Hillsborough piece in The Observer on Sunday

[blurred]

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

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or in 'moments of excitement' (the number of times people have done their shins in on the seats in front when celebrating a goal, fallen over them, or at worst just being crammed in to inadequately spaced seats in stadia), and to me it is inherently safer for standing during passive play, as it provides something to lean on/against.

I'm not saying that all areas in all grounds should be like this, but that the Germans have made this system work, and that if clubs wish to implement something similar in this country then they should not be hamstrung by the legislation that prevents them from doing so. Different grounds have different systems in Germany - I believe that the former Westfalenstadion (Borussia Dortmund) has something much more akin to the old style terraces in sections of its ground, and I'm not sure that I could support a return to these in the UK.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

Have you watched this recent interview with the coroner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7998231.stm

It's 18 minutes of extraordinary footage - I can't recall ever having seen an interview like it, and I actually think it was fairly ill-advised, because he could well have made verbal slips that were seized upon.

As it is, it's an entirely reasonable and reasoned account of what has gone on.

The basic point is that the idea of a 3.15 'cut-off' was misunderstood and continues to be misunderstood.

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?

Actually, no. As I have already said, to me it would a truly remarkable case in which a police officer should be prosecuted simply for doing his job.

As you know, prosecutions are only brought against anyone when it is felt that is in the public interest to do so. This test will rarely be met for what I see as broadly coming under two reasons:

1. Police are very unlikely to be convicted so it's a bad use of public money.

It's a rare case in which police behaviour goes far enough outside the range of police powers and duties to constitute criminality, and therefore it's rarely a sensible use of resources to pursue criminal proceedings against police, because conviction is so unlikely. I know people will be seething just reading that, and will be very annoyed at the idea that police are not equal with other men and women before the law.

The CPS does say this on the charging decision involving police:

The charging decision in relation to allegations of criminal offences against persons serving with the police must follow the tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It is important for the maintenance of public and police confidence that a different standard is not allowed to develop in cases involving persons serving with the police.

Decisions as to whether or not to pursue criminal charges should be taken on the merits of the case and should be free of, and seen to be free of, any influence arising from the existence of a complaint against the police.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/alle ... olice/#a02

However, even if the standard isn't different, and I honestly believe it isn't, the circumstances to be taken into account usually are very different. I have disagreed with others on here over this before, but the fact that police do a very difficult job and have to manage a range of unusual powers and responsbilities means that the presumption is, rightly in my view, to give them some leeway.

2. Prosecuting Police is not helpful for long-term policing standards

I'm going to start right from the off by appreciating that people are likely to disagree with me angrily and think that policing can only be improved if individual policemen fear criminal charges if they do the wrong thing.

It's just my opinion that that's wrong.

Firstly, let's take the example of Duckenfield who made bad decisions and froze because he did not have the human qualities to deal with the situation he was faced with.

Are we likely to get a higher or lower standard of applicant for policing jobs, if people feel that they could be prosecuted for making honest human mistakes in the course of doing their job?

Secondly, I don't think it is actually helpful if police do their job worrying about prosecution. They do do an unsual job and have to make quick decisions in trying circumstances. Police will be better police, in my opinion, if they do what they think is reasonable in the circumstances and rely on their training. We discussed this in relation to Jean Charles de Menezes - I felt strongly, and swimming against the tide on here somewhat, that the coroner was right not to put unlawful killing on the table for the jury. Yes, mistakes were made in that case, but I don't think we get a better standard of policing going forward if the man who pulled the trigger or the man who ordered/authorised it thought "hang on, I could go to jail here". There isn't time for that in that sort of policing.

No, most of the time, police disciplinary and investigation procedures are the best way to deal with bad policing.

I think culture in police misconduct matters should lean towards an environment focused on development and improvement as opposed to one focused on blame and punishment. What should happen in cases like the de Menzes case is that we look at where the training and guidelines and procedures were wrong and strive to improve - it's not a cover-up or whitewash if individuals are not made to pay in criminal courts.

As I say, the 'leeway' I mention above is that if a policeman thinks he is acting reasonably and doing the best job he knows how to do, there should be an extremely strong presumption against criminal sanctions because that is (a) morally right and (b) the state of affairs that least damages future policing. It might be that the individual's career in policing is destroyed, and often that is appropriate, but that is something quite different.

