Hillsborough piece in The Observer on Sunday

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:14 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:Also, wasn't the problem the policing, the last time you were on about this?

Yeah, because I've always said there was one cause of the Hillsborough disaster

The police were the people in overall control of events, and as the ambulance man's story from the OP's article shows they acted in a manner that exacerbated the disaster. His was testimony that I'd not heard before, unsurprisingly, seeing as he was painted out of the Taylor Report by the authorities, but goes to show that the policing was a key factor behind why so many people died. If they'd let those 40 or so ambulances onto the pitch, or even the 80 or so paramedics with whatever they could carry, how many lives could've been saved? We'll never know.

There are a huge number of contributory factors, some major, some minor. When people mention things on here I try to explain and educate, giving people facts and information that they may not otherwise know. Whether that's about policing, the layout of the ground, the concerns over the stadium, outside factors (the accidents on the motorways meaning fans were arriving later in coaches than planned, for instance), individuals' actions on the day...

All these things combined. You glib remark ("not a system that seems to have completely baffled anyone else at Hillsborough, ever") is just not true, either. There had been crushes (although not fatal) at that end at a semi-final before. 38 fans were injured in a crush at the 1981 semi-final at Hillsborough in the Leppings Lane End. Liverpool lodged a complaint about the allocation of ends having suffered crushing at the semi-final there the previous yaer. Lessons, it appears, weren't learned.

And if the testimony of key witnesses on the day (like the ambulance man) have been painted out of the overall assessment, how can we know what really happened and if all the possible lessons have been learned?

mofgimmers · Post by **mofgimmers** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:30 pm

I must say, I'm a bit concerned that it seems (to me at least, maybe that's my bad) that some people are trivialising the whole thing.

"I'm a bit sicking of hearing about it all" is a bit rich coming from a group of fans who still moan about the ticket fiasco of the League Cup final or the depth of our squad or the performance of Elmander or The Media Bias Against Bolton Wanderers... or whatever.

Fact is, this is a tragedy that happened most of our lifetime. It was fcuking awful what happened down there and Liverpool fans have every right to be aggrieved about whatever they like concerning the matter.

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:12 pm

I hear what your saying MOF, but the reality is, that most non-Liverpool fans have probably forgotton about this on a day to day basis. That's not to minimise how dreadful it was or how sorry I felt for anyone concerned at the time, just reality. For me losing my parents is much closer to home, so with a bit of a "shrug of indifference", it was a long time ago and doesn't actually relate directly to me.

mofgimmers · Post by **mofgimmers** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Aye, I get that... but I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed if someone said "Are you still bleating on about some dead old people? Get over it," to you wouldn't you?

I guess I'm not happy about the underlying feeling that I get from a lot of people (I'm talking generally here) that it's "just a bunch of dead scousers" or "those lot moaning again".

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:06 pm

mofgimmers wrote:Aye, I get that... but I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed if someone said "Are you still bleating on about some dead old people? Get over it," to you wouldn't you?

I guess I'm not happy about the underlying feeling that I get from a lot of people (I'm talking generally here) that it's "just a bunch of dead scousers" or "those lot moaning again".

I would, but I don't bleat on about it.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:09 pm

mofgimmers wrote:Aye, I get that... but I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed if someone said "Are you still bleating on about some dead old people? Get over it," to you wouldn't you?

I guess I'm not happy about the underlying feeling that I get from a lot of people (I'm talking generally here) that it's "just a bunch of dead scousers" or "those lot moaning again".

MOF the thing is, nobody would stop Liverpool remembering their fans who died at Hillsborough once a year.

That is only right and proper.

However, the constant replaying of the disaster, the almost ghoulish wish to replay events again and again and again, the drawing of layouts of the ground, the analysis of the events of the day, replayed through account after account.

End of the day it won't bring back the dead. The situation has been addressed through all-seater stadia. We haven't had a crush in this country in an all-seater stadium. Our football is well policed.

As for Hillsborough being something we should care about. Well I find that difficult. How many Africans die of Aids and Malaria every day? Yet we should be re-visiting a terrible and unfortunate disaster that happened what 20 years ago?

Sorry don't really think it does matter to me if I'm being honest, certainly no more than the hundreds and thousands of unfortuneate things that happen year on year.

Sorry if that offends anyone but thats what I feel. Remember the dead by all means. But lets not try and use them to make political points!

mofgimmers · Post by **mofgimmers** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:04 pm

I'm not sure that I've seen the relevant TV station, radio station or newspaper that is seemingly constantly replaying the events that happened on that day, save for the anniversaries.

