Hillsborough piece in The Observer on Sunday

[William the White]

Conspiracy theories are everywhere.

I was there that day and lost a cousin. I'll never forget it.
The role of hundreds of drunken Liverpool "fans" shouldn't be forgotten either.

I'm not trying to be controversial, I'm just saying that when blame is apportioned, the Liverpool fans need to look closer to home than they'd like to admit and/or want to..

Well, of course it's obvious to any objective observer that the actual fatal force was produced by Liverpool fans pushing other Liverpool fans in one big scrum.

But to talk about this side of the blame equation is heresy.

Yes the police should have done better, but they learned lessons, just like football fans, most of whom now wouldn't dream of pushing in an enclosed space.

There were lots of factors that combined to produce a horrible, tragic accident. It's the lust for blame, recriminations and retribution that I don't get.

One day, i suppose, you might experience a terribly close bereavement - most of us do, if we live long enough. Then, if you care to think about it at all, amidst the hurt you are feeling, you might return to these words and look with some surprise at how callous you sound...

[Prufrock]

Conspiracy theories are everywhere.

I was there that day and lost a cousin. I'll never forget it.
The role of hundreds of drunken Liverpool "fans" shouldn't be forgotten either.

I'm not trying to be controversial, I'm just saying that when blame is apportioned, the Liverpool fans need to look closer to home than they'd like to admit and/or want to..

Well, of course it's obvious to any objective observer that the actual fatal force was produced by Liverpool fans pushing other Liverpool fans in one big scrum.

But to talk about this side of the blame equation is heresy.

Yes the police should have done better, but they learned lessons, just like football fans, most of whom now wouldn't dream of pushing in an enclosed space.

There were lots of factors that combined to produce a horrible, tragic accident. It's the lust for blame, recriminations and retribution that I don't get.

One day, i suppose, you might experience a terribly close bereavement - most of us do, if we live long enough. Then, if you care to think about it at all, amidst the hurt you are feeling, you might return to these words and look with some surprise at how callous you sound...

It's not the people who lost familly memebers and friends who I don't get, that's perfectly understandable, it's the mentality of a scouser, that even if you didn't know the person/people involved in any one of a number of incidents over the years, they have a tendency to be personally affronted. The grief somebody who lost a familly member in Hillsbrough felt, is completely different to the feeling of sadness somebody not directly affected feels. The second person is obviously moved, and saddened, you can't not be by such a thing, and you want justice for those involved. The person who loses someone doesn't necessarily want Justice, they want revenge, someone to blame, and they aren't always the same thing. In the case of Hillsbrough, there are obviously things that don't add up, the ludicrous report that there was never an ambulance on the pitch for instance, but after this much time is there any real chance of any cover up there may or may not be being uncovered? If victims want answers then as Worthy (I think) said, the only way to get that may be to offer imunity. If they want revenge, then whilst those feelings are understandable, they are hardly the basis for a sound legal system.

My big rant about the scouse mentality wasn't meant to be in regards to Hillsbrough, it was brought on by Worthy's mention of Heysel, which in turn reminded me of a conversation I'd had with a Liverpool fan regarding that Juve game and the Sun. I don't think anybody is bringing up tragedies to look 'big in front of the lads', you'd have to be a special type of bell-end to laugh at mass death.

[Harry Genshaw]

It's not the people who lost familly memebers and friends who I don't get, that's perfectly understandable, it's the mentality of a scouser, that even if you didn't know the person/people involved in any one of a number of incidents over the years, they have a tendency to be personally affronted.

I dont buy this either. Anyone who saw the recent mass mourning of Jade Goody and the book of condolences and public funeral that Jill Dando was afforded, will know collective hysteria is no more a Scouse trait than it is a Bermondsey trait or West Country kind of thing.

[Worthy4England]

I've said this before on this thread, but it's clearly been lost in the quagmire of absolute sh!t.

This attitude that the Liverpool fans are all boo-hoo-hooing is amazing. They're aggrieved at the loss of nearly 100 people from their community, be it immediate or just by being a part of the football club. The amount of moaning and whining that went on from our fans in the events that unfolded around the Boro cup final suggests that we're as bad as anyone. The amount of people handing in their season tickets over Megson's tenure...

We don't know heartache as a football club.

