Hillsborough piece in The Observer on Sunday

[Montreal Wanderer]

Mate, you seem a highly intelligent young individual, but you seem to have a blind spot here.

Maybe you're right.

What? Right about your intelligence? Good heavens!

Actually I agree with your sentiment. Mourn the dead, learn the lessons and prevent recurrence to the extent possible, but drop the endless search to blame someone who has probably suffered enough for a lapse in judgment.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

Getting crucial decisions badly wrong whilst trying to do the right thing does not equate to a serious disregard for human life, no.

I'm slightly playing devils advocate here, but lets just say that Duckenfield and the South Yorkshire police despised Liverpool football fans so much that they thought they would let the wotsits (as they saw them) do some harm to each other. Could the actions that were and weren't taken have been any more effective in achieving this? In other words there appears little clear evidence that Duckenfield and his team were trying to do the right thing, all the way through the whole sorry episode, from allowing fans into crowded pens, to pushing fans back into the pens, to not allowing medical assistance, to possibly destroying CCTV evidence, to lying about it and trying to blame fans afterwards.

Please note I don't necessarily believe this, and I am not in complete disagreement with your argument here, but there does seem to be some justification for further questions, and it is understandable that emotionally damaged people from the tragedy, and those who know them want to take it further.

[blurred]

But oh yes, good on those fourteen year olds 50 seconds in, on their feet, chanting, arms outstretched. No doubt they have registered their disapproval at the operation of the British justice system in a more detailed and formal way elsewhere....

You colossal f*cking snob, I suppose you were drafting out responses to government consultation documents while you were revising for your 11+ and disucussing the finer merits of the Maastricht treaty while you were doing your SATs? How on earth do you know they've not done anything outwith of the 3 seconds that you were aware of their existence yesterday? There are plenty of young Liverpool fans who have signed petitions, written to their MPs, helped out with the HJC and generally got involved with the Hillsborough stuff. I don't know if these particular lads have done anything or not, but I'm sure they'll appreciate your condemnation and judgement for having seen them for all of 3 seconds. At least they got off their arses to go to the stadium to pay their respects, which is more than a lot of 14 year old Scouse lads will have done yesterday.

[blurred]

Also, quotes in today's press indicate that it was Trevor Hicks that invited Andy Burnham, as he'd had a track record of supporting all-seater stadia. That, coupled with his remarks yesterday, have soured a lot of peoples views about the man (those that didn't know about him already, that is). Which is a shame. It was inadvisable to turn yesterday into any sort of political, anti-standing rally.

[BWFC_Insane]

Also, quotes in today's press indicate that it was Trevor Hicks that invited Andy Burnham, as he'd had a track record of supporting all-seater stadia. That, coupled with his remarks yesterday, have soured a lot of peoples views about the man (those that didn't know about him already, that is). Which is a shame. It was inadvisable to turn yesterday into any sort of political, anti-standing rally.

See this is what irks me more than anything. All seater stadia is the most obvious and future proof way of preventing a repeat of something like Hillsbrough.

Yet you don't agree with it.

[blurred]

I don't understand the anger at the accidental death verdict.

How about the blanket imposition of the 'fact' that all were dead by 3.15pm and so nothing after this time can be taken into account? This conveniently ignores testimony from at least two different victims who were said to be alive well after this time. The coroner's opinion at the time has been slated by experts since.

How about the fact that this is the largest civil disaster in British history that hasn't had a fully public enquiry?

The consensus is that police failure was the main cause of what happened - why is there the desire to hunt down individuals and impose criminal liability for homicide? Those who made mistakes will have them on their conscience until they die - that's punishment enough.

There isn't from me, nor everyone. At the time, yes, I think criminal procedings should've been instigated, but then this is the Police we're talking about so it's hardly surprising that the victims had to bring their own private prosecution. I read something the other day connected with the IPCC which said that there'd been something like 15 criminal proceedings brough against police officers in nearly two decades. That's surprisingly low, don't you think?

Perhaps it is understandable that some families react to losing loved ones in an irrational and angry way. But why does it run throughout so much of the fanbase?

