Hillsborough verdict

Not sure what football violence has got to do with Hillsborough. TBH.

Can we really be sure the fans weren't late getting to the match? Through staying too long in the town? Drinking? Apparently we can. If we take these findings as the gospel truth.

And, of course, we do.

I think there are lots of things we can't be sure of and after all this time will be difficult to unravel. The only clear reprehensible action on the part of the Police was that after the event they deliberately made a consertive effort to cover up mistakes they'd made. At the actual time the situation was undoubtedly totally misjudged by the police, but not imo deliberately or criminally. Other factors could certainly have played a part, or not, and this is what is going to be difficult to determine.

Anya
I'm an Evertonian, my best friend (since we met at primary school) is a Liverpool supporter.
We attended matches together all through the seventies and early eighties, we went to both our teams home games whenever possible. She would stand with me at the Gwladys Street End at Goodison Park, me with a blue and white scarf her with a red one. On Liverpool's home game days, we'd stand together in the Kop, again her in a red scarf, me in blue and white!
We were poked fun at by the opposite teams supporters, but never once did either of us feel threatened or intimidated in any way.
I have never seen any Liverpool fan giving an Everton supporter serious 'grief', nor have I witnessed it in reverse.
Derby matches are serious events, the rivalry is legendary, but on the whole, the fans were fine together.
I'm not denying there was some violence, but on the whole, supporters of both teams in the city of Liverpool (in my opinion, Everton and Everton 'B' team) have been better behaved than the majority of 'big team' fans!
We only stopped going to matches when we had our children, neither of Sue's have any interest at all in football, and my DS has always preferred rugby, so nowadays we're almost exclusively supporters from the comfort of an armchair

jingl the relationship between football hooliganism/violence and Hillsborough, and indeed Heysel, was the way the stadia very constructed to separats warring fans. Cages, walls, barriers, etc were built to separate them and to stop pitch invasions.

Therefore when the stadium was flooded with extra fans those at the front, in particular, were crushed against the barriers. At Heysel, when the Liverpool fans attacked the opposing fans, they broke down a barrier to get at them.

Juggernaut you're wearing rose-tinted glasses, though I'm glad you admit to 'some violence'. I only went to one match and never again. Both teams' fans were making threatening gestures at each other and shouting things like 'I'll rip your f***ing head off if I get over there'. Luckily 'over there' was a good strong barrier, but it was a different story after the game with rival gangs of ''supporters' chasing each other down the streets.

It has been said that these were not true fans, and I can accept this, but just yobos out for a fight and using football as an excuse.

Not sure what football violence has got to do with Hillsborough. TBH.
I don't think anyone is saying that there was any violence whatsoever there; however, set in the context of the 1970s and 80s and because of the hooliganism and violence that prevailed during that era it was easy for the police to shift the blame on to the fans.
And as Anya explained, the way the stadium was set up to prevent violence between supporters of opposing teams with pens and barriers, and with no seating, no pre-booking of tickets, when those fans outside were allowed in to an already crowded stadium then anyone with an ounce of experience and common sense should have known it was a recipe for disaster.

I had the misfortune to be in Headington (where the old stadium was)one Saturday evening donkeys years ago after Oxford United had lost to?!! and trying to get back down into Oxford on the bus, was the stuff that nightmares are made of. It was awful, a complete riot, and very frightening. Let's just say, I never made that mistake again!!! I think you were lucky Juggernaut!!

The cameras showed there were many fans in the stadium yet the police opened the gate to allow more in, how were those outside to know the enclosure was full

Yes Jalima you are right. But faced with people desperate to get into the ground, I guess it would have been quite difficult for the Police to prevent, and they risked being overwhelmed. Again I'm only surmising. Exactly what the Police's reasoning was is one of the things that needs to be got to the bottom of. Hoping for the best probably, but we don't know that, and until we do, no judgement can be made.

No one is blaming the fans who obviously should have been directed to another part of the stands. Whether there would have been a riot or not outside is only speculation.

Another factor which ought to be mentioned was the capacity of this stadium. Why on earth was it chosen for such an important match when it could have been anticipated that demand would outstrip capacity, making it a manifestly unsuitable venue for such a major game. Presumably this venue was chosen by the FA.

Anya,

With respect, Hillsborough wasn't about the match you attended. It was about policing on one particular day. Of course, any police force will be on the look out for violence whenever a crowd of over 50,000 gathers and should have strategies for dealing with that, but it also has duty of care to people. They should never be treated as a dehumanised, animalistic mob, as they were by the police allegedly in control at Hillsborough. There is little evidence of any violence or alcohol outside the stadium. There were about 2000 people, who were excited about seeing their team in the semi-final of the FA cup. They had probably been talking about it for days, if not weeks. There is evidence that the police were not in control outside the stadium and fans weren't being directed. The police weren't doing their job properly, because they weren't being managed.

This match was the biggest 'job' that South Yorks Police had that year and there was plenty of time to prepare for it. This is from a Guardian article, taken directly from the inquest statements, which are too long to reproduce here:

"After taking over on 27 March 1989, Duckenfield found time to lay down the law to his officers, but he admitted to Christina Lambert QC, for the coroner, Sir John Goldring, that he failed to do basic preparation for the semi-final. He did not study relevant paperwork, including the force’s major incident procedure, and signed off the operational plan two days after taking over, before he had even visited the ground.