And to all those bringing up Heysel... jesus wept... how childish do you want to be? Are you trying to show off how hard you are in front of the lads of the board? Hooliganism isn't nearly the same thing as the police service not doing their job and people dying. Never mind the fact that a whole bunch of Liverpool fans were sent down for manslaughter and all British clubs were banned from Europe.

I can't believe that I've taken the bait of the new site troll either.

Think I bought up Heysel mof, and it was meant to be a serious point, certainly not intended as a fishing expo.

I think that it's disingenuous to call views that happen to don't agree with yours "absolute sh!t", or "wet" as one other poster described them.

My views on Hillsborough and justice have nothing to do with the fact that it involved Liverpool football club (who I actually think are alright generally)

I kept hearing within this thread, that people are looking for the lessons to be learnt. Blurred in his original post (or one shortly after), said it was all about lessons learnt, and someone drew parallels between the two (Hillsborough and Heysel) somewhere. It's nothing at all to do with "being hard" mof. Fairly sure Blurred has also pointed to the similarities between the two stadia and the way they were policed in previous posts - but it could have been someone else. My contention is if there are parallels, they should both be considered in any lessons learnt. It wasn't intended as some sort of sly dig at perceived hooliganism it was about the ability of us to learn anything new from the similarities between the two - and if that is the genuine focus of campaign groups why does Heysel get no coverage at all? As it happens, I believe we've probably learnt all we're going to from both incidents and that actually, lessons learnt is probably over and done with as there's no continuing inquiries into either disaster.

We have a situation, which is correctly called a disaster in the case of Hillsborough, and I have sympathy for any of the people affected by it. I don't generally have any axe to grind with Liverpool fans - certainly no more than with any other section of the population in the UK - and many of whom I happily sat outside Wembley with when we played the League Cup Final, drinking and discussing ManUre's imminent downfall.

The point I'm making mof, is threefold. 1) That I'm not sure I see any realistic possibility of a "conclusion" in terms of Justice. 2) the "campaigns" actually have at least two focus' - one is about "justice" and/or retribution, another is about lessons learnt. Of the two, my perception is that really, the main focus is on "justice" not lessons learnt and 3) There is some unwillingness by the "prosecution" to accept the trial result from Duckenfield and Murray (which was with a jury), yet the Taylor report is more acceptable, as far as it goes, even though it was produced effectively by one man. The "defense" probably views it less positive, I suspect, as the police "were not prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what occured"...There are also the other parts of the Taylor report, around the fact that the Club (Sheffield) was aware of the fact that the Leppings Lane end was "ill-suited to admit the numbers invited", the Safety Certificate was out of date etc. etc.

The focus of anger looks to be a fairly narrow field - David Duckenfield and his Deputy Bernard Murray. Any others? Realistically there probably should be. Of these two, Murray was found not guilty and a jury couldn't decide on Duckenfield in 2000. This trial was described as a show trial by the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. The presiding Judge was criticised heavily for his role in setting the boundaries of the trial, the Prosecution solicitor - the one fighting the case - was suggested as being fairly deficient too. So realistically the "prosecution" will continue to question everything until the answers match thier perception of justice, and a verdict of at least manslaughter is returned? I think probably the answer would be yes - I also think this side of the equation has nothing to do with lessons learnt - so lets call it what it is - trying to get retribution or "justice" if you prefer.

It just all rather strikes me mof, that the whole ethos is to keep going until the result favours the prosecution and the people who want to see Duckinfield in jail and probably Murray too, maybe if I was in the exact situation, I'd do exactly the same. None of this, alters my perception of the liklihood of this occurring, in a manner that would be viewed by both sides as being equitable, is small.

My basis for questioning the on-going campaign for justice has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact it has anything to do with Liverpool football club. It is that I'm not convinced there's any possibility of "justice" happening so long after the event, with all the publicity (both negative and positive) surrounding it and with entrenched positions on both sides.

[blurred]

Boris Johnson was right.

Can we at least get our facts straight? I believe it should be that said Simon Heffer got it right, not Boris, as he didn't write the piece in question.

Well, of course it's obvious to any objective observer that the actual fatal force was produced by Liverpool fans pushing other Liverpool fans in one big scrum.

But to talk about this side of the blame equation is heresy.

