Hillsborough verdict

An education in how to speak in parliament

http://youtu.be/b0Ju_uzPR3A

Yeah, perhaps that was a little strong, saying ‘the whole nation’. Still, there were some – I remember it well.

Re Heysel, Liverpool did have a ‘travelling army’ of scallies that followed them around Europe in the 80’s, and which did give them a bad name. These idiots were provoked by expat Italians in the ‘Neutral ticket’ zone, and their reaction was indefensible. I don’t know what had happened to this gang, as there was little evidence of them at Anfield by 1988 when I arrived and they certainly weren’t the people caught up so tragically in the disaster a year later. I suspect the ban on European competition led them to move on to other areas of troublemaking.

My point was that the Police told the Sun what to print as a deliberate attempt to associate, in the public mind, the Liverpool fans in Sheffield that day with the thugs from 86, and it would have worked if the Families hadn’t fought back. They should never have had to.

…don’t forget that the whole nation believed that the Liverpool fans were rampaging animals to be hated – and by extension deserved to die – because of a series of made up ‘facts’ in the most popular ‘newspaper’ of the time.

I think that’s a little strong. Despite its wishes I don’t think the Sun Newspaper, even back then, had as much sway with the general population as that. I don’t think anybody though any of them ‘deserved to die’!

The vast majority of the nation just saw them as unfortunate victims of a preventable tragedy.

If there was any predisposition to colour Liverpool supporters, in particular, in a bad light, it was probably more influenced by the Heysel Stadium disaster only four years previously and the ban on all English football teams from European competitions that resulted from it, and that was still in force.

But I deplore absolutely the negative stories published in the Sun following the Hillsborough tragedy and condemn anybody that fabricated or falsified accounts of that day that led to these stories being printed.

I am sure that many newspapers and TV news channels would like to explore these issues, but are afraid to…

I’m sure you are right in that assessment; certainly any suggestion that Liverpool FC ‘contributed’ to the disaster would be seen in a very bad light by the supporters of that club and it would be difficult to separate the facts from a perceived criticism of those supporters or even, somehow, tarnishing the ninety-six that died (especially given how supportive LFC has been towards the families of those that died).

In all the coverage of this tragedy I have never once seen any criticism of Liverpool Football Club for deciding to play in a ground that they themselves had expressed serious safety concerns about.

This has been a remarkably balanced, informed and civilised debate. I was living in Liverpool at the time of these events and after, and I met several people who were there on the day. I only have anecdotal evidence to go on, and know nothing about stadium design, or crowd control.

What I do know is that the fans that were there were just ordinary footie fans – excitable and loud, there for the football and keen to see the game, some had had a pint, many hadn’t. I knew how Liverpool was on a match day, and to be honest they were the least aggressive or drunk football ‘tribe’ I have come across. Nothing like some of the London team followers (I hesitate to use the word fans) of the time, for example.

They found themselves in too dense a crowd, on concrete steps sloping down to an impassible high fence. As soon as some lost their footing, that was it.

Charlie, when you talk of media pre-determining legal outcomes, don’t forget that the whole nation believed that the Liverpool fans were rampaging animals to be hated – and by extension deserved to die – because of a series of made up ‘facts’ in the most popular ‘newspaper’ of the time. It is this that has taken 27 years to fully turn around so that public understanding represents the truth of what happened on that day.

I agree though that there has been some over-focus on the Police and their terrible decision making on the day – perhaps missing the culpability of the FA and possibly even Liverpool FC. I think the police did bring this on themselves by their denials of responsibility, something that the families were keen to counter legally, and which they have now successfully done.

And what about Liverpool Football Club itself; it clearly knew that Hillsborough was a dangerous ground because it requested that the ground was changed but then, when confronted with the ultimatum by the Football Association, it decided to play anyway! It could be argued that LFC put success in a football competition before the safety of its supporters; even that it put commercial success before the safety of its supporters! Where was the ‘duty-of-care’ from Liverpool Football Club?

.

I am sure that many newspapers and TV news channels would like to explore these issues, but are afraid to.
Look what happened to the Sun after they published stories (true or false) given to them by the police. Implying that
many of the fans at the game behaved in a deplorable manner, before and during the unfolding tragedy.

Precisely. Perfectly put – I can add nothing to that!!

In my view the Inquest was little short of a travesty, not in terms of the verdicts, but in terms of those who were in the dock (and those who weren’t)!

I am still struggling with the fourteen questions that were put to the jury for each yes / no ‘verdict’; I do not know who was the originator of those fourteen questions but, you are absolutely right, they were clearly geared to get a result, a particular result, and it is important who isn’t even mentioned in those questions.