Because we support them? Because there's a community that's been torn apart by having the best part of 100 lives ended? Those losses affect thousands and thousands of people. Not everyone is irrational and angry, and certainly not everyone 'grieves', but I think it's right to stand with people where you believe an injustice has been done on their behalf. Communities or like-minded individuals always pull together - the black community in London rightly stood behind Doreen Lawrence in her quest for justice after Stephen Lawrence was killed - are you going to question why the strength of feeling ran so strong throughout the black community in that case?

[blurred]

Also, quotes in today's press indicate that it was Trevor Hicks that invited Andy Burnham, as he'd had a track record of supporting all-seater stadia. That, coupled with his remarks yesterday, have soured a lot of peoples views about the man (those that didn't know about him already, that is). Which is a shame. It was inadvisable to turn yesterday into any sort of political, anti-standing rally.

See this is what irks me more than anything. All seater stadia is the most obvious and future proof way of preventing a repeat of something like Hillsbrough.

Yet you don't agree with it.

I've not said I don't agree with it above - I said I don't agree with Trevor Hicks turning the memorial service into a 'political' rally when he can't claim to speak for everyone. I thought his comments were ill-advised for a number of reasons. It was not the place for the discussion. He's got every right to hold his views, however, and to speak his mind in a debate about them, but I, along with a lot of Liverpool fans, feel that he erred in talking about it yesterday. He's perfectly well qualified to speak about the loss of life at Hillsborough, the grieving and the devastation it can cause, and even the fight for justice, but he used it as a soapbox for something else.

And the mere fact of having a stadium as all-seater does not 'future-proof' a repeat of something like Hillsborough. If you really believe that, then take a quick trip over to Abdijan and explain it to the families and friends of the 17 football fans who died in an all-seater stadium only a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure they'll be happy to be told that all-seater stadia by themselves mean that people won't die in football grounds any more.

[jimbo]

Why the need for these mass public showings of grief like yesterday? Had I lost a relative I'd like memorial services to be private and personal, which is what they should be. Something for the families involved and no one else. It would annoy me having a full stadium of people who were there just to appear as 'good' Liverpool fans who turn it into mass chanting to government officials. People should be allowed to grieve in private and get on with it without it being dragged up every year for all the memories of that day to come flooding back.

Bradford had a fire about three years before Hillsborough, in which many people lost their lives, but that isn't broadcast in detail every year and the fans don't harp on about it. It doesn't mean they care any less or that it was any less of a tragedy.

[BWFC_Insane]

Also, quotes in today's press indicate that it was Trevor Hicks that invited Andy Burnham, as he'd had a track record of supporting all-seater stadia. That, coupled with his remarks yesterday, have soured a lot of peoples views about the man (those that didn't know about him already, that is). Which is a shame. It was inadvisable to turn yesterday into any sort of political, anti-standing rally.

See this is what irks me more than anything. All seater stadia is the most obvious and future proof way of preventing a repeat of something like Hillsbrough.

Yet you don't agree with it.

I've not said I don't agree with it above - I said I don't agree with Trevor Hicks turning the memorial service into a 'political' rally when he can't claim to speak for everyone. I thought his comments were ill-advised for a number of reasons. It was not the place for the discussion. He's got every right to hold his views, however, and to speak his mind in a debate about them, but I, along with a lot of Liverpool fans, feel that he erred in talking about it yesterday. He's perfectly well qualified to speak about the loss of life at Hillsborough, the grieving and the devastation it can cause, and even the fight for justice, but he used it as a soapbox for something else.

And the mere fact of having a stadium as all-seater does not 'future-proof' a repeat of something like Hillsborough. If you really believe that, then take a quick trip over to Abdijan and explain it to the families and friends of the 17 football fans who died in an all-seater stadium only a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure they'll be happy to be told that all-seater stadia by themselves mean that people won't die in football grounds any more.

Clearly they don't but then they are ALWAYS a safer option than standing.

Whatever confidence level you might have with well organised well policed standing (eg Germany) you will always have a higher one with the equivalent seating arrangements.