Just so it doesn't look like I'm elevating police to a status all of their own, I happen to think the same about doctors. If a doctor makes a fatal mistake whilst doing the best job he can, I think the presumption should be against criminal sanction there too. It's my view that overall standards are likely to be higher if doctors are focused on their patient's interests, not fear of potential censure if it goes wrong - it's often described as not wanting 'defensive medicine'.


As a concluding comment about police, I do think a hazily informed crusade that promotes an 'us and them' attitude to the 'bizzies' or the 'rozzers' or whatever is only ever likely to be unhelpful in the long run.

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?

Are you going to compare everyone who supports Liverpool, for whatever reason (including enjoying watching them play as young boy growing up in Kent), with a long-oppressed ethnic minority community?

Are you going to compare a tragic accident with a murder?

I think the black community have some very legimate feelings about 'injustice' through the years, and I'm sure they don't identify too much with those who preach 'justice for the 96' in their facebook statuses, in an Anfield 'ceremony' or wherever, for no reason much greater than they derive some enjoyment or comfort from feeling like they're part of something.

[BWFC_Insane]

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

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or in 'moments of excitement' (the number of times people have done their shins in on the seats in front when celebrating a goal, fallen over them, or at worst just being crammed in to inadequately spaced seats in stadia), and to me it is inherently safer for standing during passive play, as it provides something to lean on/against.

I'm not saying that all areas in all grounds should be like this, but that the Germans have made this system work, and that if clubs wish to implement something similar in this country then they should not be hamstrung by the legislation that prevents them from doing so. Different grounds have different systems in Germany - I believe that the former Westfalenstadion (Borussia Dortmund) has something much more akin to the old style terraces in sections of its ground, and I'm not sure that I could support a return to these in the UK.

But surely the safest would be for everyone to sit in a seat. Just because some people "want to stand" should not override the ultimate consideration which is health and safety of those attending games.

Bearing in mind the events at Hillsbrough can't we all just sit in our seats and be thankful?

[Worthy4England]

Are you going to compare a tragic accident with a murder?

Without trying to intervene in the dialogue between you and Mr B, Mummy. I think this is part of the crux of the whole case. There is no such thing as an "accident" anymore. "Everything" is caused by "something", and in lawyer speak that something can usually be found to be an individual. Once it's been established that an individual (or collection of individuals) is at fault then hey presto - Justice can be served....

[blurred]

Are you going to compare a tragic accident with a murder?

Without trying to intervene in the dialogue between you and Mr B, Mummy. I think this is part of the crux of the whole case. There is no such thing as an "accident" anymore. "Everything" is caused by "something", and in lawyer speak that something can usually be found to be an individual. Once it's been established that an individual (or collection of individuals) is at fault then hey presto - Justice can be served....

In response to that particular question from Mr Crayons, no. I thought it was clear that I was comparing the reactions to the two losses of life by the respective communities affected.

You wouldn't castigate the members of the black community from rallying round behind the tragic loss of one of their own, so why do the same with supporters of a football club or people from a city who lost so many of theirs? Should only black people from London be allowed to identify with Doreen Lawrence? I mean, what's it got to do with someone else who's black who lives in Sheffield? Why would he want to get involved and add his support to the family and friends of the bereaved? That's not to say that every black person in Britain has to identify with and support the Lawrence's case, any more than every Liverpool fan has to feel a sense of injustice about Hillsborough and go on marches and get involved. Those that are part of the community and want to do their bit do, those who don't, don't.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, I'm opting out of it all right here. I've offered sincere condolences, but it's a Bolton Wanderers website after all and respectfully, this is all about Liverpool and nothing more. It's all been said and is just going round in circles. Nothing more to add. Carry on chaps.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Are you going to compare a tragic accident with a murder?

Without trying to intervene in the dialogue between you and Mr B, Mummy. I think this is part of the crux of the whole case. There is no such thing as an "accident" anymore. "Everything" is caused by "something", and in lawyer speak that something can usually be found to be an individual. Once it's been established that an individual (or collection of individuals) is at fault then hey presto - Justice can be served....

In response to that particular question from Mr Crayons, no. I thought it was clear that I was comparing the reactions to the two losses of life by the respective communities affected.