I guess that's what I'm not sure about. Hillsborough rarely crops up in our lives and, in the few instances it does, a lot of people say "Oh, not that lot again".

wovlad · Post by **wovlad** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:20 pm

Its about Justice, what people think justice is and what can be achieved by it is as different as peoples opinions on a football match. To those who say it was 20 years ago forget about it, I'd ask you this how would you feel if you lost someone you loved or cared for a father, mother, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, bestmate or workmate at Hillsborough?. Would you not want justice for them because they did'nt get it at the original enquiry. If your opinion is still no, let the dead rest what about those who don't feel that way, should'nt they be able to pursue justice even if ,and I dare say, there are some people who do want to consign it to the past. I think they have a right for justice.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:55 pm

wovlad wrote:Its about Justice, what people think justice is and what can be achieved by it is as different as peoples opinions on a football match. To those who say it was 20 years ago forget about it, I'd ask you this how would you feel if you lost someone you loved or cared for a father, mother, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, bestmate or workmate at Hillsborough?. Would you not want justice for them because they did'nt get it at the original enquiry. If your opinion is still no, let the dead rest what about those who don't feel that way, should'nt they be able to pursue justice even if ,and I dare say, there are some people who do want to consign it to the past. I think they have a right for justice.

Well said Sir

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:12 am

wovlad wrote:Its about Justice, what people think justice is and what can be achieved by it is as different as peoples opinions on a football match. To those who say it was 20 years ago forget about it, I'd ask you this how would you feel if you lost someone you loved or cared for a father, mother, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, bestmate or workmate at Hillsborough?. Would you not want justice for them because they did'nt get it at the original enquiry. If your opinion is still no, let the dead rest what about those who don't feel that way, should'nt they be able to pursue justice even if ,and I dare say, there are some people who do want to consign it to the past. I think they have a right for justice.

correct, correct, correct

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:27 am

wovlad wrote:Its about Justice, what people think justice is and what can be achieved by it is as different as peoples opinions on a football match. To those who say it was 20 years ago forget about it, I'd ask you this how would you feel if you lost someone you loved or cared for a father, mother, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, bestmate or workmate at Hillsborough?. Would you not want justice for them because they did'nt get it at the original enquiry. If your opinion is still no, let the dead rest what about those who don't feel that way, should'nt they be able to pursue justice even if ,and I dare say, there are some people who do want to consign it to the past. I think they have a right for justice.

Who could be against 'justice'?

But the contradiction between your first and last sentence sums up the problem perfectly, in my opinion... How can people have a right to whatever their version of 'justice' is, when this varies as much as 'people's opinions on a football match'.

There have already been inquiries - is there only a lack of justice when the outcome is disagreed with? Even if it is possible to point to certain defects in the inquiries that have taken place, why is there this lust for pinning the blame on individuals? It doesn't bring anyone back. If it's about 'learning lessons' - doesn't the safety record of English football since Hillsborough suggest that the lessons have been adequately learnt?

It's entirely appropriate that the dead are remembered and we remain vigilant to prevent anything similar happening again, but I personally do not find it surprising that some of the ways in which the event has been adopted with almost religious fervour as the basis for a club-wide crusade against the establishment and the rest of the world at large, sometimes winds some people up the wrong way.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:04 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
wovlad wrote:Its about Justice, what people think justice is and what can be achieved by it is as different as peoples opinions on a football match. To those who say it was 20 years ago forget about it, I'd ask you this how would you feel if you lost someone you loved or cared for a father, mother, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, daughter, son, bestmate or workmate at Hillsborough?. Would you not want justice for them because they did'nt get it at the original enquiry. If your opinion is still no, let the dead rest what about those who don't feel that way, should'nt they be able to pursue justice even if ,and I dare say, there are some people who do want to consign it to the past. I think they have a right for justice.
Who could be against 'justice'?

But the contradiction between your first and last sentence sums up the problem perfectly, in my opinion... How can people have a right to whatever their version of 'justice' is, when this varies as much as 'people's opinions on a football match'.

There have already been inquiries - is there only a lack of justice when the outcome is disagreed with? Even if it is possible to point to certain defects in the inquiries that have taken place, why is there this lust for pinning the blame on individuals? It doesn't bring anyone back. If it's about 'learning lessons' - doesn't the safety record of English football since Hillsborough suggest that the lessons have been adequately learnt?

It's entirely appropriate that the dead are remembered and we remain vigilant to prevent anything similar happening again, but I personally do not find it surprising that some of the ways in which the event has been adopted with almost religious fervour as the basis for a club-wide crusade against the establishment and the rest of the world at large, sometimes winds some people up the wrong way.

Exactly. Spot on.

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:26 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:There have already been inquiries - is there only a lack of justice when the outcome is disagreed with?

No. The then IPCC directed that disciplinary charges of neglect of duty be brought against Duckenfield and Murray (his deputy on the day) but Duckenfield retired on the grounds of 'ill health', and because you can't prosecute a non-serving officer, they dropped the charges. Of course, given that it was a joint prosecution initially it was deemed 'unfair' to pursue the charges against just one of them, and so they were dropped against Murray, too. The DPP (obviously, seeing as they were old bill) ruled out any criminal proceedings against the two men.

There was eventually a private prosecution brought by the HFSG over a decade later, which found Murray not guilty, but the jury weren't able to return a verdict on Duckenfield. In any other event you'd see a retrial, but the judge ruled that that would be 'oppressive' to Duckenfield, and so didn't order one. Personally I find the deaths of 96 people oppressive, but apparently his ill-health meant he couldn't stand trial again. That's what people, myself included, find disagreeable about the situation.

