Jump to content

Hillsborough Inquest Verdicts Returned

Recommended Posts

Having followed the inquests in great detail, it's a shame the fans were found "in no way to blame." I don't see how you can examine the evidence and not see that there were failings on both sides: it's fine to hold to the police to account for mismanagement but there has to be an element of personal responsibility for those who actually caused the crush. It was an inevitable result though, I suppose, given the (bizarrely chosen) location of the inquests and the origins of the jurors.

 

From reading numerous posts on numerous forums I think Amazon123's comment reflects what the majority of the population are thinking (unless you're from the North West that is).

 

How the hell was the trial allowed to take place on the doorstep of the unfortunate victims - the result was a foregone conclusion and not an impartial trial.

 

All parties had a hand in what was an unfortunate accident ie a series of events that combined to create a set of tragic circumstances.

 

Let the compensation claims begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 questions.13 answered yes.the only question that was answered no to was.Did supporters behaviour contribute to the event.? No.Sorry but they not little angels.

 

Wrong.

 

The question of whether SWFC staff on the day were responsible came back as no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I recall there was testimony of improper behaviour by police, stewards and turnstile operators. But I don't think that these days you're allowed to report anything which may portray those lovable Liverpool fans in a bad light.

 

I recall looking at some of the evidence on the Hillsborough "independent" panel website when it was published, there was some pretty damning stuff on there, but obviously it went unreported, was ignored and wasn't included in the report. I can't think why.

 

Yup, I've seen that too. Several police statements mention ticketless fans, several mention drunks. Not read them all but seen enough to know there were ticketless fans and drunks there that day.

 

However, the jury saw ALL the evidence and based their decision on all that evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I've seen that too. Several police statements mention ticketless fans, several mention drunks. Not read them all but seen enough to know there were ticketless fans and drunks there that day.

 

However, the jury saw ALL the evidence and based their decision on all that evidence.

 

I don't think anyone denies there were drunk fans or some without tickets. My local pub which is 10 minutes from the ground sold out of beer at day, in 3 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I've seen that too. Several police statements mention ticketless fans, several mention drunks. Not read them all but seen enough to know there were ticketless fans and drunks there that day.

 

However, the jury saw ALL the evidence and based their decision on all that evidence.

 

But, reporting evidence in the press to the general public is different to hearing evidence and listening to evidence as a juror.

 

If the BBC didn't report it, you cannot make the assumption that the jury didn't listen to it, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There had been previous crushes in both the 81 and 88 semi finals and the police knew all about the bottleneck conditions at that part of the ground. There was even a specific tactic named after a superintendent, John Freeman, which entailed opening the exit gate but crucially closing the tunnel through to the central pens where the crush occurred.

 

So the behaviour of the crowd on that day was not unique, it was predictable.

 

Duckenfield, who had been recently promoted to the job, admitted he was unaware of the grounds layout and had not bothered to familiarise himself with the ground. When the gate was opened he failed to ensure the tunnel was closed as per established tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this thread of any value at all ?

 

Views are completely polarised - there is no discussion going on is there, its just one opinion followed by another opposite opinion. Pointless

 

The point of the inquest was to unpolarise those views. Doesn't look like it has worked though...

 

It is pointless to discuss this with people that haven't bothered looking at reports, read testimony or invested a tiny bit of thought into all the evidence that was presented and prefer to rely on unchallenged heresay.

 

I use italics there because of course lots of people have their own evidence that they are happy to keep to themselves because apparently they don't want true justice and were quite happy to not go to court and so let SYP take all the flak. They apparently wanted the whitewash they so despise.....

Edited by Shef1985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good that this has shown up 'The Sun' once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He lied. For that alone he should be prosecuted.

 

A lady has just spoken at the press conference, a relative of one of the 96. She said if Duckinfield had told the truth 27 years ago then the last 27 years would not have happened.

 

Terrible to live with the knowledge he has? Jesus what about the relatives who've waited 27 years for the truth.

 

The point of the inquest was to unpolarise those views. Doesn't look like it has worked though...

 

It is pointless to discuss this with people that haven't bothered looking at reports, read testimony or invested a tiny bit of thought into all the evidence that was presented and prefer to rely on unchallenged heresay.

 

I use italics there because of course lots of people have their own evidence that they are happy to keep to themselves because apparently they don't want true justice and were quite happy to not go to court and so let SYP a take all the flak. They apparently wanted the whitewash they so despise.....

 

So many people have yet to realise the difference between knowledge and belief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not the question the jury was asked, this is:

 

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

 

Well if there wasn't ...why was there a need to open the gate to let them in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the police didn't open the gate's who would be at fault then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if the police didn't open the gate's who would be at fault then ?

 

LOL,are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.