Hillsborough verdict

nigglynellie, I find your post disgraceful!

Of course there were health and safety rules! Of course the police were trained in crowd control! There were ambulances outside the stadium, which were prevented from entering by the police.

The latest inquest has legally exonerated the fans of blame. Relatives have suffered 27 years of being stigmatised by attitudes such as yours, but it appears even now that some people think they know better than the law.

The ruling stated that there were errors by the police and ambulance services. It may well be that the CPS decides that a conviction isn't realistic, but the point is that legally the deaths have been ruled as 'unlawful killing' - in other words it wasn't an accident and could have been prevented.

If Duckenfield is put on trial, it WILL be for separate offences. This was an inquest, not a trial.

Nobody is blaming victims to defend the Police. Some are just pointing out that times were very different then and that the Police were facing an unprecedented situation for which they were woefully unprepared. You cannot blame a young police officer for being overwhelmed when faced with a situation that no one could have anticipated. How can a senior officer know that he's not up to a particular job before an event that no one had even imagined never mind trained for? Where the Police failed was covering up their mistakes and trying to pass the blame wholly and solely onto the fans, but to say the Police were completely at fault is not right either.

Niggle, Hillsborough was not an accident waiting to happen, it was not an accident , it was the unlawful killing of ninety seven innocent people

No! The police failed on the day the fans died. The cover ups are a separate issue.

Comments by you and others are potentially libellous and have been ruled false by the inquest jury. Duckenfield wasn't young. The situation could have been anticipated, because similar crushing had occurred previously at Hillsborough.

I do see nigglynellie's point about football hooliganism because it was endemic at that time even though it was a minority causing the trouble.
Unfortunately this was seized on by the police who then tried to lay blame at the door of the fans and direct any blame away from themselves. Because of all the incidents of hooliganism, fighting and even previous deaths it was easy to cover up their actions by blaming the fans because people were ready to believe these untruths.

Improvements in safety at grounds have been far-reaching and the costs huge - but worth it because the cost in human lives beforehand was devastating.

www.thenbs.com/knowledge/sports-ground-safety

In case anyone misunderstands my post I will reiterate what I posted earlier:

It was the lying, the cover-ups and blaming dead victims that is abhorrent in this case

Whoa! Niggly's post is not 'disgraceful'. She is correct in that the level of violence at football matches and outside was extreme in the 70s & 80s. This is why barriers were erected in the first place - to separate warring fans.

And then there was Heysel in 1985(?) which resulted in English Clubs being banned from European football for years.

I'm not casting blame, but just pointing out, as I said in an earlier post, there was more to this tragedy than one man's mistake.

You can think what you like of me dd, but even you would have to admit that football violence was endemic at this time, and the Police could be forgiven for believing that his was the situation they were facing. I think you'll find that St John's Ambulance were in attendance and that Yorkshire Ambulance Service response was totally inadequate, something that would not happen today. Health and Safety at Football matches was for the most part vague and ineffective, again, totally different today. You obviously never experienced football violence at first hand. I did, and it was terrifying.

I thunk niggle was wrong to say it was an accident waiting to happen . Hooligsnism she was correct, accident ? No.

He spoke of learning on the job, anyone learning on the job is not put in charge surely

daphnedill but why say that in the verdict? (about Duckenfield himself being guilty of manslaughter)

It was nigglynellie and I remember being fearful when my friend asked if her son could come and stay with us overnight so that he could go to a match (Spurs); this would have been in the early 1980s and he was 16 at the time. I was worried sick until he came back safely again.

I think I can just about understand the 'unlawful killing' (strange phrasing surely) rather than 'accidental deaths, but to put all the blame on Duckenfield - no.

Will compensation claims be forthcoming?

Following the second Ibrox disaster in 1971 where 66 fans died and hundreds more were injured, the government of the time commissioned a 'Green Book' on safety at Sports Grounds.

Many of those recommendations were not followed and it was only after the Hillsbourough tradegy that many of its recommendations were made obligatory and football grounds are much safer places these days.

Just a shame there wasn't a kinder way for the powers that be to get their brains in gear.

I think most people understand that 'an accident waiting to happen' is a figure of speech, but for clarity maybe 'incident' would be a better word. Oh heavens yes jingle, your last comment is so true.

"but why say that in the verdict? (about Duckenfield himself being guilty of manslaughter)"

This was an inquest, not a criminal trial!

The standard of proof is higher in a criminal manslaughter trial than in an inquest, which has no strict rules for burden of proof.

The inquest did NOT put all the blame on Duckenfield. Errors by the police and ambulance service were cited. It did, however, rule that he was grossly negligent and that the fans did not contribute to the deaths by their behaviour. To claim otherwise is, as the law stands, totally wrong. Any of the fans who arrived at the end of the queue and find themselves 'blamed' could, in theory, sue.

It's taken 27 years to get this far and people still don't seem to get it.

nn, Are you STILL claiming that the fans at Hillsborough were violent?

As it happens, I come from Merseyside and I used to go quite regularly to matches at Anfield in the 1970s and early 1980s, so I know how fans behaved and how the police treated them at times.

Your prejudices have nothing to do with the verdict. An inquest has ruled that the fans on the day did NOT contribute to the deaths. How clear is that?

Jalima, I agree with you that it was the well-orchestrated and deliberate lying and cover ups which were totally abhorrent.

Nevertheless, Duckenfield made a catastrophic error of judgement and could have reasonably foreseen the outcome. Whether the claim that he was 'grossly negligent' and/or guilty of manslaughter will stand up in a criminal court (or if he is even put on trial), remains to be seen. From the fans' point of view, they have had to put up with being made to feel guilty for 27 years by the media and ill-informed outsiders, which is why the inquest has been so significant for them.

Where have I said that the Hillsborough fans were violent?! What I have said if you could be bothered to read it properly is that during this period football fans generally had a reputation for violence which coloured the perception the public had of these fans. As Jalima pointed out, DS's wanting to attend football matches was viewed with dread, and relief when they came home safely. I also said that police on the ground at the time believed that they were facing a riot. I did not say they were.

Police on the ground claimed they believed they were facing a riot, just as they claimed they believed the victims were drunk , stole from the dead and urinated on the dead , not very bright were they

That's as maybe ab, but I have not said any of these things, perhaps we can get that straight. I have only said what I think the police may have believed, not what I personally think.

I don't see how they can come out and say he is guilty of manslaughter, but it's ok because this is only an inquest. Either he is guilty of it or he isn't. Makes no sense to me.

Are you saying there is no legal standing to it? Are we sure Duckenfield couldn't sue them?! What if there is a criminal trial and it brings in a verdict of him being not guilty of manslaughter.

Seems ridiculous all round.

Are you denying the violent element in football in the 70s & 80s DD - or are you saying that Liverpool fans were an exception?

I too lived in Merseyside during this time and I can assure you there was a hard core of violence, before, during and after matches - do much so that many genuine supporters were reluctant to take their children with them to matches.