He turned up to command the semi-final, he admitted, knowing very little about Hillsborough’s safety history: about the crushes at the 1981 and 1988 semi-finals, or that the approach to the Leppings Lane end was a “natural geographical bottleneck” to which Mole had carefully managed supporters’ entry.

Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four. He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing....

Having failed to prepare, Duckenfield admitted 26 years later that he also failed profoundly at the match itself. He did not know what he was doing. While Mole used to be driven all over Sheffield before a big match to check on traffic flows, then, closer to the 3pm kickoff, patrol around the ground, Duckenfield said he still could not remember at all what he did in more than two hours between concluding his briefing of officers and arriving in the control box at 2pm. Once in the small control room, he stayed there.

Supt Roger Marshall, put in charge outside, was new to the role. In his evidence, he accepted the police had no plan to filter people’s entry into the Leppings Lane bottleneck, using police horses or cordons, beyond “some random ticket checking and … some checks for drunkenness”. Repeatedly played footage of the mass congestion that developed, Marshall admitted that it was a problem starting at 2.15pm, with thousands more people still arriving, and by 2.35pm, police had “completely lost control”.

www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

Duckenfield was supposed to be in charge, but he wasn't. He failed to do his job. The lies, smears and cover ups started even before people were taken off the pitch. There was no crime of corporate manslaughter in 1989. If there had been, South Yorks Police would probably find itself in the dock. As it is, an inquest, which is primarily a fact finding exercise, has made a statement and given its opinion. It will be up to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute any individuals.

"No one is blaming the fans who obviously should have been directed to another part of the stands."

Some people have been blaming the fans for 27 years!

"Exactly what the Police's reasoning was is one of the things that needs to be got to the bottom of. Hoping for the best probably, but we don't know that, and until we do, no judgement can be made."

The inquest DID get to the bottom of the police's decision. There had been inadequate preparations and planning for the match. The judgement of the inquest was that the person who should have been in charge of preparation, planning and strategy on the day didn't do his job.

Why is it that nobody can ever put forward a comment or an opinion for discussion on any of these threads without being shouted down. We're all entitled to an opinion and deserve a respectful response whether agreed with or not, not lambasted and threatened with more links from the wretched Guardian newspaper If we don't fall into line. It's so frustrating!!

What a ridiculous comment to make on a thread about a serious issue such as this. Shame on you, Nellie.

Thanks for the lecture DD - it would appear that you do not read other people's posts and just stick to your own agenda. 'With respect' you are blinkered by your refusal to see the full picture.

Why is it shameful to say that 'we're all entitled to an opinion and deserve a respectful response whether agreed with or not'? Tegan

Don't you agree with that

I've just spent an hour reading other people's posts and reports of the inquest. :-) It seems some people don't seem to want to accept the rulings of the inquest and want to sidetrack the main issue or perpetuate the myth that Liverpool fans were responsible that day due to stereotyped view of football fans.

I agree that the lies and cover ups were appalling, but they are a separate issue and shouldn't distract from the failings on the day itself.

It also seems that some people don't know the difference between an inquest and a trial.

niggly, You're entitled to an opinion (as is everybody) but you're also entitled to be given facts. Other people are entitled to give facts. If your opinion doesn't correlate with the facts, you have every right to carry on stating your opinion, but unless you can come up with alternative facts, it's called 'digging a hole'.

So which posts state that they don't accept the rulings of the inquest?
which posts are perpetuating the myth that Liverpool fans were responsible due to stereotyped views of football fans?

I certainly did not say that but I did say that the prevailing views at the time were that for years some football fans had been violent and indulged in hooliganism and that those views which were held by the country in general (and Europe) allowed the police to cover up their actions/inactions/failings.

I think that is the point that some posters were trying to make too.
If you cannot understand that point, I am at a loss to explain it any better.
Perhaps someone else can.

Who doesn't understand the difference between an inquest and a trial?

There you go again! I don't think getting just a tad irritated at being accused of comments that I didn't make, to the point of suggesting libel, and comments being scoffed at in a patronising way ,not just me, but to others as well, (those that is who dare put forward a particular point for serious discussion,) is being ridiculous. No one is accusing anyone or anything, but some on here have tried to see whether there might have been other contributory factors. Maybe there are, maybe there are not. We should however feel able to discuss and ask questions and put forward ideas without incurring ridicule.

How rude you are DD but worse than that you are truly blinkered. You have ignored all the points raised in this thread because they don't fit with your narrow view of this awful tradegy. Just because the verdict of the inquest was 'unlawfully killed' does not rule out the other factors that were contributory. In fact you just ignore them.

There is no point is even trying to discuss things with anyone with this attitude so I don't bother, it's a waste of my valuable time. And there's no point in coming back with more of the same as I'm signing off for now.

Jalima thank you for your post. You have explained exactly what I and I think others were trying to put forward. It was pretty obvious, but perhaps not put clearly enough. Hopefully you have rectified that, so again thank you.

They didn't have to charge down those passages like that. Again, feel so sorry for the people already in their positions.

Just saying.

I do know the difference between in inquest and a trial. But someone is going to look pretty silly if it comes to a trial and the verdict is that he was not guilty of manslaughter.