Hillsborough verdicts reached

[cibaman]

Perhaps it’s just too easy to make sweeping generalisations, based on anecdotal evidence from similar scenarios around the same period.
What I find horrific now, but seemed perfectly normal at the time, was being approached by a Blackburn fan whilst waiting for my mates outside Ewood Park.

After a brief discussion about the game, he casually observed:
“I see the Liverpool fans have been at it again. Killing a load of their own supporters”

That might appear criminally inaccurate, but on a warm spring afternoon in April 1989, it seemed to make a lot of sense.
That's how we felt, but thankfully the vast majority have since absorbed the truth.

I cant help thinking that if hadn't been for Hysel, we would have reached the point we are currently at, at least 10 years ago.

I'm sure that if it had been a different team the police would still have blamed the fans. But the accusations stuck at least in part because it was Liverpool and the public remembered Hysel.

Even 10 years later, when most people had accepted that Liverpool fans did not cause the disaster, there still seemed to be a tendency (which I admit I shared for a long time) for people outside of Liverpool to be lukewarm about the Campaign for Justice. "What about Hysel?" was the usual response when the subject of Hillsborough came up.

 

[Groke]

I watched over an hour of the footage yesterday, it is staggering to see that football fans were expected to watch football In caged pens 27 years ago. It is also staggering that Sheffield Wednesday have rebuilt the Maine stand and left this stand in place for such a long time.

They haven't been allowed to change it because of ongoing investigations / inquest

 

[worsleyweb]

They haven't been allowed to change it because of ongoing investigations / inquest

I never knew that. Cheers for posting. Great club Sheffield Wednesday with decent fans. Clearly this tragedy has had a huge effect on them as well. Maybe they would be best off moving eventually or renaming the ground?

 

[FanchesterCity]

I cant help thinking that if hadn't been for Hysel, we would have reached the point we are currently at, at least 10 years ago.

I'm sure that if it had been a different team the police would still have blamed the fans. But the accusations stuck at least in part because it was Liverpool and the public remembered Hysel.

Even 10 years later, when most people had accepted that Liverpool fans did not cause the disaster, there still seemed to be a reluctance (which I admit I shared for a long time) for people outside of Liverpool to be lukewarm about the Campaign for Justice. "What about Hysel?" was the usual response when the subject of Hillsborough came up.

Yes, Hysel definitely helped the police and media to set the scene - but even without Police or media effort, the vast majority of us would have drawn the first conclusion (like the Forest fans did that day) that it was crowd trouble - 'the usual idiots' etc. Most of the public don't go to matches, and they to this day, they still tend to have a relatively poor opinion which is exacerbated by the behaviour of some (coin throwing, awful chants, stick V signs up at corners and throw-ins etc). Back then it was even worse - which made the lie all the more believable.

Looking at the video evidence though, particular on the approach to Leppings Lane, it's actually remarkable how well behaved they were. I hear people say 'charging at the turnstiles' ' ticketless masses' and 'drunken mob' - it simply isn't there on the CCTV. The behaviour was exactly like it is today, masses of people WALKING to the turnstiles, not running, not pressing, but of course, eventually it becomes a crush as those at the back edge forwards a little unaware of the compression effect it has at the front.

Some people seem to be taking the worst memories of crowd behaviour in the 80's and shoehorning that into a theoretical scenario that 'may' have caused Hillsborough, when all the while, the Taylor report spelled it out and honest and vivid detail, and the CCTV footage backs it up completely. The police on the other hand had a novice at the helm, reduced numbers, less safety measures than previous years AND then failed to monitor / recognise the pen situation, failed to close off the tunnel doors, lied about it afterwards AND 'lost' video tapes from secure storage, adjusted witness statements and fed the media and politicians a pack of lies.

And yet still 'Hysel' tells us the story of Hillsborough? - only in the mind of a moron.

 

[M18CTID]

I appreciate that not everybody will be inclined to view it but the most comprehensive footage of the disaster as it unfolded was via RTE. With no live 3PM Saturday games allowed to be broadcast in the UK, RTE were screening the match live in Ireland. Much of the footage we saw over here on the likes of Grandstand and the national news were snippets whereas RTE's coverage was effectively a rolling newsreel. Some of it is utterly shocking with police forcing fans back into the pens, etc.

