Sorry but a Hillborough question

[pininsho 10]

Ok so, accepting it was private property (as you say), whose responsbility WAS IT to ensure the safety of those on it?

 

You obviously haven't read the whole thread.

Why do you think nobody has ever been prosecuted? Because in the eyes of the law the responsibility lay with the fans inside the ground to 'find their own level' which seems very ridiculous now looking back to policing of football matches at that time. Unfortunately that's the way it was.

 

Surely, even in the dark days of a couple of decades ago, someone had responsibility?

 

Yes. The fans. Even though it doesn't say so this is the only conclusion that you can come to after reading the TR. It made plenty of recommendations on changes that need to occur across the board regarding the policing of grounds, allocation of tickets, all seater stadia, sale of alcohol etc as well as being critical of the attempted untruths and cover ups of certain police officers after the event.

 

SOMEONE made the decision to allow all those people to flood into that one area. Are you saying that that person did not hold that responsibility?

 

Not me. Just the law, so I say again, why do you think nobody was prosecuted over this?

[Frank Sidney 11]

That maybe so Pinisho but I'll wager there's some very twitchy people who worked on the disaster about now the can of worms has been opened again.

 

Never say never. There's more than one way to skin a rabbitt.

 

I'm no legal expert but you may know. Say there was a new enquiry and the police, SWFC The Local Authority etc were even more of a cause than they have admitted in the past. Can the families sue them in a civil court?

[BananaSplit 10]

That maybe so Pinisho but I'll wager there's some very twitchy people who worked on the disaster about now the can of worms has been opened again.

 

Never say never. There's more than one way to skin a rabbitt.

 

I'm no legal expert but you may know. Say there was a new enquiry and the police, SWFC The Local Authority etc were even more of a cause than they have admitted in the past. Can the families sue them in a civil court?

 

 

And what if they weren't?

 

What if the inquiry finds more fault with the Liverpool fans?

 

Then what Frank?

 

Another inquiry?

 

And what if the third inquiry comes to the same conclusion?

 

Another inquiry?

 

And will it go on and on until you get the answers you want to hear?

 

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in wasting the taxpayers money on persuing a second inquiry if you are not prepared to accept and digest all the evidence presented, and as it stands, I don't believe you want the truth to come out - you just want an inquiry that completely exhonerates the Liverpool fans and I don't believe you will ever get that because their actions were a major contributory factor as to what happened, and whether you like that or not, that is the truth.

[pininsho 10]

That maybe so Pinisho but I'll wager there's some very twitchy people who worked on the disaster about now the can of worms has been opened again.

 

Never say never. There's more than one way to skin a rabbitt.

 

I'm no legal expert but you may know. Say there was a new enquiry and the police, SWFC The Local Authority etc were even more of a cause than they have admitted in the past. Can the families sue them in a civil court?

 

They can always try but as with the case that failed in the European Courts unless there is strong evidence that the law at that time, as opposed to the law as it exists today, was broken then it's going to be virtually impossible.

For example; if it could be proved that Duckenfield opened the gates needlessly or maliciously then he could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. In other words, if all the fans were lining up in an orderly manner and there was no crush happening outside the ground and he gave the order to open the gates anyway knowing that he would be breaking certain protocols such as the need to search fans for offensive weapons at each of the turnstyles then he wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.

As it was this was not the case and he made this naive, fateful decision with the best of intentions but brought his own character and that of SY police into serious disrepute with his lies and attemped cover ups after the event.

Edited April 17, 2009 by pininsho

[*bobstar* 10]

No, that's a copout. There were people (the police) responsible for deciding which areas of the ground were occupied or not. They (whoever the buck stops with) made the decision to allow all those people to flood into one particular area. That is where the error was made. Had there been crushing OUTSIDE the ground there would be a case to be made for supporters pushing etc etc. However, from the moment they were allowed within the ground, the responsbility rests with the person whose decision that was.

 

It's not difficult to see this, is it?

 

 

So, if we can see this, why can't everyone?