I don't think anyone who argues that Hillsbrough is a lesson that can never be forgotten and 20 years after the event still campaigns for further recriminations and "justice" can reasonably argue in favour of standing sections in football stadia. Minimising the risk surely has to be the imperative and going for the minimum risk option is surely the only route you can possibly support?

[Verbal]

Why the need for these mass public showings of grief like yesterday? Had I lost a relative I'd like memorial services to be private and personal, which is what they should be. Something for the families involved and no one else. It would annoy me having a full stadium of people who were there just to appear as 'good' Liverpool fans who turn it into mass chanting to government officials. People should be allowed to grieve in private and get on with it without it being dragged up every year for all the memories of that day to come flooding back.

Bradford had a fire about three years before Hillsborough, in which many people lost their lives, but that isn't broadcast in detail every year and the fans don't harp on about it. It doesn't mean they care any less or that it was any less of a tragedy.

IDK. Maybe the prevailing sense of injustice means that the families/supporters involved feel it needs to be kept in the public eye so something can eventually be done in terms of investigation. People show grief in different ways, though I agree that (god forbid) someone close to be passed away unexpectedly, I'd imagine I would want time to myself.

Having said that, if the cause of death was unclear, I would also like that question to be answered. I guess it is the need for closure more than anything, so people can actually move on without wondering why/how they died. Very understandable, but as I've said before some elements of it do make me uneasy.

[blurred]

Why the need for these mass public showings of grief like yesterday? Had I lost a relative I'd like memorial services to be private and personal, which is what they should be. Something for the families involved and no one else. It would annoy me having a full stadium of people who were there just to appear as 'good' Liverpool fans who turn it into mass chanting to government officials. People should be allowed to grieve in private and get on with it without it being dragged up every year for all the memories of that day to come flooding back.

If one person had died, then I imagine that 30,000 people wouldn't turn up at Anfield, and there would be a private memorial. The fact that it was so large and so public a disaster means that inevitably it is going to have a high profile public presence. The London bombings in July will always have a public memorial service, but not all relatives from those who died attend it.

Not all the families attend the memorial. Not all are involved with the Hillsborough Families Support Group, or the Hillsborough Justice Campaign, and don't align themselves with any organisation.

Bradford had a fire about three years before Hillsborough, in which many people lost their lives, but that isn't broadcast in detail every year and the fans don't harp on about it. It doesn't mean they care any less or that it was any less of a tragedy.

No, it doesn't mean they care less, and no, it isn't any less of a tragedy. It gets marked by Bradford fans, and football fans from teams elsewhere. There is, however, much less of a sense of injustice about the event.

Also, I don't think that there's this 'blanket' coverage of Hillsborough every year that people seem to complain about - this was the 20th anniversary, and like Munich last year, naturally receives a greater deal of press attetion because significant anniversaries are somehow more inherently 'newsworthy'. I can barely remember Munich getting much of a mention outside of the north-west any other year in the past decade, and it certainly got comparatively little coverage this year. Perhaps Hillsborough gets a lot of coverage in the local press/media, so those in the north-west might see a reasonable amount of it, but nationally it doesn't get any great mention every year, short of it being a news item that it's X years since it happened.

[blurred]

Clearly they don't but then they are ALWAYS a safer option than standing.

Whatever confidence level you might have with well organised well policed standing (eg Germany) you will always have a higher one with the equivalent seating arrangements.

Can you explain how this is 'clearly always' a safer option? I'd personally not relish the thought of evacuating an all-seater stadium, and don't see that it presents any real advantages over a system like the safe-standing seen in Germany.

For the record I don't have particularly strong views about a return to standing in English grounds - I stand when I can in support of my team (usually away from home, although the Kop stands on European nights and 'big' league and cup games, too), but that's not to say I'm definitely in favour of a return to a standing Kop, or think it's right for all clubs or all fans.

I do support a reasoned and logical debate about it, though, and think that the logic of the situation where it's ok to stand if you're watching 3rd tier football but not 2nd tier football in this country is pretty ludicrous. It's about choice, and about hearing peoples' views, so long as they are informed and reasoned (ie, not 'standing caused Hillsborough and hooliganism', or 'standing's better cos you can sing louder', or the like).

