I don't disagree. I've always found it a bit odd that 0% of the blame is with the supporters but it's a topic that is probably too emotive to be discussed humanely.
It was the Police's job to ensure safety and they failed miserably and then did everything they could to cover it up and shift blame to the supporters. It was lazy 'Us & Them' style policing that was the norm for that era. You can't blame supporters who were trying to get in when they were 'invited' in through an open gate. I wouldn't go near the Liverpool board with your view Facto...
Facto be very careful what you say......and research your topic thoroughly And so will I...... Might be a good idea to wait for the official ruling.
The first mistake the police made was not delaying the start of the match to let in so many late comers after delays on the roads from Liverpool. As things got more crowded, the police commanders panicked. There was negligence by the police but whether there was gross/criminal negligence is less clear. I have a feeling the result of the enquiry will be not so much unlawfully killed, as misadventure contributed to by the police overseers that day
The police should take the majority of the blame but some Liverpool fans and the football association shoulder also shoulder their blame!
This is a very emotive subject, one of those I remember what I was doing at the time moments. My thoughts have always been with the families of the 96 who lost their lives, no one should go to a football match and not return home afterwards. I am not sufficiently armed with the facts to comment further.
We will find out after the jurors are sent out on Feb 22nd We have the best legal system in the world...and when not lied to ...it usually finds the correct solution Lets see what the jurors decide
I don't think this is the sort of case that should go before a jury. I don't think any major case should be. I'd much rather people who properly knew the law were determining my freedom in that situation than 12 random members of the public. The public are mostly morons.
So long as Duckinfield in charged with manslaughter the jurors will have done their jobs It's actually a national disgrace that the establishment have allowed the people of Liverpool to be seen as the culprits when the opposite is true It's utterly shameful
Having served on a jury in a complex case...I would disagree with this statement Wats..... My 11 other compatriots were all very sensible people with a good grasp of common sense. The law was explained to us quite clearly... Yes this is a very long and complicated case...but I think this time the facts will come out. We have heard very disturbing facts about the time of actual deaths, about people dying unnessecarily...about lies being told. Let us see what the final ruling is...and hope that it gives closure to all involved
I agree somewhat with this. When I served on a jury during a 'possession with intent to supply' case, two younger members of the jury only wanted to smoke the evidence and piss about. They were rightly rebuked by the remainder of us, but made no positive contribution to proceedings at all. I rather liked the olden days when you had to own a property to serve on a jury. I wouldn't necessarily argue for a return to this, but some sort of qualification is surely required to prevent juries being blighted by idiots.
No such bloody thing as the justice system. It's a bloody disgrace in this country and I have experienced it first hand. Yet to meet a straight copper aswell
This though is a touchy subject and one I will stay out of from now. Thoughts are with the families of the 96.