Not at all, but it is pretty much irrelevant. It is exactly what occurred in every football stadium up and down the country, week in and week out, for the preceeding couple of decades. Standing on terraces (such as they were designed) was a dangerous occupation back then - the rushes and crushes and swarms of movement could and did lead to injuries on a regular basis, albeit minor ones. They were not comfortable places to be. Still, I don't recall 96 Liverpool fans dying every week when they were in terraces, and the crushes and Liverpool fans pushing each other happened every week for season after season in the build-up to Hillsborough. So perhaps, just perhaps, Liverpool fans standing and pushing and being crammed in together had remarkably little to do with the disaster, as they'd been managing that experience for just about every game since 1892, and that something out of the ordinary must've occurred for so many of them to die? Do you not think?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Not at all, but it is pretty much irrelevant. It is exactly what occurred in every football stadium up and down the country, week in and week out, for the preceeding couple of decades. Standing on terraces (such as they were designed) was a dangerous occupation back then - the rushes and crushes and swarms of movement could and did lead to injuries on a regular basis, albeit minor ones. They were not comfortable places to be. Still, I don't recall 96 Liverpool fans dying every week when they were in terraces, and the crushes and Liverpool fans pushing each other happened every week for season after season in the build-up to Hillsborough. So perhaps, just perhaps, Liverpool fans standing and pushing and being crammed in together had remarkably little to do with the disaster, as they'd been managing that experience for just about every game since 1892, and that something out of the ordinary must've occurred for so many of them to die? Do you not think?

I don't understand how you can say that 'Liverpool fans pushing together had remarkably little to do with the disaster', just because similarly reckless behaviour had been going on for a couple of decades.

Doesn't it just mean that a disaster had been waiting to happen for a long time?

We wouldn't be remembering any sad loss of life today if the football fans that day had simply said "I say chaps, it looks a bit full in there, there's obviously been some mistake - we're better off not pushing and shoving just for the sake of getting in in time for kick off."

To me, it's peverse to say that football fans at the time were always unruly and so the onus was on the police to deal with that state of affairs, and any failure to do so meant that 100% of the blame rested on them. Is it not more realistic to say that that culture of behaviour was inherently dangerous, inherently blameworthy and always likely to cause a serious incident eventually? And I appreciate entirely that this was in no way restricted to Liverpool fans.

And here's the corollary of what you have said - if fans could reasonably expect pushing and shoving on terraces to go off without loss of life, because it had for decades, then so could the police. Hillsborough was as much of a human wake-up call to them as it was to English football fans, who now think twice about pushing and shoving, with that tragedy at the back of everyone's mind.

[Lord Kangana]

So the Burnden disaster was solely, purely, irrefutably the fault of Wanderers fans aswell, was it? And are they collectively to blame, or can we single out individuals?

[blurred]

And here's the corollary of what you have said - if fans could reasonably expect pushing and shoving on terraces to go off without loss of life, because it had for decades, then so could the police. Hillsborough was as much of a human wake-up call to them as it was to English football fans, who now think twice about pushing and shoving, with that tragedy at the back of everyone's mind

That would be the corollary of what I said if there had been the correct number of people in the Leppings Lane that had somehow created a crush, and that the situation had been managed the same way that it had been done previously at that venue, and previously at every other venue since the game was invented. Terraces had been 'self-policed' for decades, and the reason there weren't large-scale deaths on the Kop, or on any other major terrace, was because there were controls over the number of people allowed on there.

The police could reasonably expect no deaths to occur on terraces because there was a mandated safe number of people allowed on them, and whatever movements may have occurred, they were safe in the knowledge that there was sufficient space for people to be able to breathe and control their own movements. We're not talking about a few fans getting pushed up against a crush barrier in a moment of celebration, a few bruises and the like, as those were occupational hazards of standing on a terrace. We're talking about people dying on their feet from compressive asphyxia - literally having the life squeezed out of them.

The reason there were deaths in the Leppings Lane was absolutely not because of any unreasonable or unusual behaviour by football fans, it was because of the spectacular mismanagement by those who were in charge of ensuring the safety of those spectators on the day.

I don't understand how you can say that 'Liverpool fans pushing together had remarkably little to do with the disaster', just because similarly reckless behaviour had been going on for a couple of decades.

Doesn't it just mean that a disaster had been waiting to happen for a long time?

We wouldn't be remembering any sad loss of life today if the football fans that day had simply said "I say chaps, it looks a bit full in there, there's obviously been some mistake - we're better off not pushing and shoving just for the sake of getting in in time for kick off."