[ratbert]

There is always a risk people will get in a crush situation whether in stood or seated areas. How you handle the risk is what matters. Look at the number of people who are killed or injured in Mecca almost every Hajj pilgrimage. I know it's a totally different scenario than a football match in terms of numbers, but the principles of managing the flow of people is the same.

[Worthy4England]

The problem with this thread is no-one's going to agree (IMO).

There seem to be generally, two "camps".

Those that don't think "justice" has been served and support carrying on the Campaign until it is - These are accepted (by themselves) as being rational people with good caring natures and strong bonding with their fellow man, huge amounts of intelligence, non wind-up sort of people and experienced in "death" type tragedy, be it disaster or naturally occurring, not content that the "truth" has been heard because some parties are covering up along with evidence as yet unheard, and there couldn't possibly be "any other conclusion" than "justice needs to be done".

On the other side, we seem to have some really thick folk, who are just out to wind Scousers up, are completely irrational because they are accepting of "where we (as a nation) are at" with all the legal proceedings, only out to show folk that they're "hard" and have never experienced any sort of "death" event in their lives - let alone something that could be described as sudden or tragic.

What a load of presumptious crap.

No-one has yet been able to tell me "what constitutes justice" in this case? Hanging Duckenfield? Him/Murray going down for manslaughter? Holding a full and frank (where everyone will tells the truth honest) new enquiry? Widening the net of possible culpability to all those groups identified as providing contributory factors, in the Taylor report?

My personal view is that this won't get to "closure", more than 20 years after the event, although I suspect to people intrinsically involved (as opposed to peripherally) "closure" will mean different things.

What is seeking to be achieved here, for me, is that people want to keep going round until they get the "answer" they're looking for - whatever that might be.

None of it will bring anyone back who has in the saddest of circumstances left this world.

[BWFC_Insane]

The problem with this thread is no-one's going to agree (IMO).

There seem to be generally, two "camps".

Those that don't think "justice" has been served and support carrying on the Campaign until it is - These are accepted (by themselves) as being rational people with good caring natures and strong bonding with their fellow man, huge amounts of intelligence, non wind-up sort of people and experienced in "death" type tragedy, be it disaster or naturally occurring, not content that the "truth" has been heard because some parties are covering up along with evidence as yet unheard, and there couldn't possibly be "any other conclusion" than "justice needs to be done".

On the other side, we seem to have some really thick folk, who are just out to wind Scousers up, are completely irrational because they are accepting of "where we (as a nation) are at" with all the legal proceedings, only out to show folk that they're "hard" and have never experienced any sort of "death" event in their lives - let alone something that could be described as sudden or tragic.

What a load of presumptious crap.

No-one has yet been able to tell me "what constitutes justice" in this case? Hanging Duckenfield? Him/Murray going down for manslaughter? Holding a full and frank (where everyone will tells the truth honest) new enquiry? Widening the net of possible culpability to all those groups identified as providing contributory factors, in the Taylor report?

My personal view is that this won't get to "closure", more than 20 years after the event, although I suspect to people intrinsically involved (as opposed to peripherally) "closure" will mean different things.

What is seeking to be achieved here, for me, is that people want to keep going round until they get the "answer" they're looking for - whatever that might be.

None of it will bring anyone back who has in the saddest of circumstances left this world.

Which for some is to have "someone" to blame and to completely absolve anyone associated with LFC and its supporters of any blame whatsoever.

People don't want the "truth". They want "their truth".

[TANGODANCER]

I do support a reasoned and logical debate about it, though, and think that the logic of the situation where it's ok to stand if you're watching 3rd tier football but not 2nd tier football in this country is pretty ludicrous. It's about choice, and about hearing peoples' views, so long as they are informed and reasoned (ie, not 'standing caused Hillsborough and hooliganism', or 'standing's better cos you can sing louder', or the like).

But it isn't is though it? Are the views of football fans to be considered over those of health and safety experts? Seating areas are designated that way so that a specific number of people can be in a set area, seated and safe primarily because of allocated space. They are also designed to be easily controlled in emergencies by keeping people in lines and making it easier and safer to get them organised. It's almost always the ones that panic and start climbing over things that cause problems; seating is an obvious method of achieving better results when problems arise.

