RugbyRebels

I'm 50. This inquest has been going on for over half my life. How can that happen?

How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

As I understand it it, pretty much they did force them into th back of Leppings Lane. I understood that there was a crush outside and they opened one gate to relieve the pressure, effcetively forcing people in one direction and leading to the ensuing disaster.

It's been interesting to me that no one mentions the context of it being post-Heysel - save for some archive footage used on the Today programme this morning.

I don't know enough about this case to come to a firm conclusion, but any finding of gross negligence would seem harsh. Seems like your classic health and safety cock up to me.

Just listening to R4 now. Ambulance service had no oxygen in bottles and there wasn't a single defribillator at the ground. They weren't widespread then, but you'd have thought that one would be present at a First Division stadium, if only for the players.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting etc.

What's the make up of that jury too? Huge improvements and advances in handling crowds have taken place since then. Think how many fake tickets will have been ushered through. Technology didn't exist to detect them back then. That can't be pegged onto the police or ambulance service, but it'll have been a contributory factor.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

So you are saying it was the fans fault for trying to get into a football game before the kick off? I thought imbeciles like you were silenced long ago.

SWFC confirmed that the majority of the crowd was in by 2.30pm. HSE stated that congestion was inevitable as, given the inadequate turnstiles, half the crowd would have had to have been in the ground by 2pm for the entire 10,100 to make it in in time for kick off. Their best estimate for the entire entire number in the Leppings Lane end that day was 9,734, well below its designated capacity of 10,100.

In other words, the congestion was not caused by late arriving fans, but rather the fact that those who were arriving could not get in in a timely manner. As the Hillsborough Report stated, Taylor "dismissed any conspiracy theory linked to a large number of late-arriving supporters"

Just to spoon feed those who can't read more than a headline, the cause of the disaster was down to a cumulation of known facts -

Lessons from "near misses" in previous years had not been heeded
Liverpool fans had been allocated the smaller end despite their larger supporter numbers
The designated capacity of the Leppings Lane end was dubious
There was no filtering or cordoning of fans heading to the Leppings Lane end
The turnstiles were way, way, way inadequate for the numbers they were meant to deal with
Despite a previous recommendation to SWFC, the turnstiles did not filter directly to specific pens in the Leppings Lane End
Signage to divert crowds away from the central tunnel was woefully inadequate
The police refused to delay kick off to deal with the crowds
Catastrophically, as a result of the above, the gate was opened, allowing a swarm of fans straight down the tunnel, even though throughout the disaster the side pens were relatively empty.
... this was all followed by a catalogue of poor communication, further errors, misjudgements etc from the emergency services etc.

As has been pointed out time and time again, the fans' behaviour was no different from any seen in the 1980s at many capacity Football (and Rugby) matches and any attempt to lay blame on mythical late, drunk or ticketless fans has long since be quashed.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

As I understand it it, pretty much they did force them into th back of Leppings Lane. I understood that there was a crush outside and they opened one gate to relieve the pressure, effcetively forcing people in one direction and leading to the ensuing disaster.

It's been interesting to me that no one mentions the context of it being post-Heysel - save for some archive footage used on the Today programme this morning.

I don't know enough about this case to come to a firm conclusion, but any finding of gross negligence would seem harsh. Seems like your classic health and safety cock up to me.

Watching the coverage, that was my impression as well. If the commanders deliberately tried to cause mass casualties the that is of course different, but my overriding impression was that this was an almighty cockup. If there was (and gut inspect suggests there was) an organized coverup, then I think that formal investigations should be held against that area, ditto anyone who lied to initial investigations.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

As I understand it it, pretty much they did force them into th back of Leppings Lane. I understood that there was a crush outside and they opened one gate to relieve the pressure, effcetively forcing people in one direction and leading to the ensuing disaster.

It's been interesting to me that no one mentions the context of it being post-Heysel - save for some archive footage used on the Today programme this morning.

I don't know enough about this case to come to a firm conclusion, but any finding of gross negligence would seem harsh. Seems like your classic health and safety cock up to me.

Watching the coverage, that was my impression as well. If the commanders deliberately tried to cause mass casualties the that is of course different, but my overriding impression was that this was an almighty cockup. If there was (and gut inspect suggests there was) an organized coverup, then I think that formal investigations should be held against that area, ditto anyone who lied to initial investigations.