You wouldn't castigate the members of the black community from rallying round behind the tragic loss of one of their own, so why do the same with supporters of a football club or people from a city who lost so many of theirs? Should only black people from London be allowed to identify with Doreen Lawrence? I mean, what's it got to do with someone else who's black who lives in Sheffield? Why would he want to get involved and add his support to the family and friends of the bereaved? That's not to say that every black person in Britain has to identify with and support the Lawrence's case, any more than every Liverpool fan has to feel a sense of injustice about Hillsborough and go on marches and get involved. Those that are part of the community and want to do their bit do, those who don't, don't.

Alright Blurred, my view simply stated is that:

a) the calls for justice when there is a murder and nobody punished for it are significantly different to calls for justice involving accidental death (and I use that phrase in a non-legal sense of non-intentional killing).

b) a 'community' based on choice of football team to support is significantly different to a sense of 'community' based on shared ethnicity.


Forgive me, but the idea that the two things are comparable is exactly the sort of lack of perspective I and others despair at.

[blurred]

Fair enough, it was the first analogy that popped into my head some while back in this thread when thinking of individuals who have had to pursue their own version of justice, and has stuck in the discussion.

I'm not readily comparing ethnicity to a football club's support, but would remind you that 'the community' of Liverpool isn't just a disparate group of individuals whose only connection to each other is a sporting allegiance, it is those who live in the city, who lost family, friends, colleagues, school classmates, etc. 30,000 or so of whom attended Anfield yesterday (along with the countless more who watched/followed around the country). There were a significant number of Everton fans at Anfield yesterday, too, and the city as a whole is 'the community' as much as the club or its fans.

I have to say I felt more a part of a community in Liverpool as a city and with the people that I have met there than I've felt in places I've lived before or since, or because of any reason based on ethnicity/nationality. So in that sense, yes, I'd agree that it is 'significantly different', but then my significantly different is, er, significantly different from the significantly different that you're talking about. Anyway.

[CAPSLOCK]

So, I've just read 8 or 9 pages of stuff, and lots of information (presented as facts) given by somebody who was no more there on that day than I was

In fact, as somebody who did populate 80s terraces, I have my own ideas of some things that would have gone on

Anyway, and I'm not somebody who blames Liverpool fans solely for what happened, I've still not gathered from the Liverpool correspondent just what Liverpool fans DID do wrong

If he could be so good, I, and I suspect many others, could find it in ourselves to be even more sympathetic to 'the casue'

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I looked to see what the reaction was to that highly unusual interview with the coroner on RAWK, and it's barely mentioned apart from a couple of posts saying that he's a *insert expletive* that they're not prepared to listen to.

In the process, I stumbled across this: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/ind ... 18.new#new

Is it me?!

How that article can be described as being 'snide' or having an anti-Liverpool agenda is beyond me. As I have said, if anything, some of it strays into poetic sycophancy in a bid to come across as poignant and respectful.

[Tombwfc]

The irony is that if the journo was being snide with the "Woe betide anyone who suggests that Liverpudlians enjoy portraying themselves as victims." comment, that thread pretty much backs up his view. It was, like the final poster said, just a pretty middle of the road, bland piece of journalism.

Not sure I see what was wrong with the Heysel mention either.

[Verbal]

Itandje looks like he's heading off after laughing through the Hillsborough service...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... -liverpool

Tut and double tut.

[blurred]

Itandje looks like he's heading off after laughing through the Hillsborough service...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... -liverpool

Tut and double tut.

Not sure we'd notice the difference, seeing as he's not played for well over a year. And is shit. And isn't wanted anyway.

[CAPSLOCK]

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

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or in 'moments of excitement' (the number of times people have done their shins in on the seats in front when celebrating a goal, fallen over them, or at worst just being crammed in to inadequately spaced seats in stadia), and to me it is inherently safer for standing during passive play, as it provides something to lean on/against.

I'm not saying that all areas in all grounds should be like this, but that the Germans have made this system work, and that if clubs wish to implement something similar in this country then they should not be hamstrung by the legislation that prevents them from doing so. Different grounds have different systems in Germany - I believe that the former Westfalenstadion (Borussia Dortmund) has something much more akin to the old style terraces in sections of its ground, and I'm not sure that I could support a return to these in the UK.

Reet, having ignored my previous request

Let us try again

When folk die in a seated area where everybody is standing, will it be the fault of the

a) fans for ignoring the rules

b) police for not chucking them all out

c) those responsible for the stadium being all-seater

[Tombwfc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPAfFML8aq8

[William the White]

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

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or in 'moments of excitement' (the number of times people have done their shins in on the seats in front when celebrating a goal, fallen over them, or at worst just being crammed in to inadequately spaced seats in stadia), and to me it is inherently safer for standing during passive play, as it provides something to lean on/against.

