-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Hillsborough verdicts.
- Thread starter Green Rhino
- Start date
Anyone who went to football matches in the 80's is now shaking their heads in disbelief at that.TynanWozGr8":s6fx0hqi said:
The rest of the verdicts, yes, absolutely, mistakes were definitely made. But to absolve late arriving and ticketless fans from ANY responsibility? deary me :roll:
What I hope doesn't happen once all this is digested is that further, retrospective, measures are imposed on fans going forwards. This inquest gets to the truth (well, apart from some fans that day it seems) of what happened that day, and it really shouldn't have taken this long. But the remedies to help prevent it happening again were taken up long ago.
Football culture has changed in the intervening years, stadia are far far safer than they were then. To bring in any recommendations now would be to slam the stable door shut after the horse has bolted.
The jury have heard two years of evidence and came to the conclusion that the fans were not responsible by unanimous decision
The jury are in the best place by far to judge so have to respect their judgement
The jury are in the best place by far to judge so have to respect their judgement
As sure as day follows night the first comment is someone disagreeing with the verdict.
But of course XIsle is in a better place to judge than the jury that has spent years considering the evidence.
But of course XIsle is in a better place to judge than the jury that has spent years considering the evidence.
Not sure how old you guys are but if you didn't live through that period as a football supporter then you won't understand how nonsensical that one conclusion could be. I was a member of the FSA back then, an organisation that was at the forefront of campaigning to change the safety at stadia, not even they, a body OF football supporters buried their heads to how some fans behaved.
Yes, I do respect the validity of the outcome, I do not need to agree with it (and it's only that one conclusion I don't) to do so.
Yes, I do respect the validity of the outcome, I do not need to agree with it (and it's only that one conclusion I don't) to do so.
X Isle":ijvj2y25 said:
You are still believing the police statements at the time and the newspaper reports from 1989 then?
There is no evidence that there were more than just a handful of ticketless fans and those that entered did so under the guidence of those whose duty it was to keep everyone safe. How can the supporters be in any way to blame?
LostPilgrim":1r1rks88 said:
Exactly.
It was said on the Sky news report that the behaviour of the Liverpool fans was no worse than would have been expected at other grounds at that time. There was no significant drunkenness, violence or large numbers of ticketless fans and the police should have been prepared to deal with it is what I think they are saying, or the jury has concluded.
Those ticketless fans who ran in have probably been reliving that day ever since, as have the families of the 96.
The scale of the cover up is breathe taking and there will undoubtedly be criminal prosecutions as a result.
As previously mentioned there were occasions where this really could have happened at one of our games in the 1980's
I loved standing own the Lyndhurst terrace but wouldn't want that back - I feel safe taking my kids to games now which is a massive positive to come from the heart ache of Hillsborough, Hysel and Bradford
Cabbie, no I don't believe the police statements, I agree with every conclusion bar one, and one only.
Let's be clear about what was asked...
"Was there behaviour on the part of supporters which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation".
Every game back then, wherever it was, had fans who did this to a greater or lesser extent. It's inconceivable that in an FA cup semi final, no-one did. If even a "small group" did then they contributed in some way.
I'll leave it there, you can queue up to pillory me all you like, I just don't buy it.
Let's be clear about what was asked...
"Was there behaviour on the part of supporters which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation".
Every game back then, wherever it was, had fans who did this to a greater or lesser extent. It's inconceivable that in an FA cup semi final, no-one did. If even a "small group" did then they contributed in some way.
I'll leave it there, you can queue up to pillory me all you like, I just don't buy it.
X Isle":2781vw00 said:
Your comments do you no favours at all. To feel, as you clearly do, that you have a right to an opinion on this which is equal to, or better than jurors who have listened to, and weighed up, evidence over two years would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious issue. 96 people died and yet you can't wind in your pomposity and ignorance. Shame on you, any shred of credibility you have has dribbled away.
X Isle":3ietfuyi said:
The point I think you are missing is that the behaviour of fans was no worse than should have been anticipated and therefore the police should have dealt with it
I do not condone the fans behaviour of some fans, most clubs had big numbers looking for trouble in the 80's, but the police should have been geared up to deal with it at a semi final when large numbers from each club were there, and not to have a novice in charge of such a big match
Incredible that Forrest had 62 turnstiles and Liverpool had less than a third - 27?? The police, ambulance, Sheffield Wednesday, stadium engineers - all heavily criticised. The whole day was a shambles in a stadium not fit for purpose.