The police are culpable of gross negligence, they had a duty of care to those fans. Rather than dealing with the issue outside the stadium they just let them in with no regard for overcrowding, if the crowds had been properly cordoned on the way to the stadium and outside the stadium this tragedy could have been avoided.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: As I understand it it, pretty much they did force them into th back of Leppings Lane. I understood that there was a crush outside and they opened one gate to relieve the pressure, effcetively forcing people in one direction and leading to the ensuing disaster.

It's been interesting to me that no one mentions the context of it being post-Heysel - save for some archive footage used on the Today programme this morning.

I don't know enough about this case to come to a firm conclusion, but any finding of gross negligence would seem harsh. Seems like your classic health and safety cock up to me.

Watching the coverage, that was my impression as well. If the commanders deliberately tried to cause mass casualties the that is of course different, but my overriding impression was that this was an almighty cockup. If there was (and gut inspect suggests there was) an organized coverup, then I think that formal investigations should be held against that area, ditto anyone who lied to initial investigations.

The police are culpable of gross negligence, they had a duty of care to those fans. Rather than dealing with the issue outside the stadium they just let them in with no regard for overcrowding, if the crowds had been properly cordoned on the way to the stadium and outside the stadium this tragedy could have been avoided.

Yes it could. Assuming that the commanders were able to recognize the issues and had the training to resolve them. We have learnt a lot from those days, the crowd control measures from back then were far more primitive.

To prove negligence you need to show that the offender, in this case the police officer in charge, had a reasonable idea that his actions would contribute to the final incident. That assessment cannot be influenced by what we know now, but only on what information the officer in charge had to work with at the time. Faulty comms and poor infrastructure have already been highlighted.

Any coverup is fair game for an investigation and criminal charges. Criminalizing people for doing their best in a difficult situation is never a course of action that should be supported.

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Watching the coverage, that was my impression as well. If the commanders deliberately tried to cause mass casualties the that is of course different, but my overriding impression was that this was an almighty cockup. If there was (and gut inspect suggests there was) an organized coverup, then I think that formal investigations should be held against that area, ditto anyone who lied to initial investigations.

The police are culpable of gross negligence, they had a duty of care to those fans. Rather than dealing with the issue outside the stadium they just let them in with no regard for overcrowding, if the crowds had been properly cordoned on the way to the stadium and outside the stadium this tragedy could have been avoided.

Yes it could. Assuming that the commanders were able to recognize the issues and had the training to resolve them. We have learnt a lot from those days, the crowd control measures from back then were far more primitive.

To prove negligence you need to show that the offender, in this case the police officer in charge, had a reasonable idea that his actions would contribute to the final incident. That assessment cannot be influenced by what we know now, but only on what information the officer in charge had to work with at the time. Faulty comms and poor infrastructure have already been highlighted.

Any coverup is fair game for an investigation and criminal charges. Criminalizing people for doing their best in a difficult situation is never a course of action that should be supported.

This was bought to light very quickly at the time not retrospectively.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:
The police are culpable of gross negligence, they had a duty of care to those fans. Rather than dealing with the issue outside the stadium they just let them in with no regard for overcrowding, if the crowds had been properly cordoned on the way to the stadium and outside the stadium this tragedy could have been avoided.

Yes it could. Assuming that the commanders were able to recognize the issues and had the training to resolve them. We have learnt a lot from those days, the crowd control measures from back then were far more primitive.

To prove negligence you need to show that the offender, in this case the police officer in charge, had a reasonable idea that his actions would contribute to the final incident. That assessment cannot be influenced by what we know now, but only on what information the officer in charge had to work with at the time. Faulty comms and poor infrastructure have already been highlighted.

Any coverup is fair game for an investigation and criminal charges. Criminalizing people for doing their best in a difficult situation is never a course of action that should be supported.

This was bought to light very quickly at the time not retrospectively.

Were the officers appropriately trained? Did they know the ground sufficiently well? How much did the ground's design contribute to the disaster? Were the communications working effectively?

Just a few questions that need to be answered before even considering negligence. If the commanders were in a good position to understand the situation and yet they still make unduly risky calls then you may have a point. Everything Ive ever read about the disaster indicated to a cockup of the highest order.

Its also worth noting that following an incident at the ground several years previously, the police warned that the ground was inherently unsafe - the club refused to reduce the capacity.

Lord Llandaff wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:How can a jury decide that the behaviour of fans played no part in the crushing of these poor people? Are they suggesting that the Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Constabulary and the Ambulance Service actually rounded up several thousand late arriving fans and forced them into the back of the Leppings Lane stand?