To me, it's peverse to say that football fans at the time were always unruly and so the onus was on the police to deal with that state of affairs, and any failure to do so meant that 100% of the blame rested on them. Is it not more realistic to say that that culture of behaviour was inherently dangerous, inherently blameworthy and always likely to cause a serious incident eventually? And I appreciate entirely that this was in no way restricted to Liverpool fans.

To me it's perverse to trivialise the deaths of people with your 'I say chaps...' quip, not least because those 'chaps' could reasonably expect the police and ground authorities to not allow well over 3,000 people into an area that was fit for just over 2,000. By way of one or two facts:

The official guide to calculating capacities on terraces (the Green Guide, as it was known) said that 54 persons per 10m sq was the recommended maximum capacity for standing areas. The central pens at Hillsborough were 380m sq, meaning a total of 2,051 should have been allowed. 2,200 was the quoted capacity, already putting the pens at around 9% over the maximum safe capacity. The club's safety officers used a drawing that claimed each pen was 400 m sq, but even this would mean a total of 2,162 was the safe capacity, and not the 2,200 allowed. Small differences you may argue?

The Green Guide goes on to say that the structures should be taken into account when calculating 'useable terrace' - when taking the crash barriers, etc into account, the useable area of the central pens now falls to 255m sq from the claimed 380. At 54 persons per 10m sq, there should have been a capacity of 1,374 persons.

Where a terrace was in a poor condition, insofar as it deviated severely from the Green Guide, a figure of 27 persons per 10m sq should be used to calculate capacity. Was the terrace in a poor condition? Let's see:

Terrace steps should not be less than 280mm or more than 380mm wide - 28 of the 33 steps did not comply with this
Ideal barrier height is 1.1m - 10 out of the 15 barriers in the two pens did not comply with this
Recommended distance between barriers is between 1.1m and 1.4m - 13 out of 15 barriers did not comply with this
Every spectator should be no more than 12m from an exit - the access tunnel was the only official exit from the pens

There are more technical reasons why the terrace didn't conform to safety standards, but I think this is reasonable enough for our purposes to suggest that the terrace was in a 'poor condition' with respect to the guide. Applying the recommended 27 persons per 10m sq figure to this would leave us with a capacity of just 929.

929 - safe capacity
1,374 - safe capacity if the terrace wasn't deemed 'poor'
2,200 - official capacity when selling tickets

How many thousand people did the police let into this area? And how long did it take them to realise the mistake? I'm not even going to ask the myriad questions that could be posed that compounded their error.

Is it not more realistic to say that that culture of behaviour was inherently dangerous, inherently blameworthy and always likely to cause a serious incident eventually? And I appreciate entirely that this was in no way restricted to Liverpool fans.

No, I don't think it is realistic to say that the culture was dangerous. We're not talking about fans pushing and shoving on a terrace in the normal sense of their behaviour - that is what went on in every ground up and down the country for decades. How many millions of people watched football safely on terraces? It's how football was watched. It had been policed, ticketed and, as a result of the Burnden disaster and the Hughes report (among other things), it had been regulated. If it was 'an accident waiting to happen' then it could only have been said to have been so as a result of the policing, because the fans had been behaving in the same way since time immemorial.

What we're talking about is a situation that the authorities allowed to develop by horrific over-crowding of an area that had a particular capacity as a result of their decisions/mistakes, compounded by their failure to realise/notice/react, not because people were trying to watch a football match and doing the same thing that they'd been doing for years, with little or no risk to their health.

[jimbo]

Ok, so more people were let into the ground than should have been, but wasn't that because loads of Liverpool fans turned up without tickets and were outside wanting to get in? Police feared things may kick off outside so let them in, and we know what happened then. Those fans without tickets turned up and wanted to get in where they should have watched it on television.

The thing that gets me is how Liverpool fans see themselves as entirely blameless as a collective. Yes, the police and stewards made mistakes, but the fans also played a part. It is a tragedy so many people died, and it obviously could have been avoided.

Why the need for 'justice' as well. People have a pretty good idea what went on, and as we're reminded it was twenty years ago. Does it not reach a stage when things should be laid to rest and families are allowed to grieve in peace rather than this whole media drive dragging it back up every year. Surely the families of the deceased don't need this to remember their loved ones. Other clubs have had tragedies and moved on to some degree, so why can't Liverpool?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So the Burnden disaster was solely, purely, irrefutably the fault of Wanderers fans aswell, was it? And are they collectively to blame, or can we single out individuals?

