Jump to content
Groose

The next person to start victim blaming or anything similar will be suspended. and the thread closed. Posts have already been removed for it.

Message added by Groose

Recommended Posts

30 years on and it still goes on.mr duckenfield and mr mackerel  I’m sure at the time this happened that the decision s etc to be made would have been a tremendous pressure for all staff on the day.i think that this should have been dealt with when it was fresh in everybody’s mind,these two men I’m sure will be glad to get on with there life,I think all charges should have gone to the club as a business and not put on to  the two men.lets hope lessons have been learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree,also it appears and many agree,how can a health&safety officer be responsible for a stadium that the FA and SCC knew didnt have a safety certifcate ,why wasnt the council or owners in the dock?   it seems all these people knew inc the police ,yet the poor middle man is the person being charged,have i missed something ,or major details?,i dont get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next person to start victim blaming or anything similar will be suspended. and the thread closed. Posts have already been removed for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maggidee said:

i think that this should have been dealt with when it was fresh in everybody’s mind,

I was under the impression that new evidence had been found?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maggidee said:

30 years on and it still goes on.mr duckenfield and mr mackerel  I’m sure at the time this happened that the decision s etc to be made would have been a tremendous pressure for all staff on the day.i think that this should have been dealt with when it was fresh in everybody’s mind,these two men I’m sure will be glad to get on with there life,I think all charges should have gone to the club as a business and not put on to  the two men.lets hope lessons have been learned.

If the club had been charged at the time and those responsible for the club held to account I would agree. However, SWFC has changed ownership several times since 1989 and is currently owned by an individual who was a small boy in Thailand when disaster happened - how would it be fair to hold him criminally responsible for others' actions? Mr Chansiri and the fans of SWFC would be the only people to suffer from any criminal charges brought against the club now, both of whom have very little if any culpability for what occurred.

 

As tragic as the events of 1989 were they are in my opinion overshadowed by the horrific cover-up operation by the authorities and the smear campaign that ensued against Liverpool fans, which in design and implementation went right to the doors of number 10 Downing Street. Those involved in that should be held accountable not just those whose involvement on the day contributed to the disaster, notwithstanding many of the key players in the establishment stitch-up job are now dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, makapaka said:

It wasn’t dealt with at the time because the police were too busy with the victim blaming and cover up that followed.

 

 

Sounds like Orgreave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did mean the club at that time not now.i just hope this will be the end to it and the thousands of pounds it’s cost into these enquires.it seems that the end will come only after guilty verdict s are put on somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, maggidee said:

Yes I did mean the club at that time not now.i just hope this will be the end to it and the thousands of pounds it’s cost into these enquires.it seems that the end will come only after guilty verdict s are put on somebody.

Well that's how justice usually works isn't it.

 

Duckenfield and Mackrell could always have accepted responsibility for it if they'd wished

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why can a man working for swfc ,be blamed,when scc and the police and everyone knew we didnt even have a safety licence,so that must over rule mackrell fault,he was told to get on with the job,he didnt choose were the supporters  were allicated to be,he didnt agree to the match going ahead with no certificate of safety,i just would like to know,why the game went ahead a licence and who agree to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bassett one said:

but why can a man working for swfc ,be blamed,when scc and the police and everyone knew we didnt even have a safety licence,so that must over rule mackrell fault,he was told to get on with the job,he didnt choose were the supporters  were allicated to be,he didnt agree to the match going ahead with no certificate of safety,i just would like to know,why the game went ahead a licence and who agree to it?

The club did have a safety certificate, it had just not been updated, and work had been carried out on the Leppings Lane terrace after it's issue …. I believe, It was probably quite common back then for clubs to overlook such things, unfortunately it was an accident waiting to happen at a british football ground and it happened at Hillsborough. Looking back at those days, and over the years,  as a well travelled football supporter, I can honestly say along with quite a few others, 'there but for the grace of god' !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Michael_W said:

The club did have a safety certificate, it had just not been updated, and work had been carried out on the Leppings Lane terrace after it's issue …. I believe, It was probably quite common back then for clubs to overlook such things, unfortunately it was an accident waiting to happen at a british football ground and it happened at Hillsborough. Looking back at those days, and over the years,  as a well travelled football supporter, I can honestly say along with quite a few others, 'there but for the grace of god' !

Me too.

 

One of the things highlighted at the trial was the "lack of turnstiles" at the Leppings Lane end. If memory serves Leppings Lane was at the time one of the better served "away ends" in terms of the number of turnstiles. Visited Anfield a couple of times in the 80's with a couple of mates from Liverpool and stood on the Kop - don't remember a huge number of turnstiles and they were all in one corner by the flagpole - plus you had to be in the ground by 2pm if you wanted a half decent spot.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Me too.

 

One of the things highlighted at the trial was the "lack of turnstiles" at the Leppings Lane end. If memory serves Leppings Lane was at the time one of the better served "away ends" in terms of the number of turnstiles. Visited Anfield a couple of times in the 80's with a couple of mates from Liverpool and stood on the Kop - don't remember a huge number of turnstiles and they were all in one corner by the flagpole - plus you had to be in the ground by 2pm if you wanted a half decent spot.

May I ask, was it 'lack of turnstiles' or lack of open turnstiles ?

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.