I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. There will be appeals and no doubt inquests into the suicides of officers who were simply overwhelmed by the pressure to avert an unfolding disaster in front of them, with no understanding of the consequent horror unfolding far away from their eyes. The findings of this inquest are outrageous in singling the emergency services out for the full measure of misapportioned guilt.

I reckon you'll still be reading about inquests associated with this disaster when the next half of your life has trundled past.

So you are saying it was the fans fault for trying to get into a football game before the kick off? I thought imbeciles like you were silenced long ago.

SWFC confirmed that the majority of the crowd was in by 2.30pm. HSE stated that congestion was inevitable as, given the inadequate turnstiles, half the crowd would have had to have been in the ground by 2pm for the entire 10,100 to make it in in time for kick off. Their best estimate for the entire entire number in the Leppings Lane end that day was 9,734, well below its designated capacity of 10,100.

In other words, the congestion was not caused by late arriving fans, but rather the fact that those who were arriving could not get in in a timely manner. As the Hillsborough Report stated, Taylor "dismissed any conspiracy theory linked to a large number of late-arriving supporters"

Just to spoon feed those who can't read more than a headline, the cause of the disaster was down to a cumulation of known facts -

Lessons from "near misses" in previous years had not been heeded
Liverpool fans had been allocated the smaller end despite their larger supporter numbers
The designated capacity of the Leppings Lane end was dubious
There was no filtering or cordoning of fans heading to the Leppings Lane end
The turnstiles were way, way, way inadequate for the numbers they were meant to deal with
Despite a previous recommendation to SWFC, the turnstiles did not filter directly to specific pens in the Leppings Lane End
Signage to divert crowds away from the central tunnel was woefully inadequate
The police refused to delay kick off to deal with the crowds
Catastrophically, as a result of the above, the gate was opened, allowing a swarm of fans straight down the tunnel, even though throughout the disaster the side pens were relatively empty.
... this was all followed by a catalogue of poor communication, further errors, misjudgements etc from the emergency services etc.

As has been pointed out time and time again, the fans' behaviour was no different from any seen in the 1980s at many capacity Football (and Rugby) matches and any attempt to lay blame on mythical late, drunk or ticketless fans has long since be quashed.

Nicely put!

Some of the comments on this thread demonstrate why justice has taken so long and the independent inquiry looked at and dismissed any blame on the Liverpool fans, but apportioned it in the right direction.

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Yes it could. Assuming that the commanders were able to recognize the issues and had the training to resolve them. We have learnt a lot from those days, the crowd control measures from back then were far more primitive.

To prove negligence you need to show that the offender, in this case the police officer in charge, had a reasonable idea that his actions would contribute to the final incident. That assessment cannot be influenced by what we know now, but only on what information the officer in charge had to work with at the time. Faulty comms and poor infrastructure have already been highlighted.

Any coverup is fair game for an investigation and criminal charges. Criminalizing people for doing their best in a difficult situation is never a course of action that should be supported.

This was bought to light very quickly at the time not retrospectively.

Were the officers appropriately trained? Did they know the ground sufficiently well? How much did the ground's design contribute to the disaster? Were the communications working effectively?

Just a few questions that need to be answered before even considering negligence. If the commanders were in a good position to understand the situation and yet they still make unduly risky calls then you may have a point. Everything Ive ever read about the disaster indicated to a cockup of the highest order.

They shouldn't have let them enter the stadium and should have controlled the crowd outside of the stadium.

If the communications weren't working, the officers weren't properly trained or familiarised with the ground then this is all negligence.

Of course the ground design was flawed which ultimately led to more deaths, if the extra people hadn't been granted entry we wouldn't be having this conversation.

With all the very greatest and honestly felt respect to Mush and Lord Llandaff (I'll let the imbecile comment pass as this is a horrifying tragedy that deservedly raises the passions), but I cannot see how 96 people could have been crushed to death without the actions of those who continued to press in from the back.

The police were dealing with a situation outside the stadium which, in the view of the senior officer, was threatening deaths and serious injury by crushing against the turnstiles and walls. Did the police cause this late surge on the gates? Is the fact that 26 of the 28 previous post-war semi finals at Hillsborough had passed without serious incident (There was, apparently similar crowd build up outside the stadium in '81 and '88 (Also Liverpool vs Forest)) not an indication that the behaviour of fans had become a factor?