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:It's entirely appropriate that the dead are remembered and we remain vigilant to prevent anything similar happening again, but I personally do not find it surprising that some of the ways in which the event has been adopted with almost religious fervour as the basis for a club-wide crusade against the establishment and the rest of the world at large, sometimes winds some people up the wrong way.

I'd not disagree with that assessment.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:44 pm

blurred wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:There have already been inquiries - is there only a lack of justice when the outcome is disagreed with?
No. The then IPCC directed that disciplinary charges of neglect of duty be brought against Duckenfield and Murray (his deputy on the day) but Duckenfield retired on the grounds of 'ill health', and because you can't prosecute a non-serving officer, they dropped the charges. Of course, given that it was a joint prosecution initially it was deemed 'unfair' to pursue the charges against just one of them, and so they were dropped against Murray, too. The DPP (obviously, seeing as they were old bill) ruled out any criminal proceedings against the two men.

There was eventually a private prosecution brought by the HFSG over a decade later, which found Murray not guilty, but the jury weren't able to return a verdict on Duckenfield. In any other event you'd see a retrial, but the judge ruled that that would be 'oppressive' to Duckenfield, and so didn't order one. Personally I find the deaths of 96 people oppressive, but apparently his ill-health meant he couldn't stand trial again. That's what people, myself included, find disagreeable about the situation.

Could it not be that the DPP thought that criminal proceedings were inappropriate in an unfortunate accident without similar precedent, which you yourself have said was caused by a complex web of factors?

Seriously, what good does hounding Duckenfield do anybody?

You talk about the deaths of the 96 as being 'oppressive' as if it was some kind of organised purge. Do you really think it's in the public interest to bring criminal prosecutions against policemen in the case of entirely human, operational mistakes?

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:09 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:You talk about the deaths of the 96 as being 'oppressive' as if it was some kind of organised purge. Do you really think it's in the public interest to bring criminal prosecutions against policemen in the case of entirely human, operational mistakes?

I was merely using the same word as was used to describe the treatment of Duckenfield, and for the poor man to have to go through the 'oppressive' ordeal of standing trial. He should've be thankful that he had air in his lungs, as 96 people died as a result of his mistakes, and yet he was never held to account for it. If there'd been a retrial and he'd been found innocent then at least there would have been some closure to events in terms of apportioning blame. As it is, it's left a rather nasty taste in the mouth that the police are yet again seemingly 'looked after' by the criminal justice system.

Do I think it's in the interest to bring criminal prosecutions against the police? In general? Yes, I believe they should be held to account, and it's a healthy democracy in which that can happen. I don't believe it necessary in every instance, but the overriding principle is that they must be held accountable for their actions. It's only right. In this specific example? Yes. 20 years after the fact? Possibly not, but at the time, absolutely. The fact that there wasn't a satisfactory outcome initially, though, is what's led to this feeling of injustice, and people seeking some form of official recognition all these years later.

Duckenfield isn't some average beat-bobby who's made an error of judgement, and I don't think it's the same as hounding an individual policeman who makes a mistake and, for example, shoots an innocent person because he believed them to have a firearm. He was the match commander in charge of a whole stadium; he was the senior man on the day, and his errors, his mistakes and his self-admitted 'freezing' in the situation resulted in the deaths of a great many innocent people which could easily have been avoided or drastically mitigated. He was ultimately in control of events on that day. He absolutely should've been prosecuted for it or had his conduct officially questioned. As it is, he avoided a police internal investigation because he retired, and then was saved a court verdict as a result of the 'oppression' he'd've gone through to stand a retrial. I think that's unacceptable, and why people continue to seek 'justice'.

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:34 pm

But you started all this, talking about high ideas like "lessons learned" and "non-prosecution", whereas I suspected that all along it was about perceived injustice. Looks like I was right. Let's keep going round the buoy until some people get the "result" they're after, or the possble defendants have passed on.

Can we throw Michael Sheild's into the mix too and re-title the thread "injustice against the Scouse nation"?

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:19 am

http://www.hfdinfo.com/

An interesting read, if you have the time and want to find out more.

superjohnmcginlay · Post by **superjohnmcginlay** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:19 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7964159.stm

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:26 am

superjohnmcginlay wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7964159.stm

I wish I hadn't clicked on that link. Now I feel guilty for laughing while listening to the song. I'm sorry but that is going to far in my book. Christ and I thought Americans loved to wallow in their pity. Sorry if I offend anybody with this post it's just how I feel. Maybe I have lived in the 3rd world too long and seen too much pain and suffering over the years.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:02 am

Quick question for Blurred.

Are you 100% sure that you would not have "frozen" if you had been in the same situation as Duckenfield? It's an awful thing to go to a football match and die - but we should only prosecute people if there is intent to injure or kill, surely?

Accidents happen - and human beings are fallible unfortunately.

None of that condones the shite spouted by the Sun, of course.

Connect with your social network account

Hillsborough piece in The Observer on Sunday

Who is online