Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Hillsborough

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Hillsborough

Old 29th Apr 2016, 21:38
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 321
If the crowd was under control why open the gate?
Apparently it was an understood tactic used by SYP at Hillsborough, it was named after Duckenfield's predecessor and was accompanied by a closure of the gates to the centre pen.

It was used mostly when the turnstiles couldn't cope with the numbers coming through.

You'd know about crushes at Hillsborough being a Spurs fan though, wouldn't you? 1981

once again for the hard of thinking; after 296 days of evidence a jury decided that:

Question 7: behaviour of the supporters

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.
insty66 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2016, 21:39
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,284
What was so different this time ? It was just a misjudgement. Problem is what followed.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2016, 21:48
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by insty66 View Post
Apparently it was an understood tactic used by SYP at Hillsborough, it was named after Duckenfield's predecessor and was accompanied by a closure of the gates to the centre pen.

It was used mostly when the turnstiles couldn't cope with the numbers coming through.

You'd know about crushes at Hillsborough being a Spurs fan though, wouldn't you? 1981

once again for the hard of thinking; after 296 days of evidence a jury decided that:

Question 7: behaviour of the supporters

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.
Spurs fan? I follow my son's team, he plays semi professional footy in the Evo Stik South West Div 1 so WTF is the Spurs connection?

So once again for the hard of thinking did the jury hear any evidence from the 100 or so who jumped the turnstiles that day?

In fact 27 years on do we have the identity of any of those who jumped the turnstiles that day?

If not then ask yourself why not.......
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2016, 22:28
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,284
Save your breath. One day you will need it. Who will hear it expire?
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 05:15
  #365 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,124
" I have known Michael Mansfield for almost 40 years and have always respected his great ability as an advocate. He is certainly not 'Establishment'.

Some, on occasions, have claimed that he has effectively become part of the 'Establishment' by reason of his (allegedly) very high earnings but that is very silly reasoning "


FL,

I have no doubt you have met him in your professional capacity.

However, the term I used came from Jon Snow's introduction to the piece in question. Did you actually watch it I wonder because if so, you would have noted that all three participants offered rational, unemotional and very salient commentary.

That, and I have long perceived Michael Mansfield as being anything but "Establishment" you will be surprised to learn. In contrast say, to those who are and who flaunt their connections at each and any opportunity in the public / media arena.

I also enjoy hearing the opinions of Jacob Rees- Mogg irrespective of the context.

As ever, C4 News provided yet mor thoughtful commentary on events. Note the "not available for comment" responses, the interview with the Labour MP about the appointment of the very short tenure Deputy CC.....and the marked reluctance of one of Murdoch's rags to answer questions.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up

And yet, there are still those on here, and no doubt in the world outside these forums, who resolutely refuse to accept the factuality of the jury's findings.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 30th Apr 2016 at 05:44.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 06:19
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
"[I]
And yet, there are still those on here, and no doubt in the world outside these forums, who resolutely refuse to accept the factuality of the jury's findings.
And there are also people who accept the factuality of the jury's findings but understand that the jury decision was based on the evidence presented to them which was lacking in that for 27 years no Liverpool fan has ever owned up to jumping turnstiles or being drunk in the queue.

The fact that people jumped the turnstiles and were almost certainly drunk in the queue is established and without doubt but why for 27 years has no one owned up to it and why for 27 years has no police investigation identified those individuals?

Those attending that day will without doubt know who they are so how come they were not giving evidence to this jury?

I have been going to footy for years, every ground my son plays at has a clubhouse bar and before each game I watch supporters, often myself included drink enough alcohol to make them incapable of driving. Over the last couple of years I have been to Old Trafford, Swansea and Swindon and on each occasion the local pubs were rammed and fans can be seen consuming tins of beer all around the ground before entering the ground.