Faced with the sights and sounds of people being crushed outside the stadium, how else could the police have responded? Perhaps inviting the fans to step back from the gates? I suspect that opening the exit gate to release the pressure was the only possible option to save lives outside the stadium.

Could the police have forseen that this action would then result in 96 people being crushed to death in the central pens? Well perhaps, but that would have required them to assume that once the fans managed to get in through the opened gate, they would continue to press into the tunnel of the obviously over-crowded central pen, rather than move to the half-empty corner pens. Of course the police should have learned from the Ibrox disaster that the movements of an excited crowd are governed by the collective passion, rather than a collective thought process. But it must be accepted, surely, that without this particular excited crowd at the back of the stand, there would not have been such a disastrous crush further forward.

I accept that the response to the crushing was so professionally poor as to contribute to deaths and injuries and therefore to warrant a criminal investigation into the emergency services; so too, the subsequent lies, the attempted cover-up and the efforts to shift the blame onto those who were killed and injured. These are all despicable acts and deserving of the full rigour of legal process.

But absolving the fans who provided the force that did the crushing of any responsibility whatsoever? Please!

Well you could argue that the police did cause the surge on the turnstiles due to not setting up a proper cordoning and filtering system to facilitate something less than several thousand people turning up en masse at the measly seven (I think) turnstiles designed to cope with over 10,000 people at that end of the ground.

They didn't do this and it seems one of the reasons why is because the commanding officer who managed to avoid a similar catastrophe the year before (by directing fans away from the central pens after opening the gate) was replaced a couple of weeks before the game by someone who had not visited the ground in over 10 years. He seemingly knew nothing about the surrounding areas and made no effort to scout it out in advance of the match. If he did, then maybe he'd have had a plan for how to deal with the road closures which caused the delay in fans arriving and perhaps more vitally, would have foreseen that it might have been a good idea to delay the kick-off and tell the throng of people they didn't need to rush as the game had not started.

I wonder, coming so soon after Heysel, that if this was another team and not Liverpool, that the early alarm bells indicating this was something other than a riot might have been acted on.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:
This was bought to light very quickly at the time not retrospectively.

Were the officers appropriately trained? Did they know the ground sufficiently well? How much did the ground's design contribute to the disaster? Were the communications working effectively?

Just a few questions that need to be answered before even considering negligence. If the commanders were in a good position to understand the situation and yet they still make unduly risky calls then you may have a point. Everything Ive ever read about the disaster indicated to a cockup of the highest order.

They shouldn't have let them enter the stadium and should have controlled the crowd outside of the stadium.

If the communications weren't working, the officers weren't properly trained or familiarised with the ground then this is all negligence.

Of course the ground design was flawed which ultimately led to more deaths, if the extra people hadn't been granted entry we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Comms not working is sadly normal. There are references to the opening of additional gates to allow easier access because the slow progress of Liverpool fans through the turnstiles was causing a crush there. Poor design made it difficult to move so many people, as previous issues with that ground demonstrated. If the entrance had been better designed then perhaps the police and stewards would have realised how full the ground was getting. Although, it wasn't the first time that the stand in question had become dangerously full, it had happened n the early 1980s and the club refused to make changes.

It's easy to blame the police and it's clear that mistakes were made. But frankly that ground was poorly designed and was a disaster waiting to happen.

Incidentally, I'm not aware that the stated maximum capacity for the stand was exceeded. The issue was that too any fans entered certain pens rather than be spread out safely, which was a failure in the design.

There is a Blydi good reason why grounds now have seats, it makes such a disaster far less likely.

Another poin on the ground construction was that the refused entry couldn't actually get out, so dense was the crush. Whilst a disaster was averted in a previous year but the swift action of an experienced police commander, the whole point is that stadia should be designed to facilitate mass movement of people, particularly when those people are keen to get in.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:
This was bought to light very quickly at the time not retrospectively.

Were the officers appropriately trained? Did they know the ground sufficiently well? How much did the ground's design contribute to the disaster? Were the communications working effectively?

Just a few questions that need to be answered before even considering negligence. If the commanders were in a good position to understand the situation and yet they still make unduly risky calls then you may have a point. Everything Ive ever read about the disaster indicated to a cockup of the highest order.

They shouldn't have let them enter the stadium and should have controlled the crowd outside of the stadium.