 

[FanchesterCity]

The stand itself is not inherently unsafe - and it's had some alterations, as has the turnstile arrangement outside (which still isn't brilliant, but far better). It's not like Bradford where the stand was unsafe. They just got into the habit of squeezing more and more fans in there and got away with it for a good while, and then finally, in 1989, other mistakes exposed the complacency which had been going on for years.

In a strange and yet possibly macabre way, I think it's good that it remains - it's a reminder (for good or bad) and I doubt anybody ever walks through that tunnel without a little pause for thought.

 

[paulchapo]

I have seen snippets here and there saying Duckenfield and some of the others shouldn't be prosecuted because they were inexperienced or panicked and made mistakes. While that is in part true they should be prosecuted for lying and altering statements and evidence and so in effect adding to the bereaved families anguish and torture for twenty seven long years. All the evidence is now there....it has taken twenty seven years to collate it for God's sake.These scrotes should now be stripped of all status and wealth and hauled into court at haste before they die and escape true justice!

 

[FanchesterCity]

I have seen snippets here and there saying Duckenfield and some of the others shouldn't be prosecuted because they were inexperienced or panicked and made mistakes. While that is in part true they should be prosecuted for lying and altering statements and evidence and so in effect adding to the bereaved families anguish and torture for twenty seven long years. All the evidence is now there....it has taken twenty seven years to collate it for God's sake.These scrotes should now be stripped of all status and wealth and hauled into court at haste before they die and escape true justice!

Yes he was inexperienced in that role, but at the same time a very experienced officer. You would expect to maybe go the extra mile on this new task and get a good understand of the procedures and layout etc which he now claims he never did.
I can entirely understand the panic when it became clear there was a problem outside, and I don't think many sensible people blame him for opening gate C (at least not the first time). In isolation, it was probably the correct decision. However, then action then exposed other weaknesses (non existent signage to left hand pens (6 & 7) and very difficult to see signage for the right hand pens (1 & 2) plus the failure to close the tunnel entrance.

As a man of considerable rank though - there can be no excuse for lying. There can be no excuses from those that sought to edit the witness statements in a clearly concerted manner to detract from any negativity, and there certainly can't be any excuses for those involved in fabricating stories to the media (although technically it's still going to be hard to prove they fabricated them).
It was a lie that snowballed, and now those responsible face an avalanche as a result.

 

[theres only one carlito]

1) They weren't late - concern about the volume of fans was raised just after 2.20 when it was clear the turnstiles couldn't cope.
2) The tickets advised arrival no later than 15 minutes prior to kickoff, but still the fans were well ahead of that schedule
3) The footage of the fans arriving at Leppings Lane shows no anxiety, only the normal exuberence of fans on their way to a match. People approached the Leppings Lane entrance at walking pace.
4) The tickets did not clearly indicate which turnstiles to enter by, which caused confusion - and made worse by that fact that once at a turnstile ut was very hard to move to an alternate one due volume of fans queuing behind.
5) Mathematically the turnstiles could not cope - the inevitable consequence was that queues would form. Crowds of thousands do not form single file queues. It is a natural phenomenon of large crowds that those at the back approach, and the people in front inch forwards, and with each wave of new arrivals the crowds starts to congest. The police did not stem the flow as they had done previously.
6) The Forest fans (29k) had 60 turnstiles spread evenly over two sides of the stadium, the Liverpool fans (23K) had 23 turnstiles crammed into a single corner roughly the size of a tennis court.
7) Any anxiety was induced when it became apparent (as early as 2.20) that getting into the stadium was going to be difficult.
8) The calculated number of fans was not deemed to be any significant number above those of ticket sales. Whilst as at many games there would be some ticketless fans, they weren't sufficiently large in number.

It's not about taking a diametrically opposed view - it's about looking at the actual facts of the matter. You're taking some general attributes of football fans in that period, and trying to create a scenario where those negative attributes might have played a part. The video evidence is there in black and white though 'surging forward' at the turnstiles never happened.
You're trying to suggest those without tickets somehow hid around a corner and all arrived late in order to force the police to open the gates. That simply did not happen, the build up was steady and forming by 2.20.

I am absolutely sure the view you express is shared by others and of the people who have expressed similar views, none of them had any grasp of the actual evidence and absolutely no proof of their assertions. The rest of the world however has video footage that dispels those myths.

