1. A significant amount of Scousers were disorderly beforehand

2. The police were disorganised during

3. The emergency services as a whole responded badly

4. There was no real cover up and Taylor's report was by and large correct.

 

Scousers will deny item 1 and feed on items 2 and 3

I really don't understand why the police didn't admit at the time they made the wrong decision because 2000 fans were trying to get in. We all knew this. Why they opened the gate also needs to be addressed.

I really don't understand why the police didn't admit at the time they made the wrong decision because 2000 fans were trying to get in. We all knew this. Why they opened the gate also needs to be addressed.

It doesn't really. Everyone knows why.

 

It was the polices job to deal with those circumstances. They didn't. Then lied about it for 20 years and dragged the names of innocent victims through the mud.

 

Complete disgrace.

The mistake they made was not closing the gates to the central pen before they opened the main gates. They had no choice but to open the main gates to relieve the crush outside.

It doesn't really. Everyone knows why.

I beg to differ.

I beg to differ.

Enlighten me?

 

If you can be bothered that is.

Enlighten me?

 

If you can be bothered that is.

Yes, I can be bothered as it is worth saying. When looking at a liability case, which this will become, all circumstances involved in the event must be looked at as a whole, not in isolation.

Someone sets fire to a house.

 

The fireman turn up and fail in every aspect of their training and all the innocent people inside the house die. Then the fireman deploy a massive cover up for 20 years and try their best to besmirch the characters of the innocent people in the house.

 

The subsequent inquest is about the fireman not the arsonists.

Someone sets fire to a house.

 

The fireman turn up and fail in every aspect of their training and all the innocent people inside the house die. Then the fireman deploy a massive cover up for 20 years and try their best to besmirch the characters of the innocent people in the house.

 

The subsequent inquest is about the fireman not the arsonists.

And I have stated other aspects need to be looked at, it's not just about the inquest in isolation. Do you think other events that day are irrelevant when it becomes a liability case?

He's admitted his failings (eventually) and I really don't understand why they covered it up but he opened a gate for a reason.

Someone sets fire to a house.

 

The fireman turn up and fail in every aspect of their training and all the innocent people inside the house die. Then the fireman deploy a massive cover up for 20 years and try their best to besmirch the characters of the innocent people in the house.

 

The subsequent inquest is about the fireman not the arsonists.

Who's to blame for the fire? Shit analogy for your argument gonzo lad.

Who's to blame for the fire? Shit analogy for your argument gonzo lad.

Is it?

 

Great input you bell end.

Is it?

 

Great input you bell end.

It's only a good analogy if the 'family' of the deceased and all the neighbours continually denied that the arsonists had any involvement in the deaths of the deceased.

 

Which as we know in the real world would not fucking happen!

Edited March 17, 201511 yr by stevieb

It's only a good analogy if the 'family' of the deceased and all the neighbours continually denied that the arsonists had any involvement in the deaths of the deceased.

 

Which as we know in the real world would not fucking happen!

Have the families of the dead really said that??

Gotta feel  for the cop carrying that around for 27 years

Have the families of the dead really said that??

Have they ever condemned their part in it?

So, had they not opened the gates and instead 100 people died in a crush outside, would this copper be getting a knighthood for sticking to his guns?

 

People were not listening.

Gotta feel  for the cop carrying that around for 27 years

 

But he has been in denial almost throughout that time.

He didn't even realise that some parents had died without hearing his apology.

To be fair, circumstances were against him. The previous regular match commander was moved for lax discipline with juniors involved in bullying. He knew accepting the promotion offered would involve taking over that big match - his 2 warm-up outings were against Millwall and Wimbledon (the latter on a midweek evening), both with under 20k attendances.

He was suspended when the Taylor Interim Report came out, and was then medically retired on a very healthy pension.

No one has explored or explained what he was doing being driven around for over 3 hours (!!!) between briefing his officers and re-entering the ground in the early afternoon.