[bold]If the communications weren't working, the officers weren't properly trained or familiarised with the ground then this is all negligence.
[/bold]
Of course the ground design was flawed which ultimately led to more deaths, if the extra people hadn't been granted entry we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's flat out wrong, legally. You need to distinguish between an individual seeing a risk and grossly negligently ignoring it and/or deciding to run it and a series of systemic problems which lead to disaster.

And there weren't any extra people. The people were poorly distributed.

And my understanding of the "issues" outside was that it was starting to get dangerously overcrowded.

I guess if they can claim they weren't "appropriately trained" they can dodge responsibility for incompetence/negligence forever.

Funny how that works for the rich, the cops and the military but no one else.

There's some seriously mentally ill feckers in this world. A lot of them like wearing uniforms.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With all the very greatest and honestly felt respect to Mush and Lord Llandaff (I'll let the imbecile comment pass as this is a horrifying tragedy that deservedly raises the passions), but I cannot see how 96 people could have been crushed to death without the actions of those who continued to press in from the back.

The police were dealing with a situation outside the stadium which, in the view of the senior officer, was threatening deaths and serious injury by crushing against the turnstiles and walls. Did the police cause this late surge on the gates? Is the fact that 26 of the 28 previous post-war semi finals at Hillsborough had passed without serious incident (There was, apparently similar crowd build up outside the stadium in '81 and '88 (Also Liverpool vs Forest)) not an indication that the behaviour of fans had become a factor?

Faced with the sights and sounds of people being crushed outside the stadium, how else could the police have responded? Perhaps inviting the fans to step back from the gates? I suspect that opening the exit gate to release the pressure was the only possible option to save lives outside the stadium.

Could the police have forseen that this action would then result in 96 people being crushed to death in the central pens? Well perhaps, but that would have required them to assume that once the fans managed to get in through the opened gate, they would continue to press into the tunnel of the obviously over-crowded central pen, rather than move to the half-empty corner pens. Of course the police should have learned from the Ibrox disaster that the movements of an excited crowd are governed by the collective passion, rather than a collective thought process. But it must be accepted, surely, that without this particular excited crowd at the back of the stand, there would not have been such a disastrous crush further forward.

I accept that the response to the crushing was so professionally poor as to contribute to deaths and injuries and therefore to warrant a criminal investigation into the emergency services; so too, the subsequent lies, the attempted cover-up and the efforts to shift the blame onto those who were killed and injured. These are all despicable acts and deserving of the full rigour of legal process.

But absolving the fans who provided the force that did the crushing of any responsibility whatsoever? Please!

I've often had the same thought process, but I think you've answered your own question here. In a crowd like that any individual thought process is subsumed, if that's the right word, by a collective mentality. It's up to organisers, and in this case the organisers of the crowd were supposed to be the police officers in charge, to direct that collective mentality so that no-one gets hurt.

At a base level, you're right if the supporters at the back don't push then no-one would get hurt, but I think (or at least, my interpretation of what little I know of these things) that's too simplistic an analysis. It's unreasonable and indeed impossible to expect individuals in a crowd to recognize and react to a situation that is out of their sight. Those individuals will act as a crowd, and at Hillsborough when the gates were opened to the crowd, the crowd surged forward and into an over-crowded stand. It was up to the police officers in charge to prevent this from happening, and that's where the accusations of negligence come in.

Combined with the subsequent cover-up, it's no wonder that people want "justice" to be served on those police officers in charge. As others have pointed out on this thread, the guy in charge that day had only just been put in that position (10 days previously iirc), had never visited the ground - which seem extraordinary - had no, or at least very little experience of dealing with crowds, and by his own admission during the inquest was entirely focussed on looking for and dealing with drunken rioters rather than normal crowd behaviour. I know hee-haw about legal definitions, hence why I put "justice" in "", but it seems to me the police should shoulder responsibility.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With all the very greatest and honestly felt respect to Mush and Lord Llandaff (I'll let the imbecile comment pass as this is a horrifying tragedy that deservedly raises the passions)...

If you are not an imbecile, then you clearly have not read the Taylor Report, the HIP Report, the outcome of the latest Inquest or even the facts that I presented. But nevertheless, I'll take each point individually:

1)

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: ...I cannot see how 96 people could have been crushed to death without the actions of those who continued to press in from the back.

