Hillsborough Disaster

[scaramanga]

Yes. Evidence the police and other authorities fudgeed it up and lied about it. That's why they've been found guilty.

I don't think anyone's denied that.

I think most of the decisions and attitudes present on the day are thoroughly understandable based on football fans being what we were then. Obviously mistakes were made but that's all it was, mistakes. 30 years of hounding, and attempt to force a prison sentence and then a thoroughly unsurprising grab for compensation is not due recourse for a mistake.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think anyone's denied that.

I think most of the decisions and attitudes present on the day are thoroughly understandable based on football fans being what we were then. Obviously mistakes were made but that's all it was, mistakes. 30 years of hounding, and attempt to force a prison sentence and then a thoroughly unsurprising grab for compensation is not due recourse for a mistake.

I will say that the compensation is not the first on my list. I think simply getting the verdict after all those years is the main result. I suppose there is a fair argument for loss of income due to stress/trauma, I don't know how to address that one TBH mate, and I sincerely hope I never, ever have pause to ponder it personally.

 

[milo]

I don't think anyone's denied that.

I think most of the decisions and attitudes present on the day are thoroughly understandable based on football fans being what we were then. Obviously mistakes were made but that's all it was, mistakes. 30 years of hounding, and attempt to force a prison sentence and then a thoroughly unsurprising grab for compensation is not due recourse for a mistake.

I don't think that it has been a thirty years of hounding and trying to force a prison sentence. The families of those who died have just been trying to get the cause of their death accepted and the lies and cover up that followed exposed.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think that it has been a thirty years of hounding and trying to force a prison sentence. The families of those who died have just been trying to get the cause of their death accepted and the lies and cover up that followed exposed.

If that were the case they'd have STFU by now. There's no sign of that happening from here.

 

[milo]

If that were the case they'd have STFU by now. There's no sign of that happening from here.

The Inquest verdict was only made earlier this week, it is inevitable that it will continue for a news cycle or two and given that they have had a thirty year fight for the truth to be accepted, I think that most people would grant them a moment of satisfaction that it had been achieved.

 

[Jordinho]

The Inquest verdict was only made earlier this week, it is inevitable that it will continue for a news cycle or two and given that they have had a thirty year fight for the truth to be accepted, I think that most people would grant them a moment of satisfaction that it had been achieved.

They've already moved on. Now it's time for those deemed responsible to suffer and for the families of the victims to get lots of money.

 

[scaramanga]

The Inquest verdict was only made earlier this week, it is inevitable that it will continue for a news cycle or two and given that they have had a thirty year fight for the truth to be accepted, I think that most people would grant them a moment of satisfaction that it had been achieved.

That's not what I'm hearing in the news cycle.

Most of what I'm hearing is people calling for criminal prosecutions and grandstanding for their civil cases (although there's nothing civil about compensation culture).

 

[parklane1]

I don't think that it has been a thirty years of hounding and trying to force a prison sentence. The families of those who died have just been trying to get the cause of their death accepted and the lies and cover up that followed exposed.

Bingo, for years they have been wanting a verdict that says their lost ones were not to blame. However it now seems that they want more and the money signs are running through their eyes ( at least for some of them). You would think that after so long they would let it and their loved ones rest.

 

[milo]

Bingo, for years they have been wanting a verdict that says their lost ones were not to blame. However it now seems that they want more and the money signs are running through their eyes ( at least for some of them). You would think that after so long they would let it and their loved ones rest.

I'm not really interested in telling grieving people what to do or how they should behave.

If their claim is baseless then it will get thrown out, if it is not then why should they not sue for damages?

With regards to criminal proceedings, that is a decision for the CPS.

 

[milo]

That's not what I'm hearing in the news cycle.

Most of what I'm hearing is people calling for criminal prosecutions and grandstanding for their civil cases (although there's nothing civil about compensation culture).

People can call for what they want and frequently do. If there is insufficient evidence or it is not considered to be in the public interest, the CPS will not prosecute. This is why prosecution decisions are made independently.

