Hillsborough document release

[frededwards 10]

 

You are even ignoring people like Bettison, Patnick, Crompton and Mackenzie who have admitted they were wrong and now accept that these things were not a factor.

.

 

Of course they've "accepted" that they were "wrong".

 

They operate in the public sphere and have salaries and/or pensions to protect.

 

They can't afford to be villified by the press and the victim's families and become pariahs.

 

 

I'm not blaming the fans for supporting the same clubs as the murderers at Heysel, but that crime may well have influenced the police opinion of Liverpool fans and their actions.

[Strix 11]

The large number of fans still outside the ground so near to kick off [wether drunk /ticketless or not] must have contributed to the crush.like i say it could have been policed so much better,and they made huge mistakes.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 16:00 ----------

 

 

I thought you were refering to the previous semi involving liverpool/notts forest.

 

nope. Leeds v Coventry '87

 

http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/18/hillsborough-leeds-v-coventry-1987-semi-final/

 

sorry I haven't found a better link yet. I'm sure there's a film clip of news somewhere in this thread sometime in October, but I haven't found it

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 16:13 ----------

 

But, on that occasion, no-one died.

 

Same ground, same stewards, same policemen, but different fans..........you're making a point against your own argument.

so just explain to me again... the drunk, late Liverpool fans were responsible for the Leeds v Coventry crush, although Liverpool weren't playing?

[mikem8634 10]

Why have you not addressed these points?

 

So you are still claiming to know more about the numbers and impact of lateness, drunkenness and violence than anybody who has completed a comprehensive review of all available evidence?

 

You are still ignoring every informed and knowledgeable person who has categorically said that these things were not a factor.

 

Of course they've "accepted" that they were "wrong".

 

They operate in the public sphere and have salaries and/or pensions to protect.

 

They can't afford to be villified by the press and the victim's families and become pariahs.

 

Do you believe then, that their acceptance is insincere?

 

 

I'm not blaming the fans for supporting the same clubs as the murderers at Heysel, but that crime may well have influenced the police opinion of Liverpool fans and their actions.

 

Nobody faced murder charges following Heysel as they were not applicable.

 

As I have already pointed out, the HIP report comprehensively covers the fact that that Heysel did, indeed, unduly and negatively influence the police opinion of Liverpool fans and their actions. Why should fans, the vast majority of whom had no connection to or culpability for Heysel, accept what you refer to as a high degree of culpability for what transpired at Hillsborough for the police's prejudice against them?

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 16:28 ----------

 

nope. Leeds v Coventry '87

 

http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/18/hillsborough-leeds-v-coventry-1987-semi-final/

 

sorry I haven't found a better link yet. I'm sure there's a film clip of news somewhere in this thread sometime in October, but I haven't found it

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 16:13 ----------

 

so just explain to me again... the drunk, late Liverpool fans were responsible for the Leeds v Coventry crush, although Liverpool weren't playing?

 

Sorry I couldn't unearth that news clip for you Strix but let me point people to this http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/main-section/part-2/chapter-1/

 

Chapter 1: 1981-1989: unheeded warnings, the seeds of disaster

 

Well worth a read for anyone - concerning previous crushes - only 11 pages. If you have any interest in the evidence that is.

Edited February 27, 2013 by mikem8634

[frededwards 10]

 

 

 

Do you believe then, that their acceptance is insincere?.

 

 

Absolutely, 100%. They are doing anything they can to mitigate the losses to their bank balances and avoid being crucified.

[Strix 11]

An interesting account of the '87 Leeds v Coventry match (starts the same as the previous link but content is different)

http://twittweb.com/andrewhaigh+hillsboroug-24993866

[downhiller 10]

Why?

 

You still haven't shown how they contributed to the disaster by doing anything other then simply being there and thus allowing the police to mismanage them.

 

How would you suggest the police should have managed them-apart from delaying the kick off. With the huge crush outside of the gates the kick off should have been put back half an hour,otherwise a major incident would have occurred regardless.

[mikem8634 10]

Absolutely, 100%. They are doing anything they can to mitigate the losses to their bank balances and avoid being crucified.

 

That's one straight answer, well done.

 

Once again, here are the questions that you either cannot or will not answer.

 

Why have you not addressed these points?

 

So you are still claiming to know more about the numbers and impact of lateness, drunkenness and violence than anybody who has completed a comprehensive review of all available evidence?