First off, "those who continued to press in from the back" were only there because of the catastrophic decisions already taken. Furthermore, your comment suggests some sort of implicit understanding within the crowd of the impending tragedy, thus making it something in the control of some people at the back to stop if they "behaved responsibly". Despite referring to Ibrox later, you clearly have no real clue about the dynamics of crowds. This was NOT caused by a few people at the back coming in late and pushing and crushing those at the front. The entire crowd killed those at the front - in fact at least one person died who didn't get in the ground until 3pm, thus dispelling the other "the poor responsible early arrivers suffered" myth. When a crowd reaches the sort of volume that was seen in the central pens, well, this happens:

It is difficult to describe the psychological and physiological pressures within crowds at maximum density. When crowd density equals the plan area of the human body, individual control is lost, as one becomes an involuntary part of the mass. At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3m or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off. Intense crowd pressures, exacerbated by anxiety, make it difficult to breathe.

Blaming a few people at the back is a joke whichever way you look at it. Even those people at the back were there because of crowd surges when the gate was opened, not necessarily through a defined choice. And why was the gate open...?


2)

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:The police were dealing with a situation outside the stadium which, in the view of the senior officer, was threatening deaths and serious injury by crushing against the turnstiles and walls.

They were indeed. And as my previous response and the evidence show, this was as a result of a combination of bad marshalling of the crowds by the police and inadequate turnstiles not allowing enough people throw and thus allowing the crowd to build to dangerous levels.


3)

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Did the police cause this late surge on the gates? Is the fact that 26 of the 28 previous post-war semi finals at Hillsborough had passed without serious incident (There was, apparently similar crowd build up outside the stadium in '81 and '88 (Also Liverpool vs Forest)) not an indication that the behaviour of fans had become a factor?

Firstly, the "late surge line" is a myth. The congestion was caused in the main by a build up of the crowd because of inadequate access. If you read the other reports, you will be able to see that the previous near misses were not to do with the behaviour of fans, they were down, more than anything, to sheer luck and the different decisions taken. Have you not considered the fact that previous finals passed without serious incident precisely because those police in charge on those days did not make the same catalogue of catastrophic errors?


4)

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Faced with the sights and sounds of people being crushed outside the stadium, how else could the police have responded? Perhaps inviting the fans to step back from the gates? I suspect that opening the exit gate to release the pressure was the only possible option to save lives outside the stadium.

Once the situation was unfolding - as a result of poor policing and unsafe and inadequate access - yes the police had to make a decision to rectify the situation. That decision was to open the exit gate. Sgt Derek Miller (in the ground) stated that the police would usually filter fans away from the central pens but chose not to on this occasion for some reason. He also claimed that an instruction to close the central pen gates was ignored. Once the exit gate was opened, unrestrained, the crowd surged to the nearest point of access which of course was those central pens. This was exacerbated by the woeful signage to the side pens which, as Trevor Hicks stated, he only spotted because he stopped to get a coffee.


5

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: Could the police have forseen that this action would then result in 96 people being crushed to death in the central pens?

Of course they wouldn't have envisaged 96 dying, but emergency services should always be prepared for the worst eventuality. The senior officers in particular would be well trained in how lethal crowds can be.


6

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: Well perhaps, but that would have required them to assume that once the fans managed to get in through the opened gate, they would continue to press into the tunnel of the obviously over-crowded central pen, rather than move to the half-empty corner pens.

Simple question, why did the police USUALLY close the tunnel gates? If fans normally found their own way then there would be no need. Also, the central pens were not "obviously overcrowded" because there was a long tunnel you had to go through, but once you were in the tunnel there was no escape and the crowd surge would have swept people along. And (I say yet again) the signage to the side pens was dreadful, so even fans who wanted to head there would have struggled if they did not know where they were going.


7

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:But absolving the fans who provided the force that did the crushing of any responsibility whatsoever? Please!

If you still have this attitude, re-read my post or I give up.

Donny osmond wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With all the very greatest and honestly felt respect to Mush and Lord Llandaff (I'll let the imbecile comment pass as this is a horrifying tragedy that deservedly raises the passions), but I cannot see how 96 people could have been crushed to death without the actions of those who continued to press in from the back.

The police were dealing with a situation outside the stadium which, in the view of the senior officer, was threatening deaths and serious injury by crushing against the turnstiles and walls. Did the police cause this late surge on the gates? Is the fact that 26 of the 28 previous post-war semi finals at Hillsborough had passed without serious incident (There was, apparently similar crowd build up outside the stadium in '81 and '88 (Also Liverpool vs Forest)) not an indication that the behaviour of fans had become a factor?