 

[scaramanga]

People can call for what they want and frequently do. If there is insufficient evidence or it is not considered to be in the public interest, the CPS will not prosecute. This is why prosecution decisions are made independently.

As with most things, they have the right to do whatever they want and act as vindictively and/or greedily as they choose. They shouldn't be able to inflict the rest of us with it.

 

[jts1882]

I think Duckenfield will have a very hard time given his testimony, showing that he failed to foresee what could happen in the event of failing crowd control. You have crowd control because you envisage what can happen if you don't so that would be to foresee the danger. That is the whole point of crowd control or you would just leave people to get on with it. They had measures ready to be put in place because they could see the danger of not having any in place and that is what ended up happening because proper measures that had been discussed, used in previous years, were not implemented.

Then it is to discuss why they were not implemented. Was it because he was inexperienced? If so, why was the previous years Match commander moved weeks before the event? All very valid questions that should be answered.

I think the 2012 report was very clear on his inexperience being a big factor and the question of why he was replaced at short notice was raised. I read something a few daya ago about the experienced match commander (Meggs?) being replaced because of a disagreement with the chief constable (Wright?). Wright was the one behind the cover-up.

In the current inquest Duckenfield admitted that he wasn't as thorough as he should have been in familiarising himself with the stadium and safety plans, so it does seem that his failure to prepare diligently was a factor in the mistakes he made on the day. But he shouldn't have been put in that position as he had no prior knowledge of the ground.

I think by freezing that is almost what he did as he actually did nothing and then lied instantly about it. He will have this on his conscience for the rest of his life and it isn't for me to decide he should face prison but he should certainly be held accountable in some form for his part and he probably wouldn't disagree if you asked him to his face.

The problem was that he did something. An officer outside the ground reported over crowding outside and asked Duckenfield if he could open gate C (the large exit gate). Duckenfield said yes, because he wanted to prevent injury. However, he didn't order the closing of the tunnel into the central pens, which he should have done, and this led to the crush and the deaths. This was probably due to his inexperience, but his lack of preparation was also a factor. In this sense the deaths were an accident, with him being culpable to some extent.

He quickly realised the mistake and started the story that drunk Liverpool fans forced the gate. While we can appreciate that in his panic he might have lied to cover-up, the fact he continued to lie and his seniors instigated false testimony and a publicity campaign to propagate the lie (briefing the press and politicians) was the real crime. Wright (?) was the one most responsible here, but the whole senior command of South Yorkshire Police must have known. The coverup should have seen people in prison for perverting the cause of justice and other crimes, but this is a separate issue from causing the deaths.

In the recent inquest they got him to admit that it was his mistakes caused the deaths.

P.S. The families did bring a private prosecution against Duckenfield that was unsuccessful. The judge ordered a stay against further prosecutions against him. This could be revoked, but there are issues of double jeopardy in bringing a new trial.

 

[parklane1]

I'm not really interested in telling grieving people what to do or how they should behave.

If their claim is baseless then it will get thrown out, if it is not then why should they not sue for damages?

With regards to criminal proceedings, that is a decision for the CPS.

27 years of campaigning to get the verdict that their familys did not commit wrong doing, this is what they were shouting for and now they have it. You would think that now they would be happy and get on with the rest of their lives but all of a sudden the are being pestered by the compensation lawyers ( who make a living of other peoples misfortune and misery) and some seem to think they should press on instead of being satisfied with the verdict they all wanted.

 

[Libero]

I think the 2012 report was very clear on his inexperience being a big factor and the question of why he was replaced at short notice was raised. I read something a few daya ago about the experienced match commander (Meggs?) being replaced because of a disagreement with the chief constable (Wright?). Wright was the one behind the cover-up.

In the current inquest Duckenfield admitted that he wasn't as thorough as he should have been in familiarising himself with the stadium and safety plans, so it does seem that his failure to prepare diligently was a factor in the mistakes he made on the day. But he shouldn't have been put in that position as he had no prior knowledge of the ground.