The crush WAS about sheer numbers - numbers that were expected, but poorly planned for - it was the management of those sheer numbers that failed. The fans didn't change that year, the policing and practices put in place did. The ground was unsafe and had gotten away with it previously (with a previous near miss in 1981). Forget all the fans, forget any behaviours, when scrutinised, the protective measures for crowd safety at that stadium were lacking, it just took the deaths to cause people to look more closely.

If someone's operating unsafe machinery at work (unwittingly) and they don't get injured - but then the next operator of that machinery does suffer an injury, you don't blame the second operator and say his actions caused the accident, it's the unsafe machinery to blame. Semi-Final Cup Tie management at Hillsborough was the unsafe machine, and in 1989, further cutbacks on the safety (less police, novice at the helm and the abandonment or neglect of previous practices) was a compromise too far and caused the deaths.

And yet you choose to make the point that 23 thousand nuns could have caused turmoil at the turnstiles. Surely, if it were all about the police, the fences etc, you wouldn't need to make that point, because it had nothing to do with the fans.

A simple question: if it were 10/12/15 thousand nuns arriving for a conference with the Pope in that very same ground at the very same time and they all had to be put in the Leppings Lane, how many do you think would have died? If I follow your line of argument (the fans weren't in any way a contributory factor to the deaths of the 96) then the answer will be 96. I'm not so sure a solitary nun would die.

This isn't an anti-scouse thing, a wumming thing. It's the view of many people I know, of many fans I know, City and non-City: the Liverpool fans on that day were a causal link. Not because they were any different to the vast majority of fans (young and male) but because they behaved and acted in a way that is still replicated today, especially for major matches: arrive late; arrive en masse, have a minority who will cause conflict and confusion and who will seek to get in the ground, whatever the time, cost and impact on others. But, as you've said previously, don't take my or any other fan's word for it. Read what Lord Justice Taylor said. To quote your earlier post:

"The more convincing witnesses…including a number of responsible civilian witnesses…attributed the crush to the sheer number of fans all anxious to gain entry." That anxiety wasn't caused by the police, it wasn't caused by the barriers. It wasn't caused by the ambulance service. It wasn't caused by SWFC. The anxiety was caused by the fans. Why? Next time you're at Wembley for a semi or a final, look at the turnstiles as kick off approaches - the queues get rowdier as the late-comers do all they can to surge to get in; as the young and the 95% male fans. many who've been boozing etc push and corral the rest. Notice how the stewards become restless, notice how those without tickets wait for this time - the time when the crowds are at their busiest, when the checks are harder = all this was in play at that semi-final on that fatal day. And to somehow brush all that under the carpet; to imagine that the fans were in no way a contributory factor in their own downfall is, to many I have spoken to, an avoidance of the brutal truth.

It's become almost heresy to take a diametrically opposed view to those that suffered, to the families that lost loved ones. Because we want to believe that the fans all turned up and queued in single file, tickets in hand and on time. They didn't. And that, combined with gross police ineptitude, led to their deaths. It was the (im)perfect storm.

Of course the sheer number of fans was a causal link but that does not equate to their behaviour having contributed to the disaster. You are essentially suggesting that it was the fans fault for being there in the first place which is a vacuous argument.

Even if all the fans had arrived 30 minutes before the match a disaster would still have occurred due to the failure to close off the route to the central pens and not direct them to the emptier ones. It may have changed the timings but the end result would have been the same. Or are you blaming the fans for the actions of the police?

Have you read David Conn's article in Wednesday's Guardian? It could have been any set of fans that day and the end result would have been the same. This is shown by the near misses of '81 and '87 when crushes occurred but disaster averted due to the police being better prepared.

[[/QUOTE] Fantastic debate and I really enjoyed reading that. I also learned something more about the topic and the attitudes at the time.

It was my intention to have this debate yesterday but in hindsight worded it wrong. Thanks for being far better at it than I was. I'm sorry for any offence I caused it wasn't intentional. Brilliant debate again.

 

[paulchapo]

I have just watched Granada report and some geriatric ex Yorkshire copper who was on duty that day is STILL saying the fan's have to bear some blame,he feels sorry for David [ Duckenfield ] blah blah fucking blah,in spite of all the evidence and the verdict. A force riddled then and now with stubborn dinosaurs!