Was it solely, purely and irrefutably the fault of the police and other authorities?

I'm sure there were many many Wanderers fans there that day who behaved recklessly and have blood on their hands.

Do we lose all personal responsibility when we are part of a crowd? No matter how egregiously police get it wrong in these cases, if nobody pushes, nobody gets hurt. For me, that's the best lesson that any of incidents provide - that crowds of people are inherently potentially dangerous, and if we are in one, we all have a responsibility to each other to behave in such a way that people are not put in danger.

[blurred]

Ok, so more people were let into the ground than should have been, but wasn't that because loads of Liverpool fans turned up without tickets and were outside wanting to get in?

No. No no no no no. No.

Jesus Christ.

This is part of the problem. 20 years on and the same shite is being accepted by people as fact.

NO.

[James B]

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

No, I don't think it is realistic to say that the culture was dangerous. We're not talking about fans pushing and shoving on a terrace in the normal sense of their behaviour - that is what went on in every ground up and down the country for decades. How many millions of people watched football safely on terraces? It's how football was watched. It had been policed, ticketed and, as a result of the Burnden disaster and the Hughes report (among other things), it had been regulated. If it was 'an accident waiting to happen' then it could only have been said to have been so as a result of the policing, because the fans had been behaving in the same way since time immemorial.

What we're talking about is a situation that the authorities allowed to develop by horrific over-crowding of an area that had a particular capacity as a result of their decisions/mistakes, compounded by their failure to realise/notice/react, not because people were trying to watch a football match and doing the same thing that they'd been doing for years, with little or no risk to their health.

Above, you say:

Standing on terraces (such as they were designed) was a dangerous occupation back then - the rushes and crushes and swarms of movement could and did lead to injuries on a regular basis, albeit minor ones. They were not comfortable places to be.

Now I wasn't there in the 70s/80s, neither were you, but this is also my understanding of what things were like. If this is the standard state of affairs, over a long period of time, I'd say it's fair to describe the culture as 'an accident waiting to happen' if a few variables came together.

My point was though, if football fans were used to all this going on without anyone dying, so too were the police. I have no doubt that the facts, figures and specifications you have quoted above are more or less correct. Do you think they were observed at every other football match in England in the 20 years preceding Hillsborough? More likely is that there was a gradual creep of complacency amongst everybody involved in football in between 1946 and 1989. The police that day didn't wake up thinking that if they didn't do their job effectively then large numbers of people would die - sadly, it just wasn't what people thought about at the time. Obviously, we have the serious benefit of hindsight now. It's a fact of human existence that sometimes it takes terrible things to happen before people realise what should really be done.

It is said that the police should have known that their mistakes could be fatal. As if the crowd was like some great herd of wildebeest that was inevitably going to surge, trample and stampede if it was misdirected, or calculations about the size of enclosure were done badly or not at all... but surely thinking of the crowd as such is also to criticise it?

[Juewanderer]

A good write up here re the Burnden disaster


http://www.merseysidepotters.com/Burnden.htm

[blurred]

Now I wasn't there in the 70s/80s, neither were you, but this is also my understanding of what things were like. If this is the standard state of affairs, over a long period of time, I'd say it's fair to describe the culture as 'an accident waiting to happen' if a few variables came together.

The variables, though, were at the feet of the authorities, though, and not the supporters. Standing has been in place in Germany for many seasons now, and I can't say that I believe that to be 'an accident waiting to happen'. Yes the stadia were in a much worse condition in the 1980s than that of modern Germany now, but standing was not fundamentally unsafe. Unpleasant, perhaps (the stories of being stuck in the middle of the Kop and having to piss down a rolled-up Echo would doubtless stop Tarquin and Timothy from Surrey coming up to Anfield for their 'day out' these days), but not fundamentally unsafe. There needed to be investment in infrastructure, granted, but I don't think that that had to necessarily come from a disaster. That there were minor crushes, the occasional bruises here and there did not, in my opinion, mean that ultimately there was going to be an accident in which well over 700 people were injured, 96 of them fatally. It requires a lot of variables coming together, ridiculously, improbably so. The number of decisions at Hillsborough that could have been made which would have averted the tragedy (or at least severely diminished its impact) is overwhelming.