The notion that 27 years ago a large crowd of Liverpool supporters, many of whom would have had ale stood calmly and politely queuing is frankly ludicrous. Something was happening in that queue that precipitated Duckenfield's fatal decision.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 08:13
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,983
seldomFitforpurpose

I totally agree and do feel that the complete wrath has been directed at the Police and yes they did some very bad decision during and after

But for a ruling that the crowds or rather part of the crowds were totally blameless is a complete bonkers judgement
The crowds killed the crowds and the Police could have stopped that
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 08:23
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 321
Spurs fan? I follow my son's team, he plays semi professional footy in the Evo Stik South West Div 1 so WTF is the Spurs connection?

So once again for the hard of thinking did the jury hear any evidence from the 100 or so who jumped the turnstiles that day?

In fact 27 years on do we have the identity of any of those who jumped the turnstiles that day?

If not then ask yourself why not.......
And there are also people who accept the factuality of the jury's findings but understand that the jury decision was based on the evidence presented to them which was lacking in that for 27 years no Liverpool fan has ever owned up to jumping turnstiles or being drunk in the queue.

The fact that people jumped the turnstiles and were almost certainly drunk in the queue is established and without doubt but why for 27 years has no one owned up to it and why for 27 years has no police investigation identified those individuals?

Those attending that day will without doubt know who they are so how come they were not giving evidence to this jury?

I have been going to footy for years, every ground my son plays at has a clubhouse bar and before each game I watch supporters, often myself included drink enough alcohol to make them incapable of driving. Over the last couple of years I have been to Old Trafford, Swansea and Swindon and on each occasion the local pubs were rammed and fans can be seen consuming tins of beer all around the ground before entering the ground.

The notion that 27 years ago a large crowd of Liverpool supporters, many of whom would have had ale stood calmly and politely queuing is frankly ludicrous. Something was happening in that queue that precipitated Duckenfield's fatal decision.
Thank you for proving you don't read posts. You said you went to a match, Man U vs Spurs, and I asked if you were a Spurs fan on the wind up. You've just said you don't support Man Utd, so at least you're not a Man U fan on a trolling mission...

I used a link to demonstrate that crushes had occurred at Hillsborough before, I guess you didn't follow that either.

The full inquest probably didn't interview, the jury certainly decided that the number of turnstile jumpers didn't "cause or contribute to the dangerous situation..."

If the numbers were relevant why didn't the lawyers for SYP or Sheffield Wednesday seek out these people? Perhaps they did and failed but we go back to Q7. Jury said no, unanimously.

If some came forward and spoke, what difference would that make? How could it change the images recorded on CCTV? How many extra people would that put in the stadia over and above all those recorded on the CCTV? It has been studied and subsequently decided that regardless of how they got there or their level of drunkenness it didn't made a difference. Q7 again.

All the evidence, including the queuing outside, has been seen and assessed, several teams of lawyers have had the opportunity to seek out what you ask for, yet not one has come out and made the points you so doggedly stick to. In fact SYP have unreservedly accepted the jury's unanimous decision despite their (SYP) legal teams persistent efforts to besmirch the fans and their behaviour.

The continual worrying of just a single point is telling. It appears that you have determined that no matter what, Liverpool fans were solely responsible for the deaths, in the face of mountains of evidence and the longest inquiry in British legal history.

Comparing stadia today and back then is also pointless, they are like they are today because of Hillsborough, not in spite of.

Hillsborough stadium was a disaster waiting to happen, as well as the 1981 crush there were 2 in 1987 and there was severe overcrowding in 1988.

Congratulations on your drinking prowess though, how many shandies does it take you to get senseless?
insty66 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 08:28
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 321
I totally agree and do feel that the complete wrath has been directed at the Police and yes they did some very bad decision during and after
At the police leadership an subsequent cover up mostly,

But for a ruling that the crowds or rather part of the crowds were totally blameless is a complete bonkers judgementWhy?
The crowds killed the crowds and the Police could have stopped that
Should not could
insty66 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 08:33
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,983
The continual worrying of just a single point is telling. It appears that you have determined that no matter what, Liverpool fans were solely responsible for the deaths, in the face of mountains of evidence and the longest inquiry in British legal history.
Insty

Has he stated the fans were solely responsible ? Like with aircraft accidents its rarely one mistake or failure which creates the accident but numerous

