Hillsborough Inquest Verdicts Returned

[mikem8634 10]

So you'd rather believe in the myths.

 

Bottom, line and I've said it many times before that the fundamental cause of the deaths was failure to control access to the tunnel. The police had failed in that basic task even before the outer gates were opened.

 

It's really simple.

 

Whilst you are factually spot on and I'd be perfectly happy to have discussions like this, there has been a mod warning about discussing blaming fans and encouraging foxy lady to do that (if those are the myths she is talking about) could get the thread shut down again.

 

Apologies if I'm wrong.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2016 at 00:29 ----------

 

What is simple is your hindsight. What I've said many times is that if the tunnel had been closed, barricading the already overfull central pen, we'd be probably looking at fewer deaths, but certainly injuries or worse, as had happened before (and BEFORE the pens).

 

You shut that, and block in those fans with already no where to go, and you'd as good as be killing them. We'd be arguing now, whether the person who shut it/ordered it to be shut was up for murder or not.

 

The problem was way way before this tunnel decision/or even this game. It was an accident waiting to happen, and everyone who went to away games at the time knew this. Me included. (though obviously not to this scale)

 

In your experience, if the tunnel had been closed and the central pen area was not overfull would that have been ok?

 

Isn't that The Freeman Tactic that had worked before?

Edited May 5, 2016 by mikem8634

[I1L2T3 10]

What is simple is your hindsight. What I've said many times is that if the tunnel had been closed, barricading the already overfull central pen, we'd be probably looking at fewer deaths, but certainly injuries or worse, as had happened before (and BEFORE the pens).

 

You shut that, and block in those fans with already no where to go, and you'd as good as be killing them. We'd be arguing now, whether the person who shut it/ordered it to be shut was up for murder or not.

 

The problem was way way before this tunnel decision/or even this game. It was an accident waiting to happen, and everyone who went to away games at the time knew this. Me included. (though obviously not to this scale)

 

No, it really is that simple. Well before the outer gates were opened the tunnel should have been closed. It was procedure at the ground to restrict access to the tunnel when the central pens became full but for some reason that day it didn't happen.

 

My hindsight is flavoured by being a football fan involved in a situation in the Leppings Lane terrace a couple of years before 1989. I detailed it earlier in the thread.

 

Did you ever stand on that terrace, go through that tunnel.....

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2016 at 00:48 ----------

 

Whilst you are factually spot on and I'd be perfectly happy to have discussions like this, there has been a mod warning about discussing blaming fans and encouraging foxy lady to do that (if those are the myths she is talking about) could get the thread shut down again.

 

Apologies if I'm wrong.

 

No I'm actually trying to discourage that being discussed.

[mikem8634 10]

No I'm actually trying to discourage that being discussed.

 

Sorry for not being clear. I know that's what you were doing, I understood and agreed with your point.

 

I meant encouraging in the sense that your challenge might encourage a reply that gets the thread closed.

 

Sorry for interfering and I'll shut up now.

 

 

Regarding closing the tunnel. The reason Duckenfield didn't do it was that his preparation was so poor that he didn't know anything about it. He didn't consult anyone with relevant experience, including Brian Mole who allegedly offered to help (Duckenfield denies this). He didn't spot the problem when he inspected the ground. He didn't realise there may be a need and he didn't know it had been standard practice before.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2016 at 01:44 ----------

 

Sounds like a guy clutching at straws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/james-obrien-skewers-kelvin-mackenzie-over-the-suns-hillsborough-front-page_uk_5720a371e4b0d6f7bed53bd7

 

A youtube compilation targeting Kelvin Mackenzie. It is built around another blistering piece by James O'Brien and includes Harry Arnold talking about how different his article about Hillsborough was before the context was altered by Mackenzie.

 

NOTE: There is some footage from the disaster at the very end.

Edited May 6, 2016 by mikem8634

[Lex Luthor 10]

 

Regarding closing the tunnel. The reason Duckenfield didn't do it was that his preparation was so poor that he didn't know anything about it. He didn't consult anyone with relevant experience, including Brian Mole who allegedly offered to help (Duckenfield denies this). He didn't spot the problem when he inspected the ground. He didn't realise there may be a need and he didn't know it had been standard practice before.

 

 

A recent article I read might offer a different perspective to these points:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-inquest-david-duckenfield-admitted-to-deceitfully-blaming-supporters-for-the-disaster-a7001221.html

 

But the past two years have also revealed that having been asked to command the match Duckenfield asked Mole, who had always been hands-on, to give him time and advice, only to find the officer, affronted by his own demotion, unwilling. Rather than tackle this problem by attending the stadium and developing an understanding, Duckenfield merely retreated to his office, sulking and smarting.

 

and

 

Two pieces of evidence suggested that Duckenfield had the knowledge to foretell precisely how disastrous his actions might be. The first was an obscure item from Lord Justice Taylor’s 1990 Hillsborough report, at which Duckenfield declared he had attended a match when Millwall visited the ground which had produced the same cramming in the central pens where Liverpool’s fans died. The second turned up the fine detail of a Duckenfield letter to his own Chief Constable, suggesting he had also experienced the same crush in 1979.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Lex Luthor

[alchresearch 215]

Just as a quick question, why did people in Liverpool buy that rag before the disaster?

 

They still do. The story that Liverpool doesn't sell The Sun is a myth. Some newsagents just keep it under the counter rather than have it on display.

[Lex Luthor 10]

They still do. The story that Liverpool doesn't sell The Sun is a myth. Some newsagents just keep it under the counter rather than have it on display.

 

They should site it proudly on the shelf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next to the other bog rolls.

[mikem8634 10]

They still do. The story that Liverpool doesn't sell The Sun is a myth. Some newsagents just keep it under the counter rather than have it on display.

 

I don't think anybody has ever claimed it doesn't sell at all. That would be ridiculous. You are skewring a myth you have invented yourself.

 

It would be wrong to suggest that it is banned outright and has no presence at all, that is the myth. We live in an era of corporate chains and largescale distribution agreements. A good few retailers will have little choice as to what they do with The Sun.

 

If you read some Liverpool forums you will see people discussing their daily ritual of eclipsing The Sun with with a few copies of The Mirror or Guardian as they leave the supermarket with the daily shop.

 

I am guessing that your newsagents story is based on a pretty small, anecdotal sample base. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were true. It is also insignificant to the fact that The Sun is subject to a boycott in Merseyside.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2016 at 11:31 ----------

 

A recent article I read might offer a different perspective to these points:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-inquest-david-duckenfield-admitted-to-deceitfully-blaming-supporters-for-the-disaster-a7001221.html

 

Wow, thanks Lex, that's a really good spot. I had missed that. So I was wrong to say he did not know of the potential danger. And that is a key point in the verdict of unlawful killing. Of course.

Edited May 6, 2016 by mikem8634

[stifflersmom 11]

That's not true. The jury had the opportunity to add comments to their answers to each question. The questionnaire, and the jury's answers, are here.

 

Thank you, for the link. The only question where the option of an explanation is not taken is the one on fan behaviour. I've no point to make in relation to this, I just find it somewhat disppointing that the opportunity to fully close an avenue of speculation and prejudice doesn't appear to have been taken.

[mikem8634 10]

Thank you, for the link. The only question where the option of an explanation is not taken is the one on fan behaviour. I've no point to make in relation to this, I just find it somewhat disppointing that the opportunity to fully close an avenue of speculation and prejudice doesn't appear to have been taken.

 

Their ansers to the questions add up to these staments -

 

There was no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles

 

There was no behaviour on the part of football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles

 

I am not really sure what more could be done to fully close an avenue of speculation and prejudice.