 

The Chief Constable is dead - otherwise he would be asked to account for making the change of match commander 3 weeks before a semi-final, and orchestrating a false response after the event.

Edited March 17, 201511 yr by MalcolmW

So, had they not opened the gates and instead 100 people died in a crush outside, would this copper be getting a knighthood for sticking to his guns?

 

People were not listening.

 

'Sticking to his guns'? They'd completely lost control by that point. It wasn't part of some masterplan they were following.

Someone sets fire to a house.

 

The fireman turn up and fail in every aspect of their training and all the innocent people inside the house die. Then the fireman deploy a massive cover up for 20 years and try their best to besmirch the characters of the innocent people in the house.

 

The subsequent inquest is about the fireman not the arsonists.

What happened to the person who set fire to the house?

The mistake they made was not closing the gates to the central pen before they opened the main gates. They had no choice but to open the main gates to relieve the crush outside.

In the very end, that's the key point and it's one that was bleeding obvious on the day it happened. You only had to look at the crowding in the various pens. One bloke being told by radio to shut off access to that central bit before the extra rush and that would have been that.

In the very end, that's the key point and it's one that was bleeding obvious on the day it happened. You only had to look at the crowding in the various pens. One bloke being told by radio to shut off access to that central bit before the extra rush and that would have been that.

 

Plus he could have put the kick-off back as it was obvious that the turnstiles could not accommodate the crowd massing outside. Failure to do so simply agitated those outside.

But Duckenfield was not aware that the turnstiles fed directly to the tunnel to the 2 central pens as he had not familiarised himself with the layout. As I mentioned above, he was driven round for hours when he could have been within the stadium, familiarising himself with the geography of the ground.

In the very end, that's the key point and it's one that was bleeding obvious on the day it happened. You only had to look at the crowding in the various pens. One bloke being told by radio to shut off access to that central bit before the extra rush and that would have been that.

 

All very true, but I wish people would stop talking about the gates as though they were literally "flood gates". The 'flood' in this case was caused by the actions of actual people, namely Liverpool fans. It wasn't some uncontrollable force of nature.

All very true, but I wish people would stop talking about the gates as though they were literally "flood gates". The 'flood' in this case was caused by the actions of actual people, namely Liverpool fans. It wasn't some uncontrollable force of nature.

 

It's the job of the Police to stop that happening. It's called crowd control.

All very true, but I wish people would stop talking about the gates as though they were literally "flood gates". The 'flood' in this case was caused by the actions of actual people, namely Liverpool fans. It wasn't some uncontrollable force of nature.

True, but part of that was a function of the fact that Hillsborough is in a shit location geographically - takes ages from the station even now with the trams, I guess even more back then. Hence overcrowding in bits at various previous games as people are bound to turn up late.

Even if everyone who turns up at a game has tickets, the mathematical fact is that if you pile them all into one section there's going to be trouble.

Many months earlier I'd written to the Bolton MP whose patch covered Burnden, saying that although I was living in London  - and even when in Bolton it was not in his ward - he needed to think about the plans for ID cards as they were bollocks.  Nowt back for months and then within a few days of the disaster I got a letter back saying how the events of the last few days proves the need for such cards to combat hooliganism. Now how would ID cards have changed this one iota given what we know now? Not a jot.  But that was the line taken and the line the police took to downplay their failures.

It's the job of the Police to stop that happening. It's called crowd control.

I'm not saying it isn't, but that doesn't mean the people in the crowd can be absolved of all responsibility for their own behaviour.

I'm not saying it isn't, but that doesn't mean the people in the crowd can be absolved of all responsibility for their own behaviour.

I do hope you're not suggesting ticketless fans are in any way to blame here.

 

By turning up without proper means of entrance should not mean they are capable of making the leap of intelligence required to figure out that by doing so puts lives at risk.

 

They turned up fully expecting the police to turn them away nicely and that they would turn round and go home without a fuss.

 

Of course they are blameless.