 

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

Its not that simple. Have you read some of the comments from Pinnosho regarding the legaliities of the law AT THAT time. Quite dfferent from what one would expect today so often when people make judgements they are basing them on what they think should happen now/today. (no, I aint a legal expert but it appears pinnosho has done the research so I have bo reason to doubt it at this time).

 

What is happening imo is that people are jumping onto the justice for the 96 bandwagon. You only have to look at facebook and see the comments on some of the groups on there to see that people do not understand what the group want when they say "justice for the 96". Even SHSheff's quote above says "they (the police)". It isnt the anti police campaign many think it is as far as I can tell.

 

Ok so, accepting it was private property (as you say), whose responsbility WAS IT to ensure the safety of those on it?

 

Surely, even in the dark days of a couple of decades ago, someone had responsibility?

 

SOMEONE made the decision to allow all those people to flood into that one area. Are you saying that that person did not hold that responsibility?

 

Do you not get that so many factors/cause/effect things happened that day that contributed to this disaster.

 

Someone opened the gate. Yes. Where does the responsibility lie for the 96 deaths. Is it the person who gave the order, is it the ones who did not relay the severity of the situation back, is it the one who actually opened the gate who could have refused to do as ordered, is it the fans who rushed in and went where they thought to get in as quick as possible, is it the lack of signage to the end pens, is it the stewards for not directing people to the end pens, is it the fans for not listening to stewards directing them to the emptier pens, is it the stewards fault for not shutting the tunnel, is it the fans fault for not turning back, the list goes on and on.

 

This tragedy was indeed an accident waiting to happen, it could have happened anywhere given that combination of events, the stadium, the policing etc was all typical of the time, and with hindsight we could all have come up with the same conclusions as the Taylor report, because we are now all experts 20 years after the event !

 

So true.

 

That maybe so Pinisho but I'll wager there's some very twitchy people who worked on the disaster about now the can of worms has been opened again.

 

Never say never. There's more than one way to skin a rabbitt.

 

I'm no legal expert but you may know. Say there was a new enquiry and the police, SWFC The Local Authority etc were even more of a cause than they have admitted in the past. Can the families sue them in a civil court?

 

Sue them for what??? Is justice about truth or skinning a rabbit? I agree there may be some very twitchy people. The ones who worked there that day probably all feel responsible in some way. I have no doubt that they will have relived the events many times and gone over so many what ifs....maybe many regret their actions and many contributed to the deaths of the 96 but I I personally do not think justice should ever come from Hillsborough in the shape of persecution of individuals.

 

If justice is about making all the documents public and open to scrutiny then so be it (being careful with specific names, Im not sure how I feel about that one). I think that people joining this campaign are doing so for the wrong reasons. This shouldnt be an anti police campaign.

Edited April 17, 2009 by *bobstar*

[Mathom 10]

Apparently SWFC had a top notch CCTV system at the time which was so sophisticated it meant you could even tell what colour eyes people on the terraces had. So who was monitoring it when they decided to open the gate? That's one of the things the families want to find an answer to, because if someone was using the system then they must have been seriously incompetent at best, and if they weren't using the system then where were they?

[quisquose 10]

Well said *bobstar*.

 

By the way, my wife has just been told that our friend is back on the drugs again this week. It should be remembered that most of the victims are not members of the HFSG.

[natjack 10]

Apparently SWFC had a top notch CCTV system at the time

That's a good point. ISTR seeing some sort of docudrama a few years ago where they actually used some footage from the gate/tunnel area which IIRC had been crucial in coming to the decision to open the gate because of fears of a crush situation developing outside. IIRC you could see what appears to be a large crowd (I wont say 'mob') encircling a few officers/stewards (?) in what could only have been an extremely imtimidating face off. Does anyone else remember this?

 

There's been some good points made by pinisho, Banana Split and bobstar. I can't quite grasp some of the arguments put forward by the Justice for the 96 supporters. It sometimes seems that a lot of people have very little idea of the actual circumstances of that awful day and are merely jumping on the bandwagon of what they imagine to be a witchhunt against the SYP and possibly SWFC also.