My point was though, if football fans were used to all this going on without anyone dying, so too were the police. I have no doubt that the facts, figures and specifications you have quoted above are more or less correct. Do you think they were observed at every other football match in England in the 20 years preceding Hillsborough? More likely is that there was a gradual creep of complacency amongst everybody involved in football in between 1946 and 1989.

That's a seemingly reasonable assumption, but unfortunately unverifiable. However, not all of these stadia were being chosen to host some of the biggest club games of the football season, though. You'd think that the better stadiums would be chosen, not those that failed on just about every piece of government recommendation for ground safety?

The police that day didn't wake up thinking that if they didn't do their job effectively then large numbers of people would die

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that. I'm not saying they intended it, but the senior officers must have known then, as they do now, that when controlling large crowds of people serious incidents can occur. It's why there are disaster and contingency plans for such things, and why we have evacuation plans for public buildings and spaces now - people can be killed in the crush escaping a potential incident, and they'd've known this. They were briefed on this before Hillsborough - there was a major disaster plan. They may not have foreseen the precise nature of what was to come, but they'd've known that they were in charge of the organisation should pretty much anything go wrong, and thus would've know that being ineffective could lead to terrible consequences.

- sadly, it just wasn't what people thought about at the time. Obviously, we have the serious benefit of hindsight now. It's a fact of human existence that sometimes it takes terrible things to happen before people realise what should really be done.

I'd agree with that.

It is said that the police should have known that their mistakes could be fatal. As if the crowd was like some great herd of wildebeest that was inevitably going to surge, trample and stampede if it was misdirected, or calculations about the size of enclosure were done badly or not at all... but surely thinking of the crowd as such is also to criticise it?

Yes, the police should've known that their mistakes could be fatal. Absolutely. It's why in previous games so many things had been done differently, to avoid such potential problems. Filtering systems for getting into the turnstiles, closing off access to the central pens, putting back kick-off due to crowd congestion outside...

While I don't necessarily agree with the emotive language of 'stampeding' Liverpool fans (CCTV shows Liverpool fans walking in through Gate C, not running, charging or generally being unruly), I think that it was entirely to be expected that fans would head for the only area marked 'Standing', and that a crush would develop if the area was not particularly well managed.

You are keen to point out individual responsibility over crowd dynamics. There are plenty of stories from the Leppings Lane of fans helping each other - indeed, for a good while it was only the fans who were able to assist each other as the police were hesitant and reticent. Fans lifted others into the upper tiers, forced children up above their heads so as they could survive, pleaded with the police, and even Bruce Grobelaar, to open the gates at the front of the pens, and generally did all they could to prevent the loss of life. Once the scale of what was going on became apparent, it was always going to be too late, but the sheer number of people trapped in those central pens made it all but impossible for individual responsibility to override the crowd dynamic.

Put yourself somewhere in the middle of Pen 3 - how would you communicate to those behind you that they needed to move back when you yourself couldn't touch the ground with your own feet, and while you were preserving what little oxygen was left in your lungs in the hope that you might make it out alive? If you've ever been on the underground at rush hour you'll know how uncomfortable it can be to be trapped in a small space. Multiply that many, many times over and you can't even begin to imagine the horrors of being on the Leppings Lane End.

The last time Liverpool reached an FA Cup semi-final I attended it. Had I been born in 1972 instead of 1982 I'd say there's a reasonable chance I'd've been at Hillsborough, and almost certainly would've wanted to be on the terraces instead of in the seats in the stand to the side. That's what I can't escape. That's what doesn't bear thinking about to me.

[jimbo]

Ok, so more people were let into the ground than should have been, but wasn't that because loads of Liverpool fans turned up without tickets and were outside wanting to get in?

No. No no no no no. No.

Jesus Christ.

This is part of the problem. 20 years on and the same shite is being accepted by people as fact.

NO.

Sorry! I was only just born when it happened and am going off what I've heard over the years. So why did so many more people turn up then? Did they all have tickets and get in legally?

[malcd1]

There are many reasons why this tragedy happened:

The design of the stadium, not too dissimilar to dozens of others in the country at the time. Not all of them were as use to staging semi-finals though, with two sets of 'away' supporters. Fans had a choice of three 'pens' in this side if the stadium. Most wanted to go in the middle one for the best view. This should not of been allowed.

The fences - You could blame anyone who has ever being involved in football hooliganism for these. No fences - no problem.

The decision to put Liverpool in the half of the stadium that they were given (Easy with hindsight).

