Duckenfield

Thanks, I hasn't seen that. Is awful watching that knowing they are oblivious to what is about to happen.

 

It really is isn't it.

I don't know if you watched all 18 minutes of it but you can see quite clearly the fans walking through, no pushing or running or anything, they were literally lambs to the slaughter which is why it makes my blood boil when idiots like that West Ham nutter make false accusations based on the deceitful lies put out by those trying to cover their own backsides. Liverpool fans who were there knew what happened and it's a travesty that it's taken all these years for what they always claimed happened to be shown as the real truth.

 

Yeah, watched the full eighteen minutes. Its makes me angry that the whole thing could have been avoided so easily by doing something that was done in the exact same circumstances the season before; close the central tunnel before opening gate c

 

He's gone to that Masonic temple in the pits of Satan's underworld.

 

Having made that horrendous mistake to then lie and try and pass the blame off is unforgiveable.

 

Anyone (or organisation) in a position of authority can make horrendous mistakes, that, unfortunately, is human nature. It's not having the courage, professionalism or basic moral terpitude to accept the responsibilty that comes with authority, and compounding that with despicable low cunning to blame others.

 

That's exactly it. We all know that in those days crowd control was all about keeping people in line with an iron fist and safety never entered into the equation. To seek to cover it up, lie and make disgusting assumptions about the victims in an effort to make it all ok is probably the biggest scandal in my lifetime.

The stoicism of the families has been heroic - just heartbreaking that it ever needed to come to this on so many scores.

 

Are proceedings based on current or 1989 laws?

 

Good point dev, I'd have thought with the likes of Harris, Talbot, Glitter and others the laws of today still give out justice for past criminal activity of years gone by, even before 1989.

 

Reason I asked is because I organise community events. Obviously nowhere near the same level of numbers but it means I know the legal requirements, responsibilities and consequences etc as a result of having to do management plans and ensure public safety.

It can't be based 100% on current as things are expected now that weren't even dreamed about back then.

If based on 1989 law then I've not much clue what those standards were. Obviously negligence is negligence though.

 

I think it must be based on the law back then because current ground safety certificates, for example, would be far stricter now than then and you couldn't apply todays standard to yesterdays situation.

 

As far as I'm aware, it's pretty unusual for laws to be changed retroactively, so I would highly expect (but don't know) that it would be based on the law at the time. Otherwise you could be e.g. punishing someone for doing something that wasn't even illegal at that time.

 

A song especially for Duckenfield, it could so easily apply to him.

JFT96

 

Equally, the judge would need to know yester law very well.

 

It's dangerous and against natural justice, however tempting that may be. The laws of '89, including HSE laws that can also have criminal sentencing outcomes, should be sufficient. However, that's the long game, and by time this process then is run and any criminal trials may happen... well we've seen what happened with others like Peter Wright and Thatcher herself by time the law gets around to them.

Underlying to all this story is one of the basic principles all democracies must face at some stage: who polices the police? We need the police in our society - the alternative is unthinkable. But they're there to enforce laws: they're not above them, and the act of covering up transgressions should, in the case of those trusted to police us, be dealt with by the most severest of penalties available.

The final legacy of all of this, apart from the obvious safety of fans, should be that - legislation that those in authority must always accept the responsibilities that accompanies their position; as it should always have been.

 

'Duty of Care' is based in common law and is a cover all when specific legislation may be vague. Not sure what the maximum penalties are though.

 

This is all convincing me more that we shouldn't return to standing terraces. Different argument for a different day no doubt,

 

s

You'd have to have trust that those responsible for organising, stewarding and policing it would be competent and qualified, and above all face penalties for failures, as in other likewise occupations such as transport and large-scale events. Dunno, even after 26 years, whether our police are really up to that responsibility if even now the culture is to treat the crowd as the 'enemy', and that they can't be held to account if anything goes wrong.

 

Crowds anywhere are treated as the enemy aren't they. Whether it's a protest march, a sporting event, a concert or any mundane bystander situation. The difference between crowds gathering merely by chance and organised events [of which the police and authorities are aware], is that the organised ones will usually have an expected turnout number placed on them so that strategies and contingencies for crowd control, ingress/egress are well rehearsed and operationally viable or the event wouldn't be allowed to go ahead. There should have been no unexpected happening in the build up that day that couldn't have been overcome

A list of things conspired towards disaster that day. While some could be described as unfortunate, it's the despicable, malicious web of lies that will forever bring out anger as the over-riding emotion whenever it's talked about.

 

Planned events don't necessarily mean everything goes as expected, it rarely does including numbers. But the principle of what you're saying is right.

As far as I understand it, safe standing wouldn't be too dissimilar to the current seating situation. Each person as a allocated area (which would still include a fold down seat to satisfy European football rules) so each area of the stadium will still have maximum occupancy levels and each ticket will have a specific allocation too. People wouldn't be able to roam about starting the game in one place and finishing it in another like with the old terracing.

I'm certainly not for terracing but nor am I 100% against it so long as it's safe. I don't think we'd ever see it at Anfield unless the families agreed to it. There are no financial benefits to the club or spectator either, it would actual costs the club money to alter areas to accommodate safe standing.