Faced with the sights and sounds of people being crushed outside the stadium, how else could the police have responded? Perhaps inviting the fans to step back from the gates? I suspect that opening the exit gate to release the pressure was the only possible option to save lives outside the stadium.

Could the police have forseen that this action would then result in 96 people being crushed to death in the central pens? Well perhaps, but that would have required them to assume that once the fans managed to get in through the opened gate, they would continue to press into the tunnel of the obviously over-crowded central pen, rather than move to the half-empty corner pens. Of course the police should have learned from the Ibrox disaster that the movements of an excited crowd are governed by the collective passion, rather than a collective thought process. But it must be accepted, surely, that without this particular excited crowd at the back of the stand, there would not have been such a disastrous crush further forward.

I accept that the response to the crushing was so professionally poor as to contribute to deaths and injuries and therefore to warrant a criminal investigation into the emergency services; so too, the subsequent lies, the attempted cover-up and the efforts to shift the blame onto those who were killed and injured. These are all despicable acts and deserving of the full rigour of legal process.

But absolving the fans who provided the force that did the crushing of any responsibility whatsoever? Please!

I've often had the same thought process, but I think you've answered your own question here. In a crowd like that any individual thought process is subsumed, if that's the right word, by a collective mentality. It's up to organisers, and in this case the organisers of the crowd were supposed to be the police officers in charge, to direct that collective mentality so that no-one gets hurt.

At a base level, you're right if the supporters at the back don't push then no-one would get hurt, but I think (or at least, my interpretation of what little I know of these things) that's too simplistic an analysis. It's unreasonable and indeed impossible to expect individuals in a crowd to recognize and react to a situation that is out of their sight. Those individuals will act as a crowd, and at Hillsborough when the gates were opened to the crowd, the crowd surged forward and into an over-crowded stand. It was up to the police officers in charge to prevent this from happening, and that's where the accusations of negligence come in.

Combined with the subsequent cover-up, it's no wonder that people want "justice" to be served on those police officers in charge. As others have pointed out on this thread, the guy in charge that day had only just been put in that position (10 days previously iirc), had never visited the ground - which seem extraordinary - had no, or at least very little experience of dealing with crowds, and by his own admission during the inquest was entirely focussed on looking for and dealing with drunken rioters rather than normal crowd behaviour. I know hee-haw about legal definitions, hence why I put "justice" in "", but it seems to me the police should shoulder responsibility.

Agreed, at a corporate level for putting an under qualified officer in that position. Ditto any other organization with culpability, such as the grounds owners. That said, the incident was seen as a huge wakeup call or English football, which leads me to believe that most stadia wouldn't pass muster. Large volumes of people have a collective mindset, and if you watch crowds they will tend to flow. good infrastructure recognizes that and plans for it to happen safely.

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:With all the very greatest and honestly felt respect to Mush and Lord Llandaff (I'll let the imbecile comment pass as this is a horrifying tragedy that deservedly raises the passions), but I cannot see how 96 people could have been crushed to death without the actions of those who continued to press in from the back.

The police were dealing with a situation outside the stadium which, in the view of the senior officer, was threatening deaths and serious injury by crushing against the turnstiles and walls. Did the police cause this late surge on the gates? Is the fact that 26 of the 28 previous post-war semi finals at Hillsborough had passed without serious incident (There was, apparently similar crowd build up outside the stadium in '81 and '88 (Also Liverpool vs Forest)) not an indication that the behaviour of fans had become a factor?

Faced with the sights and sounds of people being crushed outside the stadium, how else could the police have responded? Perhaps inviting the fans to step back from the gates? I suspect that opening the exit gate to release the pressure was the only possible option to save lives outside the stadium.

Could the police have forseen that this action would then result in 96 people being crushed to death in the central pens? Well perhaps, but that would have required them to assume that once the fans managed to get in through the opened gate, they would continue to press into the tunnel of the obviously over-crowded central pen, rather than move to the half-empty corner pens. Of course the police should have learned from the Ibrox disaster that the movements of an excited crowd are governed by the collective passion, rather than a collective thought process. But it must be accepted, surely, that without this particular excited crowd at the back of the stand, there would not have been such a disastrous crush further forward.