Why was the Football Association not even mentioned? Didn’t the FA select Hillsborough as the ground for the match? Didn’t the FA have a ‘duty-of-care’ to check that the ground was suitable, that the ground didn’t have a history of dangerous crowd incidents and to check that the ground had a valid safety certificate?

When Liverpool Football Club raised concerns about the safety of Hillsborough, because of a previous incident, involving Liverpool in 1988, didn’t the Football Association have a responsibility to address those concerns? Instead the FA (apparently) responded with an ultimatum: ‘either play or forfeit the game’; didn’t that contribute enormously towards the eventual tragedy?

And what about Liverpool Football Club itself; it clearly knew that Hillsborough was a dangerous ground because it requested that the ground was changed but then, when confronted with the ultimatum by the Football Association, it decided to play anyway! It could be argued that LFC put success in a football competition before the safety of its supporters; even that it put commercial success before the safety of its supporters! Where was the ‘duty-of-care’ from Liverpool Football Club?

In my view the Football Association and Liverpool Football Club are probably more guilty than any of the Police (through the Police actions that ’caused’ the tragedy on the day) ever will be; the FA and LFC had the luxury of time and were not under pressure when they made their decisions, and those decisions were to put competition success and financial concerns before crowd safety.

Good post CD. As I implied above the process was geared to produce a result – exonerate the fans and put all the blame on the police.

Perhaps the result reflects the reality but we are not left with clarity but with an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

The 21st century omnipresence and omnipotence of social and public media determines blame prior to legal process and legal process is in danger of succumbing to the pressure.

“Clear verdict is that there was no behaviour by the fans that contributed.”

Depends what is meant by ‘the fans’.

It seems, and I can scarcely believe that this is the case, that the basis for the jury’s decision was yes / no answers to direct questions posed by, well, who knows?

Question 7 – Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No

See, there you go…..a clear verdict!

But what ‘supporters’? Liverpool supporters? Nottingham Forest supporters? Both club’s supporters? All football supporters? And, obviously, there can be no suggestion whatsoever that there was anything in the behaviour of any of the ninety-six supporters who died that could possibly have contributed to the disaster (because there probably wasn’t). But…

…the absolute taboo that it is to suggest that any blame could be attached to any ‘supporters’, because that may possibly be interpreted to include the ninety-six that died, has made the asking of that genuine question of whether the behaviour of any supporters, anywhere, at any time, could possibly have contributed to the disaster, absolutely impossible to ask!

And it is a question that needs to be asked…..especially of the supporters on that tragic day.

Were the Liverpool (and Nottingham Forest) supporters at Hillsborough acting in any way abnormally compared to how the supporters at any other major football team would have been acting at a football match that weekend? No. Had they been drinking? Yes, many of them had. Were many of them ‘late’ for the match (after following the (very bad) advice to be there fifteen minutes before kick-off)? Yes. Did they then try to get into the stands as quickly as possible when they realised, for whatever reasons, that they were missing the match? Probably. Were they frustrated by the hold-ups at the gates and turnstiles? Probably. Did they crowd, push and shove against those in front of them? Probably.

Did none of this contribute to the ‘dangerous situation’ at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? None of it?

The key word here is ‘contribute’…..not ’cause’!

And what is the point of an inquest; to blame somebody…..or to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

I find it strange that fans were absolved of all blame.

Not my words but relevant from another forum when this came up there:

” That’s part of the lies – the deliberate ,manufactured lies – that those responsible for the care of people at that match began manufacturing to cover their own arses. Lies that they invented, and then perpetuated by falsifying and modifying statements, passing lies about drunken ticketless fans to the press, and perjuring themselves in court for years. Lies that are still in the ears and minds of lots of people 27 years later. But the jury today dismissed them as exactly that – lies. Clear verdict is that there was no behaviour by the fans that contributed.”

Does it matter if they had open minds…

…if the Inquest only asked the jury fourteen ‘closed’ questions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35401436

I find it inconceivable that after all the years and all the thousands of words and opinions written and spoken that a jury of 9 people would not sit with wholly open minds. Perhaps that is why they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

But a majority delivered the only verdict demanded by the families.

I find it strange that fans were absolved of all blame. However controversial as that may be.
It’s so easy to point out failings after the event.

By a 7-2 majority they concluded:

Planning errors “caused or contributed to’’ the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the disaster.

Senior officers failed to issue specific instructions on how crowds were to be managed at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium.

The response to a build-up of fans at the Leppings Lane end was “slow and uncoordinated”.

Commanding officers failed to appreciate that ordering the opening of a gate would increase pressure in the terraces.

Police and the ambulance service caused or contributed to the loss of lives by an error or omission after the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop.

Fans were not to blame for the dangerous situation.

The design of the stadium contributed to the tragedy.

Club officials should have requested the match to be delayed when they became aware of the huge number of fans still outside the Leppings Lane turnstiles.