The Liverpool fans who entered the stadium without a ticket or the ones pushing from the rear all had a part to play (Whether you agree or not Blurred they were there and culpable in a small part).

The main factor was the police. I think everyone would agree that incorrect decisions were made that day. There has been an awful lot crap by Liverpool supporters saying they just stood there and did nothing. That certainly wasn't the footage I saw this morning when at least a dozen of them were trying to drag supporters over the fences and through the gates. Yes they waited too long mainly unaware or not wanting to take the responsibility of opening gates. Bad decision.

Football itself is to blame and huge improvements have been made since the late 80's early 90's.

BUT the ones who weren't to blame are the children and adults at the front of the terraces. Some of these had been in the stadium for hours to get near the front to get the best views. They certainly hadn't been in the pub getting drunk.

Lessons have been learnt. Thank god (Not literally of course).

I know when a family member died we sometimes feel the need to blame someone but I think it is time to drop the blame game. Nothing is going to come of it now. There will be no closure. No justice that will bring these people back. Unfortunately.

[blurred]

So why did so many more people turn up then? Did they all have tickets and get in legally?

Police Federation Officer Paul Middup, when interviewed by ITV, stated that '500 plus' were without tickets and were 'hell bent' on getting in.

Officers at the turnstiles, however, denied tthere were a large number of ticketless supporters (in testimony to the Taylor Inquiry). Sheffield Wednesday's own admission counting system showed that the terrace did not exceed its 10,100 capacity. The Health and Safety Executive also conclusively proved there was no substance to Middup's allegations.

The HSE counted the number of LFC supporters entering the ground, including those through the turnstiles and those who came through Gate C. They gave 3 admission figures based on their analysis:

The first figure was 9,267, their 'best estimate' was 9,734 and their third figure was a 'maximum estimate' of 10,124. The HSE report stated it was unlikely that the terrace exceeded 10,124 and that the total admissions were approximately equal to the designated capacity of 10,100.

The Taylor Report surmised there was no substance to the allegation that ticketless fans caused the disasater.

Sorry! I was only just born when it happened and am going off what I've heard over the years.

I didn't mean to have a go at you, per se, so apologies if it came across like that. It was the more general point that it's endemic of people not knowing the facts, but still happy to trot out the half-truths, misconceptions and downright lies that were peddled in the aftermath of the event. This is why I put up links on here (and other sites) to Hillsborough information, witness accounts, etc. It is genuinely to educate people. A lot of people seem hostile towards Liverpool and Hillsborough (and I don't mind that, people can form their own opinions), but if they form those based on the old stories of thieving scousers, turning up late, drunk and ticketless then I feel obliged to point out that they're talking balls of the highest order.

If you genuinely want to read more about it (and I'd suggest everyone who's a football fan would have an interest in it) then check out www.hfdinfo.com - you can take 10 mins out of your internet browsing in the coming few days to have a read of some of the material on there.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok, so more people were let into the ground than should have been, but wasn't that because loads of Liverpool fans turned up without tickets and were outside wanting to get in?

No. No no no no no. No.

Jesus Christ.

This is part of the problem. 20 years on and the same shite is being accepted by people as fact.

NO.

Sorry! I was only just born when it happened and am going off what I've heard over the years. So why did so many more people turn up then? Did they all have tickets and get in legally?

The Taylor Inquiry says that there wasn't an unusually large number of ticketless fans there, and those that were there were not a cause of the problem, but merely 'aggravating' factors.

The interim Taylor Report is accessibly laid out if you want to have a quick flick through it. (Link at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Report )

The section 'Why did it happen?' starts with this quotation from Dr John Habgood, Archbishop of York, preaching at the Hillsborough Memorial Service on 23 April 1989:

"Events of the magnitude of Hillsborough don't usually happen just for one single reason, nor is it usually possible to pin the blame on one single scapegoat... . . . Disasters happen because a whole series of mistakes, misjudgments and mischances happen to come together in a deadly combination."

One point to be made is that the police that day were far more worried about crowd control and hooliganism than they were about crowd safety. Was this approach wrong, mistaken? Sure it was - so much is obvious now. But it was a product of the time and another factor in this 'perfect storm' of factors that all combined on one day.

[blurred]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8000635.stm

Andy Burnham (an un-announced guest at today's memorial at Anfield) gets shown exactly what Liverpool fans think of the lip-service paid by the government to 'justice'. Good on those that were there today, I say.