I accept that the response to the crushing was so professionally poor as to contribute to deaths and injuries and therefore to warrant a criminal investigation into the emergency services; so too, the subsequent lies, the attempted cover-up and the efforts to shift the blame onto those who were killed and injured. These are all despicable acts and deserving of the full rigour of legal process.

But absolving the fans who provided the force that did the crushing of any responsibility whatsoever? Please!

I've often had the same thought process, but I think you've answered your own question here. In a crowd like that any individual thought process is subsumed, if that's the right word, by a collective mentality. It's up to organisers, and in this case the organisers of the crowd were supposed to be the police officers in charge, to direct that collective mentality so that no-one gets hurt.

At a base level, you're right if the supporters at the back don't push then no-one would get hurt, but I think (or at least, my interpretation of what little I know of these things) that's too simplistic an analysis. It's unreasonable and indeed impossible to expect individuals in a crowd to recognize and react to a situation that is out of their sight. Those individuals will act as a crowd, and at Hillsborough when the gates were opened to the crowd, the crowd surged forward and into an over-crowded stand. It was up to the police officers in charge to prevent this from happening, and that's where the accusations of negligence come in.

Combined with the subsequent cover-up, it's no wonder that people want "justice" to be served on those police officers in charge. As others have pointed out on this thread, the guy in charge that day had only just been put in that position (10 days previously iirc), had never visited the ground - which seem extraordinary - had no, or at least very little experience of dealing with crowds, and by his own admission during the inquest was entirely focussed on looking for and dealing with drunken rioters rather than normal crowd behaviour. I know hee-haw about legal definitions, hence why I put "justice" in "", but it seems to me the police should shoulder responsibility.

Agreed, at a corporate level for putting an under qualified officer in that position. Ditto any other organization with culpability, such as the grounds owners. That said, the incident was seen as a huge wakeup call or English football, which leads me to believe that most stadia wouldn't pass muster. Large volumes of people have a collective mindset, and if you watch crowds they will tend to flow. good infrastructure recognizes that and plans for it to happen safely.

Sorry but when did the cops become a corporation?

Who trains the trainers of the trainers in your never ending abdication of responsibilty?

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
I've often had the same thought process, but I think you've answered your own question here. In a crowd like that any individual thought process is subsumed, if that's the right word, by a collective mentality. It's up to organisers, and in this case the organisers of the crowd were supposed to be the police officers in charge, to direct that collective mentality so that no-one gets hurt.

At a base level, you're right if the supporters at the back don't push then no-one would get hurt, but I think (or at least, my interpretation of what little I know of these things) that's too simplistic an analysis. It's unreasonable and indeed impossible to expect individuals in a crowd to recognize and react to a situation that is out of their sight. Those individuals will act as a crowd, and at Hillsborough when the gates were opened to the crowd, the crowd surged forward and into an over-crowded stand. It was up to the police officers in charge to prevent this from happening, and that's where the accusations of negligence come in.

Combined with the subsequent cover-up, it's no wonder that people want "justice" to be served on those police officers in charge. As others have pointed out on this thread, the guy in charge that day had only just been put in that position (10 days previously iirc), had never visited the ground - which seem extraordinary - had no, or at least very little experience of dealing with crowds, and by his own admission during the inquest was entirely focussed on looking for and dealing with drunken rioters rather than normal crowd behaviour. I know hee-haw about legal definitions, hence why I put "justice" in "", but it seems to me the police should shoulder responsibility.

Agreed, at a corporate level for putting an under qualified officer in that position. Ditto any other organization with culpability, such as the grounds owners. That said, the incident was seen as a huge wakeup call or English football, which leads me to believe that most stadia wouldn't pass muster. Large volumes of people have a collective mindset, and if you watch crowds they will tend to flow. good infrastructure recognizes that and plans for it to happen safely.

Sorry but when did the cops become a corporation?

Who trains the trainers of the trainers in your never ending abdication of responsibilty?

Referring to corporate responsibility is common place in government today.

You dislike of the police notwithstanding, I'm not keen on hammering a bloke who wasn't suitably trained or experienced for a key role who then screws up. That is the organizations fault for not allocating the right person. It really is that simple, in English law as well as common sense.

You seem to have ignored my earlier posts regarding an investigation over the subsequent lies and coverup, so Im not abdicating responsibility anywhere. Merely assigning the blame where it best sits, rather than with a convenient scapegoat. Its also clear that other organizations were as much at fault as the police, so why in our view should they be absolved of any blame?