I know how I would feel if it was one of my kids killed in these circumstances and then to have 27 years of establishment lies and cover ups just prolongs the grief.
I sort of get where X'y is coming from.
I think the question was probably asked wrong, and in a way it was answered wrong, but when you see fans piling in like that at that time (from 1445 onwards) for a semi final, you have to doubt whether some didn't contribute surely.
However, the cover ups were vile and the tampering of evidence is certainly a criminal offence and now the criminal proceedings can proceed.
What is certain is none of the 96 did anything wrong, they were sadly in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If any good come out of this, it made the police and authorities not treat football fans like animals like they did during and before this game.
I think the question was probably asked wrong, and in a way it was answered wrong, but when you see fans piling in like that at that time (from 1445 onwards) for a semi final, you have to doubt whether some didn't contribute surely.
However, the cover ups were vile and the tampering of evidence is certainly a criminal offence and now the criminal proceedings can proceed.
What is certain is none of the 96 did anything wrong, they were sadly in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If any good come out of this, it made the police and authorities not treat football fans like animals like they did during and before this game.
A really good analysis and summary of the various words used. The final sentence is particularly profound for my generation. Perhaps a very appropriate way to end this particular debate.IJN":3qogr4zv said:
The question isn't whether or not supporters contributed - they did because they were there, it was who was responsible - look at the 14 questions that the jury was asked.... this is what the Beeb reported:
Ninety-six football fans who died as a result of a crush in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, the inquests have concluded.
The jury decided the match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield's actions amounted to "gross negligence" due to a breach of his duty of care to fans.
Police errors also added to a dangerous situation at the FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans was exonerated. The jury found they did not contribute to the danger unfolding at the turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end of Sheffield Wednesday's ground on 15 April 1989.
Police errors caused a dangerous situation at the turnstiles
Failures by commanding officers caused a crush on the terraces
There were mistakes in the police control box over the order to open the Leppings Lane end exit gates
Defects at the stadium contributed to the disaster
There was an error in the safety certification of the Hillsborough stadium
South Yorkshire Police and South Yorkshire Ambulance Service delayed declaring a major incident
The emergency response was therefore delayed
Sheffield Wednesday failed to approve the plans for dedicated turnstiles for each pen
There was inadequate signage at the club and misleading information on match tickets
Club officials should have requested a delay in kick off as they were aware of a huge number of fans outside shortly before the game was due to start
Ninety-six football fans who died as a result of a crush in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, the inquests have concluded.
The jury decided the match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield's actions amounted to "gross negligence" due to a breach of his duty of care to fans.
Police errors also added to a dangerous situation at the FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans was exonerated. The jury found they did not contribute to the danger unfolding at the turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end of Sheffield Wednesday's ground on 15 April 1989.
Police errors caused a dangerous situation at the turnstiles
Failures by commanding officers caused a crush on the terraces
There were mistakes in the police control box over the order to open the Leppings Lane end exit gates
Defects at the stadium contributed to the disaster
There was an error in the safety certification of the Hillsborough stadium
South Yorkshire Police and South Yorkshire Ambulance Service delayed declaring a major incident
The emergency response was therefore delayed
Sheffield Wednesday failed to approve the plans for dedicated turnstiles for each pen
There was inadequate signage at the club and misleading information on match tickets
Club officials should have requested a delay in kick off as they were aware of a huge number of fans outside shortly before the game was due to start
I don't think it is Peter, those that died are completely innocent.
I'm backing out of this debate, I was simply saying I understood what X'y meant.
Also, debating like this is perhaps not the cleverest thing to do on this day of all days.
Justice for the 96 has been served and rightly so.
What a tragedy that all of the member of the affected families didn't witness this momentous day.
I'm backing out of this debate, I was simply saying I understood what X'y meant.
Also, debating like this is perhaps not the cleverest thing to do on this day of all days.
Justice for the 96 has been served and rightly so.
What a tragedy that all of the member of the affected families didn't witness this momentous day.