 

You are still ignoring every informed and knowledgeable person who has categorically said that these things were not a factor.

 

Why should fans, the vast majority of whom had no connection to or culpability for Heysel, accept what you refer to as a high degree of culpability for what transpired at Hillsborough simply because the police held a prejudiced view of them?

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 17:40 ----------

 

How would you suggest the police should have managed them-apart from delaying the kick off. With the huge crush outside of the gates the kick off should have been put back half an hour,otherwise a major incident would have occurred regardless.

 

Delaying the kick-off would seem like a viable and prudent option. Also, they should have been filtered on approach the way they were the previous year.

 

From the HIP Report -

 

15 April 1989

The circumstances

1.77 Consistent with the Operational Order, many spectators arriving in Sheffield on trains and coaches were escorted by the police from their point of arrival to the stadium. As they approached the stadium there was no filtering of the crowd and the bottleneck at the concourse in front of the turnstiles became tightly packed. With walls, fences or gates to the sides and front of this small area, the only relief was to move backwards. Many more fans arrived, oblivious to the mounting crush at the front, and the situation in the vicinity of the turnstiles soon became critical.

Edited February 27, 2013 by mikem8634

[Jeffrey Shaw 93]

As a non-football-fan, can I ask this: why would 'filtering' of the crowd be needed?

[mikem8634 10]

As a non-football-fan, can I ask this: why would 'filtering' of the crowd be needed?

To slow down the approach by holding some of the crowd back in areas large enough to accommodate them. This, in turn, avoids a bottleneck at antiquated turnstyles and allows them to safely cope without a build up of fans in an enclosed area where it could become dangerous.

 

 

2.3.6 Regarding responsibility for the safe passage of fans and their well-being once inside the stadium, the disclosed documents demonstrate that serious deficiencies were accommodated, even rationalised, by established custom and practice. Warning signs that were clearly evident in the management of the crowd at previous semi-finals were, at best, not taken seriously. At worst they amounted to serious negligence in the face of foreseeable and imminent danger.

 

2.3.25 According to the FA, the only concern about the suitability of Hillsborough for a capacity match attended by two sets of fans unfamiliar with the stadium layout centred on the configuration of the turnstiles at Leppings Lane: 'The rate at which the turnstiles were expected to operate at various sections of the ground does not appear to have been the subject of sufficient consideration by the organisers'.

 

2.3.26 As stated in the previous chapter, the processing of almost half the match attendance through 23 turnstiles entering via a confined concourse at one narrow end of the stadium constituted a clear and foreseeable risk.

[LeMaquis 10]

But, on that occasion, no-one died.

 

Same ground, same stewards, same policemen.....

 

The same policemen argument is where you fall down. The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 was described by the original Taylor Report as predominantly a failure of policing. The root cause of that failure was due to Duckenfield being put in charge just a few weeks before the match. He had no experience of big football matches and no one to guide him. The reason for that was due to his predecessor who had all the necessary experience being suspended for some shenanigans at Hammerton Road police station. The events on the day followed on from that suspension. If the usual people had been in charge things could have been controlled.

[Eater Sundae 12]

The same policemen argument is where you fall down. The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 was described by the original Taylor Report as predominantly a failure of policing. The root cause of that failure was due to Duckenfield being put in charge just a few weeks before the match. He had no experience of big football matches and no one to guide him. The reason for that was due to his predecessor who had all the necessary experience being suspended for some shenanigans at Hammerton Road police station. The events on the day followed on from that suspension. If the usual people had been in charge things could have been controlled.

 

So is it then right that Duckenfield shoulders most of the blame in many people's opinion? Those who put an inadequately experienced and therefore incapable officer in this position, without adequate training, should receive the blame, not the person they appointed.

[frededwards 10]

The same policemen argument is where you fall down. The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 was described by the original Taylor Report as predominantly a failure of policing. The root cause of that failure was due to Duckenfield being put in charge just a few weeks before the match. He had no experience of big football matches and no one to guide him. The reason for that was due to his predecessor who had all the necessary experience being suspended for some shenanigans at Hammerton Road police station. The events on the day followed on from that suspension. If the usual people had been in charge things could have been controlled.

 

Irrelevant. If the football fans had behaved like civilised human beings, the day would have passed without injury.

 

You never see anything approaching this sort of behaviour at a rugby match.