder issue, not a crushing one, and it was routine for the police to sort it out before the medics went in. Compound that with the incompatibility of radio between the police and ambulance service and the result is predictable.

 

I take great exception to being described as an “apologist”. I was there. I am a veteran of the era, home and away. We talk about searching for “the truth”, then you don’t want it, just your received second hand version of it. I deal with what I saw, not a dressed up version of it. I don’t doubt your sincerity, just your ability to balance the evidence.

 

In many respects you make my original point well. As time goes on it does become increasingly difficult to remember what it was like back then. Stadia and crowd management are unrecognisable now, from then, and that is the positive legacy of Hillsborough.[/quote']

 

Your mates were pretty astute to spot the wing pens to avoid the central crush as me and my mates werent aware of any access to those side pens.

We were fortunate enough to spot the crush in the central pens early enough to be able to move to the virtually empty wing pens and stay there.

It wasnt until during the aftermath that we discovered there was actually access to those sides and unfortunately many others made the same discovery and others never got the chance to find out.

You make yourself sound like your word is final but whatever charge you think applies, there are certainly serious charges to be faced although far too late in most cases.

[xerxes]

Problem is the fact that he is perhaps a bit younger than you and wasn't there doesn't invalidate Zig's opinion one jot.

I remember that very same line being used by Brian Clough and Forest fans to dismiss anything that didn't fit in with the 'tanked up mob' story shortly after the disaster and before Lord Justice Taylor's report when hearsay ruled.

They were there alright but were they in a position to form an overview of events that day? Certainly not.

As it seems to be crucial to you I wasn't there but I probably fit your description as ' a veteran of the era' and one thing I know from back then is when recounting experiences in the pub or in the schoolyard they rarely tallied as you would expect at an event attended by tens of thouands.

In what way would say Zig is 'dressing up' his version of events by the way because I don't see that at all?

You might want to re read some of your above post and concede that it's patronising tone is overbearing.

 

I have no idea what age Zig is. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Age and whether someone was there or not is not important. The detail is.

 

You are absolutely right to point out that any single event when witnessed by many will be subject to as many interpretation, that validates my comments.

 

My “dressing up” comment was aimed at anyone who comes to a conclusion first, and then tries to make the evidence fit. It is no good lambasting the authorities for that if some of our own repeat the exercise.

 

As for tone, read his OP. For myself, I have the audacity to look at the events in the round, hardly overbearing.

[xerxes]

Your mates were pretty astute to spot the wing pens to avoid the central crush as me and my mates werent aware of any access to those side pens.

We were fortunate enough to spot the crush in the central pens early enough to be able to move to the virtually empty wing pens and stay there.

It wasnt until during the aftermath that we discovered there was actually access to those sides and unfortunately many others made the same discovery and others never got the chance to find out.

You make yourself sound like your word is final but whatever charge you think applies, there are certainly serious charges to be faced although far too late in most cases.

 

My mates, and myself, were regulars at Hillsborough. It was one of our favourite aways, some will have been familiar with the ground layout, many will not, it’s the nature of cup crowds.

 

My comments are the reverse of being “final”, they just challenge some assumptions that have gained traction over the years as memories fade.They offer balance, no more, no less. I am not sure that there is, or ever will be or was, a right and wrong.

 

My own view is that the case for criminal negligence prior to the disaster is uncertain, and highly unlikely to fail for numerous reasons most of which I have listed and that the case for prosecution post disaster clear, and with a high prospect of success.

 

I don’t believe that there ever has been an enthusiasm for revenge, just for the facts to emerge. They have largely done so now. The debate about what “justice” looks like is a useful one.

[zigackly]

My “dressing up” comment was aimed at anyone who comes to a conclusion first, and then tries to make the evidence fit.

 

I haven't done that, I've said I want to see the process of justice applied, even if it might be difficult to gain convictions. I wasn't there, but I know people who were and I was attending the odd game around that time, and I have made it my business to know something of the facts in order to be able to fight our corner against those who seek to blame it on the fans turning up late, hooliganism, and the prevailing attitude of the authorities at the time, none of which are reasonable excuses for the catastrophic failure of those involved to carry out their duty of care towards the fans. I can't help it if you are offended by what I say, but I have heard just the same excuses trotted out for the authorities down the years and always bit back, so I won't apologise now.

[xerxes]

I haven't done that, I've said I want to see the process of justice applied, even if it might be difficult to gain convictions. I wasn't there, but I know people who were and I was attending the odd game around that time, and I have made it my business to know something of the facts in order to be able to fight our corner against those who seek to blame it on the fans turning up late, hooliganism, and the prevailing attitude of the authorities at the time, none of which are reasonable excuses for the catastrophic failure of those involved to carry out their duty of care towards the fans. I can't help it if you are offended by what I say, but I have heard just the same excuses trotted out for the authorities down the years and always bit back, so I won't apologise now.

 

 

 

I am not offended by what you say. Stand or fall by your own comments. Hold whatever views you want, but describing the big picture , from which you can make a judgement, as being an apologist view is simply wrong. Offering a narrow perspective is simply repeating the mistakes of the Authorities. Your choice.

 

The context of Hillsborough is defined by hooliganism. Without it there would have been no fences, no cages, no emphasis on crowd control rather than crowd safety. That is quite different from saying that the disaster was caused by fans turning up late and hooliganism, which it was not. The paradox of Hillsborough will always be a non- hooligan generated disaster defined by hooliganism.

 

The prevailing attitudes of the time of the authorities, the FA, the clubs ,and the fans are as much a part of the disaster as any opened gate, or poor judgement call on the day. Yes there should (have been) names in the frame, the debate about who they should be has only just begun. But Justice needs to mean just that.

 

It is to your credit that you are seeking to learn more. No need to apologise. Your sincerity is not in doubt.

[zigackly]

I'm not going to argue about this with you any more on a personal level, just state that in my view my opinion is both informed and honest, and whilst I may have responded to you with some emotion earlier, I have not sought to condescend. Perhaps it's better for everyone else, considering the subject matter, for us to leave it there.

[xerxes]

I'm not going to argue about this with you any more on a personal level, just state that in my view my opinion is both informed and honest, and whilst I may have responded to you with some emotion earlier, I have not sought to condescend. Perhaps it's better for everyone else, considering the subject matter, for us to leave it there.

 

I don't think it is an argument, mate. It is just exploring very difficult ground, which is never easy.

 

The most recent release of papers shifted the available evidence, and changed opinion, I expect that to continue.

 

No condesencion intended on my part, everyone has a view and an opinion, all those reasonably expressed should be respected, I certainly respect yours.