Standing areas, (and I've done enough time in them, believe me) unless you are going to remain rigidly in your own personal two-feet square space, cannot be classed in the same league primarily because, due to human nature " just a few more" are going to squeeze in there, regardless of all and to hell with health and safety. Restrict numbers to advised safety levels and people will moan there is room for more, particularly at key games. This will magnify into an obvious problem when an emergency arises and everybody wants out. With seating you have some measure of control. With standing, you have little or none. Panic is a fearsome animal and anything that can be done to handle it, should be. I'd have though you would be the first to agree with that. You can't have it both ways.

[General Mannerheim]

Im tired of all these sick Hillsborough jokes i keep hearing?

I wish everyone would just pack them in!

sorry...

Any watch or seen the film Hillborough? it was on last night - quite a decent ensemble cast, incl Christopher Eccleston as Trevor Hicks, the guy who lost two daughters and went on to chair the campaign for the police to cop the blame etc - Cracking film!!! monica from Shameless as his wifeis excellent too. very sad.

[Harry Genshaw]

How about the fact that this is the largest civil disaster in British history that hasn't had a fully public enquiry?

I didn't know this and it really surprised me. Given the dubious statements that were made at the time (no deaths after 3.15pm, no ambulances on the pitch etc etc) I think a full public enquiry is the least the campaign deserves.

Plus, fwiw, I thought the fans response to Andy Burnham yesterday was dignified. Not abusive shouts or threats just a spontaneous outbreak of a chant. Very powerful imo.

[blurred]

I do support a reasoned and logical debate about it, though, and think that the logic of the situation where it's ok to stand if you're watching 3rd tier football but not 2nd tier football in this country is pretty ludicrous. It's about choice, and about hearing peoples' views, so long as they are informed and reasoned (ie, not 'standing caused Hillsborough and hooliganism', or 'standing's better cos you can sing louder', or the like).

But it isn't is though it? Are the views of football fans to be considered over those of health and safety experts? Seating areas are designated that way so that a specific number of people can be in a set area, seated and safe primarily because of allocated space. They are also designed to be easily controlled in emergencies by keeping people in lines and making it easier and safer to get them organised. It's almost always the ones that panic and start climbing over things that cause problems; seating is an obvious method of achieving better results when problems arise.

Only if you have open terraces like in the old days. Nobody in the safe-standing lobby is campaigning for these. The reason that the German model gets mentioned so much is because they are precisely not the terraces of old, and answer so many of your concerns. Images below:





Safe standing. 'Combi' seating, as it is known - the bars do not restrict the supporters' view when he/she is seated, and they protect the individual from any form of crush when standing, as each row has its own bars. Fans are still in lines and evacuation procedures remain the same for an all-seater stadium.

Can anyone, looking at the above pictures, tell me why this model of standing on terraces is a) unsafe, or b) in any way, shape or form relevant to Hillsborough?

Standing areas, (and I've done enough time in them, believe me) unless you are going to remain rigidly in your own personal two-feet square space, cannot be classed in the same league primarily because, due to human nature " just a few more" are going to squeeze in there, regardless of all and to hell with health and safety. Restrict numbers to advised safety levels and people will moan there is room for more, particularly at key games. This will magnify into an obvious problem when an emergency arises and everybody wants out. With seating you have some measure of control. With standing, you have little or none. Panic is a fearsome animal and anything that can be done to handle it, should be. I'd have though you would be the first to agree with that. You can't have it both ways.

Can I correct you? What you meant to say in the beginning there was terraces, and demonstrably not standing areas. There is a huge difference.

[BWFC_Insane]

But can you honestly say that you believe it to be as safe as everyone sitting in a numbered seat?

I don't think its a particularly bad system but we haven't gone down that road in this country. Like Tango says, the principles are fine but equally people copuld easily abuse those "principles" and start to sway, or move and its possible to envisage problems despite the chance of problems arising being less than on the old style British terracing.

With people sat down in a numbered seat its very hard to see things going wrong. And whilst I'd undoubtedly prefer to stand even with the "safe standing" systems is it really worth the risk?