I'm not saying that all areas in all grounds should be like this, but that the Germans have made this system work, and that if clubs wish to implement something similar in this country then they should not be hamstrung by the legislation that prevents them from doing so. Different grounds have different systems in Germany - I believe that the former Westfalenstadion (Borussia Dortmund) has something much more akin to the old style terraces in sections of its ground, and I'm not sure that I could support a return to these in the UK.

Reet, having ignored my previous request

Let us try again

When folk die in a seated area where everybody is standing, will it be the fault of the

a) fans for ignoring the rules

b) police for not chucking them all out

c) those responsible for the stadium being all-seater

A version of a) or b) or, more likely, both -

Like over-excited fans [not an uncommon phenomenon, i'm sure we can agree], inadequate police numbers, or incompetent police training...

c) stadium design, all seater or not, is not impossible to imagine for those of us who went to the Velodrome to watch our exit against Marseille... the seats weren't numbered, though the tickets were, the seats had no backs so stumbling over them was much more possible, and i saw it happen, for whatever reason large numbers of Bolton fans ended up in the aisles... the exits and passageways below the stand were extremely narrow, and the crush serious enough for our group to hold back until right at the end... and, finally, there was a very serious risk of some appalling disease if you tried to use the toilets...

Done my best to answer, CAPS, did you have a point that i've missed?

[Lord Kangana]

Like a broken pencil, I believe.

[fozzy]

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

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or in 'moments of excitement' (the number of times people have done their shins in on the seats in front when celebrating a goal, fallen over them, or at worst just being crammed in to inadequately spaced seats in stadia), and to me it is inherently safer for standing during passive play, as it provides something to lean on/against.

I'm not saying that all areas in all grounds should be like this, but that the Germans have made this system work, and that if clubs wish to implement something similar in this country then they should not be hamstrung by the legislation that prevents them from doing so. Different grounds have different systems in Germany - I believe that the former Westfalenstadion (Borussia Dortmund) has something much more akin to the old style terraces in sections of its ground, and I'm not sure that I could support a return to these in the UK.

Reet, having ignored my previous request

Let us try again

When folk die in a seated area where everybody is standing, will it be the fault of the

a) fans for ignoring the rules

b) police for not chucking them all out

c) those responsible for the stadium being all-seater

No disrespect, but that's far too simplistic.

Fans persistently stand - at times of excitement, as is allowed - during the course of a game. Why we can do this, but not be on our feet for the entire 90 minutes, nobody really knows. Some say we block the views of the young and the elderly (legally though, at times of excitement). Others state we could cause the dreaded 'domino' effect (anybody ever seen this?). So, as a consequence (or punishment) some clubs have had their away allocation cut. Although how reducing a 3k strong crowd by a few hundred is meant to improve safety is beyond me. If the authorities were certain that our behaviour were a hazard, they would simply shut the stand. But they can't - they tried at Old Trafford and they failed.

The truth is the act is completely unclear and utterly unworkable. It has been since the Taylor report was published. A simple and inexpensive solution would be to convert one or two parts of a stadium to safe standing (as Blurred's pictures illustrate) with the rest remaining seated.

To reach this stage though, the general public need to be educated that:

• Hillsborough was caused by a spectacular failure of crowd control, fences and an unsafe ground
• the terracing of the 1980s is an entirely different animal to what we have today
• fans don't suddenly become hooligans once they stand up

Apologies for my slightly sarcastic tone, it's just I've become frustrated with this debate recently and even more so when you can apparently safely stand in League One, League Two, The 02 (upper tier, seated area), Cheltenham race course (old fashioned terrace), Football stadia (watching a band)...etc...

[Bruce Rioja]

Yes. It's I think it is certainly safer for those that want to stand to be in a place that is designed for them, rather than being stood in seats as happens at the moment. With those barriers in place I believe there is little to no chance of goal-related injury, or........... yada, yada, yada

I'll tell you what there's no chance of there happening in a standing environment, Short-Arse: you seeing anything! You've not thought about that one, have you?

[blurred]

Jacqui Smith has asked SYP to release the files 10 years early.

A positive step, but I wonder how much information has conveniently been 'lost'. Still, let's hope they get on with it and we'll see what new stuff emerges.