[*bobstar* 10]

Apparently SWFC had a top notch CCTV system at the time which was so sophisticated it meant you could even tell what colour eyes people on the terraces had. So who was monitoring it when they decided to open the gate? That's one of the things the families want to find an answer to, because if someone was using the system then they must have been seriously incompetent at best, and if they weren't using the system then where were they?

 

If apparently, this is the case do you think you may be thinking technology was better than it actually was? Was CCTV that was that clever in 1989, really? Should anything like this happen now there would be more evidence and more reliable evidence in the form of digital voice recordings, cctv, tv footage, emergency service coverage/dispatch etc. It just isnt the case for 1989. I think people expect the justice campaign to obtain all the answers that maybe just arent there.

 

It a mute point though. If it is true and someone was monitoring it would it be justice to publish a name? Is the death of 96 people now going to be the responsibilty of the CCTV man? No, it would be another contributing factor. Would it even dissolve the resposibilty from failings and those that have already been identified.

 

You say this is one of the things the families want an answer to. What else do they want an answer to. I have seen lots about wanting justice but nothing specific like this. Im stll trying to get my head around what is meant by justice for the 96.

Edited April 17, 2009 by *bobstar*

[BananaSplit 10]

That's a good point. ISTR seeing some sort of docudrama a few years ago where they actually used some footage from the gate/tunnel area which IIRC had been crucial in coming to the decision to open the gate because of fears of a crush situation developing outside. IIRC you could see what appears to be a large crowd (I wont say 'mob') encircling a few officers/stewards (?) in what could only have been an extremely imtimidating face off. Does anyone else remember this?

 

There's been some good points made by pinisho, Banana Split and bobstar. I can't quite grasp some of the arguments put forward by the Justice for the 96 supporters. It sometimes seems that a lot of people have very little idea of the actual circumstances of that awful day and are merely jumping on the bandwagon of what they imagine to be a witchhunt against the SYP and possibly SWFC also.

 

If we're thinking about the same programme a few years ago, it was nothing short of an episode from a soap opera.

 

I can remember listening to Radio Sheffield the following morning and people were up in arms at the inaccurate portrayal.

 

They showed Hillsborough as a leafy tree-lined suburb; open spaces, semi-detached houses - thus giving the impression to people who didn't know the area that there was no apparent reason for the crush caused by the fans arriving late.

 

That in itself showed me how determined they were to sway the minds of the 'neutrals' by setting the drama in a completely unsurreal area.

 

They never made any effort to show that Leppings Lane is situated on a very tight corner of a largely terraced housing area.

 

Some people may argue that I'm nit-picking, but if you want to show an accurate portrayal, then at least film it in an area that has a modicum of resemblance to Hillsborough and not in an area that was more befitting of Ecclesall.

 

If their 'evidence' was that water-tight, why mislead people to the geographics of the area?

[natjack 10]

tbh, having seen the first ambulance man, who was interviewed on TV this week, and seeing the obvious toll that day took on him, the only medical based person present trying to decide his course of action amid the chaos. After 20 years of asking himself 'what if' and constantly being taken back there by random sounds, smells, noises, who could fail to feel sorry for him? Or wouild they like to scapegoat him in the absence of any other obvious target?

 

I asked on another thread what would satisfy 'the families' and didn't get any sort of answer before the thread was closed. I don't think they'll ever be satisfied, because the only answers that they will get, as far as I can see, will be ones they don't want.

 

The Taylor Report tried to make it more palatable for Liverpool to swallow, but they haven't been able to so far and I don't think they ever will. Even Duckenfield's head on a spike won't satisfy them. What they want, their loved ones back, can't happen. They need to find some peace within themselves and move on, whatever they find out won't be anything they need or want, imo. It's pitiful and everyone feels sorry for them, but what can anyone do to make it better?

[natjack 10]

If we're thinking about the same programme a few years ago, it was nothing short of an episode from a soap opera.

I'm not sure tbh, in my recall, the footage shown was black and white, grainy like an old TV programme? I don't really remember anything else, just that bit. I was only youngish at the time