Hillsborough; 35yrs on...

The clock on Liverpool Town Hall is set at 3.06 today - the same time the Hillsborough game was abandoned to deal with the tragedy in 1989.

 

Damn right. It is sad and always those certain ignorant fans. No need to go on

 

Thank you, whoever

 

Finally!

 

I still remember the day and also my anger at the little **** Colin Moynihan, the then Minister for Sport (whose qualification for the post was as a cox in his University rowing team) almost immediately blaming it on 'hooliganism' ... I'd stood on that terrace as a Leicester City fan and knew from the outset that the catastrophic events had nothing to do with hooliganism and everything to do with the policing on the day and the barbaric caging of football fans at the behest of a dracomian government directive towards the 'people's game' ...

A long road walked and hopefully closure for the families now ...

RIP the 96.

 

Good news.

I just feel a bit mute by it.

Confirms everything we suspected and more and now hopefully people everywhere can respect it and leave it at that.

Let the families morn their loves ones properly without the horror and feeling of injustice which must have been so fuming and frustrating.

RIP to those who can now rest easy

 

This morning at 11 o'clock we heard the sweet silver song of the lark.

RIP Anne Williams, a mother who walked on through the wind and the rain. We should name the new stand after her.

 

That's interesting, especially that last bit.

I remember hearing about the fans being cleared of any blame, and the blatant cover up to protect the establishment of their fck up. Not sure how it's gone from that, a tragic accident to actually being classed as an unlawful killing. I always felt, in that moment, Ch Supt Duckenfield was a man clearly out of his depth, under a set of extenuating circumstances he found himself being difficult to control. Reading that definition, I'm surprised that amounts to an unlawful killing tbh or what he did amounted to a "criminal act" as I would think of it. I'm guessing it's the same as manslaughter? But even then, there's a degree of intent to commit harm in that I always thought.

 

If you were in charge of safety at a building and you saw it was on fire and instead of pulling the fire alarm like it was your job to you just kept letting people into the building wouldn't that be manslaughter?

No one was expecting Duckenfield to succesfully fight the fire himself but morally and legally he should have at least pulled the alarm.

 

no trebs and prob not place to ask it but i'll answer

the level of incompetence and lack of care is such that it cannot be called a "tragic accident" as i feared yesterday. It took a conscious act to open those gates and pile more people into that death trap. thats utter and total neglect, not caring, and so whatever the charge the finding is not accidental death but unlawful killing.

 

It's to do with the negligent, inappropriate approach and attitude of the authorities in the preparations for the game and their actions on the afternoon itself at the start of, during, and in the aftermath of the crush. In giving a majority 'yes' to all those points the jury has found that there are no 'extenuating circumstances' here and that the police and ambulance service should have been ready to act in the event of a disaster like this by having a clear contingency plan and strategy in place should it be required. He should never have even found himself 'out of his depth' ... what sort of an excuse even is that in the context of what should have been a controllable, manageable event where in the end neither of those things happened before or after the catastrophe?! That responsibility falls on those at the highest level and they failed to carry out those responsibilities.

 

Look, I'm a Spurs fan. They did exactly the same to us in 81. It was pure bloody luck nobody died that day. This wasn't a freak accident it was already known what would happen if you opened the gates as they'd road-tested it.

Watch this and have a rethink - http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-...s-tottenham-v-wolverhampton-wanderers-fa-cup/

 

Worth briefly reminding ourselves of the legal definition of Involuntary Manslaughter which is I think what this will be classed as if the CPS get charges pressed against those involved. I don't think we're debating whether they intended to kill anyone, they didn't, the deaths happened because of gross negligence and / or an unlawful or dangerous act ...

Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:

• that caused by the defendant's gross negligence; and
• that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.

 

I don't know enough about the case so thought I'd ask as I read the OP. In my mind, it took a conscious act, but given the situation outside the ground, he thought (mistakenly) worst case scenario any overflow of fans would end up on the pitch. I can't imagine why he'd do what he did knowingly, otherwise. But I get what you're saying so will leave it there.

 

I wasn't disputing their responsibility or culpibility.

 

It's impossible to know what his true thoughts where in his own mind as he made the decisions he made and took the actions he took on the day, so in the legal process you have to look at the decisions and actions themselves under the available legal framework and deem whether they were negligent or not negligent, lawful or unlawful, dangerous or not dangerous and then reach a verdict

 

That answers it

 

When I first posted, I quoted the OP and highlighted this bit "was so bad it amounted to a criminal act or omission" in bold because, while I could understand the clear neglect, I didn't see how it could be a 'criminal act' but your previous post has just answered that.

 

It wasn't just the act itself. It was everything that followed afterwards - the cover-up and the implied wrongdoing of the travelling supporters, because he knew that he'd royally ****ed up. There is no doubt in my mind that it was authorised at the VERY highest level.

 

Sir John Goldring, in summing up, tells the jury:

“You have devoted over two years of your lives to this inquest. Your commitment and dedication has been remarkable, as anyone here present every day could testify.

I suspect I speak for most when I say how hugely impressed I have been. Sitting on a jury for the shortest case is an act of public duty of great importance. Sitting on one for this length of time is public service of the highest order.

It is very important that decisions on matters like theHillsborough disaster are taken not by lawyers but by members of the public like you. I thank you very much indeed. I excuse you from sitting on a jury for the rest of your lives.

And to the families, he says:

While nothing will remove or lessen the undeniable grief of those intimately connected, I hope you will now gain some comfort knowing the inquest has painstakingly and movingly examined every aspect of the disaster and the jury has agreed its decision.

Many of you have come to the inquest nearly every day. I know on occasion how difficult it must have been sat there listening to the details. I know on occasion you have not agreed with my decisions, but you could not have done any more by your loved ones. You have done your duty by them.