Had there been no pressure from behind there would have been none at the front either pure physics and no one would have died

The Police could have relieved that critical situation but acted incorrectly, tried to cover that in frankly disgusting ways
Anything else makes no scientific sense

This was a coroner verdict not a court verdict and there is more flexibility to fit the wishes of relatives
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 10:00
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,064
his was a coroner verdict not a court verdict and there is more flexibility to fit the wishes of relatives
So if parents wanted a verdict different from the one given, the jury would have given THAT one? Is that what you're saying?
charliegolf is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 11:09
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,714
seldomFitforpurpose
Yup. Spot on.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 11:21
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
Krystal

I made no comment about the discussion - I didn't see it.
I watch C4 from time to time, but not regularly. I don't share your opinion about the quality of its news/current affairs output.

It would be surprising if I didn't know Michael Mansfield. We were both at the criminal Bar in London when it was very much smaller and most of us knew each other. I didn't then and don't now agree with all his views but that is a different matter and doesn't affect my opinion of the man. (I agree with some of his views on some topics.)

I was surprised by Jon Snow's assertion (mentioned in your earlier post) that Mansfield is 'Establishment' so corrected it from my own knowledge - just as you might know if something said about one of your workmates was not true.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 11:23
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,983
So if parents wanted a verdict different from the one given, the jury would have given THAT one? Is that what you're saying?
No! I am saying this was not a Court ruling and there is not quite the rigidity of a Court ruling for instance if someone dies and they suspect suicide but the family desperately don't want a suicide verdict there is more scope to give an undetermined or less painful ruling.
By nature sympathy will be to the relatives and that is understandable and right
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 12:18
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 321
Has he stated the fans were solely responsible? No but it is his clear focus on fans which led to my statement Like with aircraft accidents its rarely one mistake or failure which creates the accident but numerous I agree

Had there been no pressure from behind there would have been none at the front either pure physics and no one would have died But had there been more turnstiles or when the gates were opened the central tunnel closed that pressure would have not existed, perhaps delay the kick off to reduce the urgency of getting in. As you said, several causes led to the crush

The Police could have relieved that critical situation but acted incorrectly, tried to cover that in frankly disgusting ways
Anything else makes no scientific sense

This was a coroner verdict not a court verdict and there is more flexibility to fit the wishes of relatives
All I'm trying to get across is that now all the evidence has been seen our legal system has decided that 96 people were unlawfully killed and that the behaviour of the fans did not cause or contribute to that. Perhaps the jury unanimously decided that on the day the actions of the crowd were entirely predictable given all the other surrounding events in which they (the crowd) had no control

I understand that for some people it is hard to believe that about football fans.

I get there are a set of people who bear nothing but ill will towards football fans in general and Liverpool FC fans in particular. I'm not sure that even if an identical situation occurred to a group of people with whom they have sympathy was to have that happen to them, that they'd change their mind about that day.

I understand that there may well be no criminal charges specifically towards causing death (manslaughter) but I certainly hope there are regarding perjury, perverting the course of justice etc.
insty66 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 13:04
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 86
I've been to large sporting events - the British GP for example, and there is a police presence, but they are looking for pick pockets, helping find lost kids, and probably manning an ANPR unit at the entrance - over a 1/4 million people at Silverstone and no problems - but for football matches the police need full riot gear, armoured battle horses, and have to march the opposing gangs into the match.

why does football bring out the mob mentality? or are mobs attracted to football?

the hillsborough families can now blame the police, but why did the perfectly behaved football fans need to be policed in the first place?
Interested Passenger is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 13:17
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,983
IP

I am not a football supporter but there is a different energy
You go to motor racing for the spectacle, yes you may support one racing team out of 20 but football works on a different instinct which is very territorial
Your team is your city against someone else, a battle of the Giants
I am sure many fans are mentally out there with the team and living that battle
That can turn into violence against the opposite teams fans
That violence also attracts some people who look for that violence as an adrenaline rush
I do think as an observer things have improved a lot in football from the past
Be interesting to see others opinions ?
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 13:56
  #378 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,775
Many cases of convenient amnesia here failing to note that the Police presence that day was specifically for the purpose of crowd control. The facts demonstrate clearly that the On Site Commander failed to perform the most basic reconnaissance or planning actions. There was documented and available history of the potential trouble spots, but again these were ignored or not even considered as relevant. So the people whose sole job was to maintain crowd control abrogated their responsibilities totally both prior to and at the event.