The problem was that he did something. An officer outside the ground reported over crowding outside and asked Duckenfield if he could open gate C (the large exit gate). Duckenfield said yes, because he wanted to prevent injury. However, he didn't order the closing of the tunnel into the central pens, which he should have done, and this led to the crush and the deaths. This was probably due to his inexperience, but his lack of preparation was also a factor. In this sense the deaths were an accident, with him being culpable to some extent.

He quickly realised the mistake and started the story that drunk Liverpool fans forced the gate. While we can appreciate that in his panic he might have lied to cover-up, the fact he continued to lie and his seniors instigated false testimony and a publicity campaign to propagate the lie (briefing the press and politicians) was the real crime. Wright (?) was the one most responsible here, but the whole senior command of South Yorkshire Police must have known. The coverup should have seen people in prison for perverting the cause of justice and other crimes, but this is a separate issue from causing the deaths.

In the recent inquest they got him to admit that it was his mistakes caused the deaths.

P.S. The families did bring a private prosecution against Duckenfield that was unsuccessful. The judge ordered a stay against further prosecutions against him. This could be revoked, but there are issues of double jeopardy in bringing a new trial.

Chief Inspector Brian Mole was replaced with Duckenfield who was obviously on a fast track to the top given his relationship with Peter Wright.

Well yes you are right he did do something but initially he didn't do anything hence the reason the officer on the gate kept having to repeat what do you want me to do and then stated he was going to open it anyway if he didn't get a response.

Fully agree with you about the cover up/perjury/perverting course of justice being more serious offences than what occurred on the day. I don't believe that Duckenfield would necessarily be ripe for prison had this all been dealt with at the time but the aggravating factor of being involved within the cover up and years of arrogance relating to keeping schtum is probably deserving of a small custodial sentence in my view.

I don't believe that double jeopardy is enforced anymore. If new information not previously made available to the trial comes to light then a new prosecution can proceed if I am not mistaken.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't believe that double jeopardy is enforced anymore. If new information not previously made available to the trial comes to light then a new prosecution can proceed if I am not mistaken.

Only for really serious offences like *struggle cuddle* and murder. Only the most swivel-eyed scousers are calling this murder.

Double jeopardy remains for comparatively minor crimes like this, I believe.

 

[scaramanga]

27 years of campaigning to get the verdict that their familys did not commit wrong doing, this is what they were shouting for and now they have it. You would think that now they would be happy and get on with the rest of their lives but all of a sudden the are being pestered by the compensation lawyers ( who make a living of other peoples misfortune and misery) and some seem to think they should press on instead of being satisfied with the verdict they all wanted.

The irony being that nobody (to my knowledge) blamed the dead in the first place. It was the other fans being blamed.

 

[parklane1]

The irony being that nobody (to my knowledge) blamed the dead in the first place. It was the other fans being blamed.

Indeed.

 

[milo]

As with most things, they have the right to do whatever they want and act as vindictively and/or greedily as they choose. They shouldn't be able to inflict the rest of us with it.

I'm shocked by your lack of compassion.

 

[scaramanga]

I'm shocked by your lack of compassion.

Without wanting to get too "meta" here, I'm a little surprised that you're shocked.

I don't think I've ever behaved in a manner that would lead anyone to think I consider compassion to be anything other than wasted energy. It's a thoroughly pointless set of emotions that have no benefit in life. I wouldn't want anyone's pity in such a situation and I'm sure they don't want mine.

(Yes, I have been drinking but I mean what I'm saying)

 

[milo]

27 years of campaigning to get the verdict that their familys did not commit wrong doing, this is what they were shouting for and now they have it. You would think that now they would be happy and get on with the rest of their lives but all of a sudden the are being pestered by the compensation lawyers ( who make a living of other peoples misfortune and misery) and some seem to think they should press on instead of being satisfied with the verdict they all wanted.

Would you feel the same about the families of other accident victims claiming compensation?

If there was an train accident caused by the rail company not carrying out proper maintenance and safety checks, would you be against the families of those who died suing for compensation?