urely it must be abundantly clear to most reasonable people that Chief Constable Duckenfield, Sheffield Wednesday FC and the local ambulance service did not set out that day in Hillsborough to take the lives of football fans. What did cause their tragic deaths was a perfect storm of failings and deficiencies by individuals (and while this may not accord with the verdict of the inquest jury, I include in that group, the fans) as well as police, responders and various bodies of authority. From that viewpoint I find it odd that the jury chose to blame everyone but the fans for, ultimately, the actions of the fans that day. You may think the conduct of the Chief Constable, in the immediate aftermath and since, in lying to successive enquiries, as dishonest and reprehensible but did his actions that day in opening the gates to allow the massed thousands of Liverpool fans into the ground amount to a criminal act or were they simply, but tragically, ill-judged. Surely he acted in what he believed to be the best interests of everyone connected to the match, the members of the public living in the vicinity of the ground, local business owners and fans alike. To deny thousands of frustrated fans entry to the match at that late stage would most likely have led to serious public disorder for which insufficient police were stationed outside the ground as the majority of his officers had by then been redeployed inside the ground. By ordering the gates to be opened I am of the view that he was entitled to expect that the fans would exercise reasonable self-control and good common sense in deciding where best to enter the terraces. That they did not, that they instead massed into just one of several available sections of the fenced terracing cannot be said to be a failing of police control. Officers had been posted to these terrace access points earlier that afternoon but as the kick-off time approached they were under instructions to move inside the ground to prevent disorder. This was, after all, a match involving visiting fans from Liverpool, a club whose fans, at the time, had a well-founded reputation for violence and disorder at away matches and, for those principally concerned with public order, the tragedy of the Heysel stadium in Brussels just four years before was, I am sure, uppermost in everyone’s mind. In my view the root cause of the tragedy lay in the untimely late arrival of fans, the decrepit, inadequate turnstiles that could not cope with the volume of fans, and most importantly, the steel barrier fencing that prevented fans freely escaping the crush on the terraces onto the pitch. To apply today’s standards of public order and event policing, risk assessment and health and safety protocols in arriving at a judgement on events in 1989 does not, in my view provide justice, it simply apportions blame.
I dont blame the fans, I don't question the clear neglect on his part on the day, but I do question whether he wasnt simply a man out of his depth under a rolling set of events that quickly went out of his control. I think we also have to remember the sign of the times in the 80's rather than the norm we expect at football matches today. HOWEVER, it's his actions afterwards that were truly shameful. People died that day and rather than respecting that loss of life, it seems that fcker and many at the top chose to lie, malign and torment the families who lost fathers, brothers, sons etc. that day. Had they just been honest at the time they'd have some sympathy for the reasons I've stated earlier, but the fact they chose to let this torment continue for years means they deserve fck all. I won't join the mass hysteria over this, people are being killed all over the world without anyone giving as much as a solitary fck over it, but the fact is it could have quite easily been United fans so I dont see this as anything to do with rivalry. It was just fcking awful tbf.
1) Late: At least four thousand fans were 'late', due primarily to roadworks along the route. SYP were fully aware of this. All that came out in the original Taylor Report, never mind this inquest. 2) SYP and stadium officials had already rehearsed the consequences of opening the gate and the flow of fans after the near tragedy of the '81 semi-final with Spurs fans. They had a written procedure to close the entrance tunnel to the central pens. They knew the consequences. Had the original commander who had been on duty the year before been on duty that is what would have happened (had there even been a need to go that far - the procedure was to delay kick-off should that number of fans be late). Sadly, Duckenfield replaced him and didn't know the procedures and 'froze' (the words of two inquiries now). You completely neglect though the fact that if opening the gates was such a benign action, then why did Duckenfield and later the whole of SYP command structure try to blame the fans for breaking them down? Surely Duckenfield et al (Wright knew from his own officers who'd opened the gates that what Duckenfield had said was a lie even before the BBC broadcast pictures of the police opening the gates) knew some sort of act that could be considered criminal neglect had been committed? If not, why the initial lie? 3) The laws for involuntary manslaughter are the same now as they were then, but should Duckenfield be charged (I personally think not but I'm aware that I don't speak for every fan as that is a decision for the DPP, but the majority verdict on this point - it was a unanimous verdict on the fans' culpability, as you appear to be deliberately ignoring - was about whether there was enough evidence to say a crime should be investigated) he would be charged under the law as it was in '89. I'd quote you the legalise on that point but I'm sure many of your posters on here will trivialise it and refer to the Suarez case. I appreciate that your partisan standpoint is impregnable to any reason, and nothing I nor a hundred inquiries and reports will ever change, but cling on to that last vestige of bile for all you're worth. You formed a view based on your gut hatred and it's wrong, and you know it because you're not a stupid person. But hey ho, they give out knighthoods for such blatant chauvinism, so carry on regardless. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...llsborough-campaigners-refuses-apologise.html And btw( happily for the last time -have a party as I'll never be back) **** YOU. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-bodies-crush-lies-press-england
I'm not going to get into this in detail, I would just suggest that the OP goes and reads the facts before forming an opinion. It has taken many years to get to this point and the jury has had to pour over evidence for 2 years so to just say "well my opinion is" without actually knowing the facts is an insult.
So the Hillsborough inquest jury, which has spent over two years examining every last piece of evidence, every testimony, every fact from the case is wrong and you, as a 'reasonable person', who has examined absolutely nothing, are right? Seriously?! ****ing shameful man, just shameful.
A fair point. But also almost the exact definition of negligence - he failed to exercise the care that a reasonable person should have done when dealing with a challenging situation. If he wasn't confident in his ability to fulfil his duty of care to the fans that day, he should have stepped aside.
The OP should go and read up the events of that day, as he patently hasn't got a clue about the chain of events despite it being all over the net and media this week. Pontificating about an alternative cause, when the cause has been established, is at best ignorant, and at worst rooted in football tribalism.