That in itself should be grounds for punitive action against those given the responsibility to avoid what happened, but no, that wasn't enough criminal negligence for one day. Instead the leadership of the SYP aided and abetted by the gutter press and a specific agency decided to shed them selves of any accountability. They lied, coerced and maintained an utter falsehood for 27 years, whereby the memories of those who died were besmirched simply to protect careers and avoid the truth about he total incompetence on display that day.

There were undoubtedly examples of hooliganism in the events leading up to the disaster, but to try and deflect the overall blame on those people and away from the truly culpable is disingenuous and simply a continuation of the denial and obfuscation exhibited by the SYP since that day. The fans may not have been blameless, but they were not the professional body charged with maintaining law and order on that day.
Two's in is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 16:58
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
I am utterly bemused by the notion that it is impossible to believe that all of those from Duckenfield down with guilt on their hands should be bought to book but to then suggest that's fans contributed to the disaster is simply shrugged aside in a kind of fingers in the ear and la la moment?

27 years on and to the best of my knowledge not one fan who jumped into the ground or one fan who was drunk in the queue has ever come forward and offered up testimony.

In fact again to the best of my knowledge none have ever been sought to answer for their potential actions.

WHY?

imagine one of the turnstile jumpers suggesting that his/her actions caused the crowd to surge forward to stop them pushing in.

Imagine a supporter admitting getting there late because he/she was finishing the 8th beer of the day and on encountering the queue started pushing and shoving due to drink addled impatience.

27 years on and not a single word of note from turnstile jumpers or drunks is acceptable but lies from Duckenfield down are a hanging offence.

If the CCTV was that good every single turnstile jumper and drunk pushing in the queue would, after 27 years have been identified one would have thought?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2016, 17:56
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 321
I am utterly bemused by the notion that it is impossible to believe that all of those from Duckenfield down with guilt on their hands should be bought to book but to then suggest that's fans contributed to the disaster is simply shrugged aside in a kind of fingers in the ear and la la moment?

27 years on and to the best of my knowledge not one fan who jumped into the ground or one fan who was drunk in the queue has ever come forward and offered up testimony.

In fact again to the best of my knowledge none have ever been sought to answer for their potential actions.

WHY?

imagine one of the turnstile jumpers suggesting that his/her actions caused the crowd to surge forward to stop them pushing in.

Imagine a supporter admitting getting there late because he/she was finishing the 8th beer of the day and on encountering the queue started pushing and shoving due to drink addled impatience.

27 years on and not a single word of note from turnstile jumpers or drunks is acceptable but lies from Duckenfield down are a hanging offence.

If the CCTV was that good every single turnstile jumper and drunk pushing in the queue would, after 27 years have been identified one would have thought?
Thank you for proving once again that you don't read posts, perhaps you are on a trolling mission...

The jury certainly decided that the number of turnstile jumpers or drunks didn't "cause or contribute to the dangerous situation..."

If the numbers were relevant why didn't the lawyers for SYP or Sheffield Wednesday seek out these people? Perhaps they did and failed but we go back to Q7. Jury said no, unanimously.

If some came forward and spoke, what difference would that make? How could it change the images recorded on CCTV? How many extra people would that put in the stadia over and above all those recorded on the CCTV? It has been studied and subsequently decided that regardless of how they got there or their level of drunkenness it didn't made a difference. Q7 again.

All the evidence, including the queuing outside, has been seen and assessed, several teams of lawyers have had the opportunity to seek out what you ask for, yet not one has come out and made the points you so doggedly stick to. In fact SYP have unreservedly accepted the jury's unanimous decision despite their (SYP) legal teams persistent efforts to besmirch the fans and their behaviour.
insty66 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.