Christmas Hampers Germany - Send Joyful...
History25 mins ago
Will They Be Interviewing Any Of The Ticketless Fans......
44 Answers
after they have lynched Duckenfield?
http://
Just wondered if at any point the real cause of the disaster is going to be considered. Anyone on AB willing to own up to being in the ticketless mob on the day? There were several thousand, they seem to have dissappeared.
http://
Just wondered if at any point the real cause of the disaster is going to be considered. Anyone on AB willing to own up to being in the ticketless mob on the day? There were several thousand, they seem to have dissappeared.
Answers
// Will they be interviewing any of the ticketless fans// Of course not, they only turned up late, drunk and ticketless, How could they be considered the cause of the disaster??.
16:35 Thu 12th Mar 2015
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
i have to agree with elgreco if the gate had remained shut there would have been people crushed outside the ground. Duckenfield made a mistake, but I believe that once the extent of the situation became known he was under orders to 'cover up'. I am sure he was getting orders from 'the top' to maintain the lies.
// You have a valid point TTT, but its the lies told by a serving Police Officer that is at issue now. He lied and should now face the full force of the law.//
I am not sure if you do have a valid point 3T - I resist the idea that the ticketless fans, fanned by mob hatred of something flung themselves on the barriers and walls and killed themselves. I may be wrong
The ticketless bit comes from the Police and is that one has been shown to be lying, so it is natural to ask whether other things he said at that time are true or not
It is a question of trust - once a liar always a liar -or do we forgive a mere slip of the tongue ?
I did run this point past Retrocop - If a cop has been shown to have perjured himself in 1980 do you or should you do a look-back at his other cases that came before and look for porky pies.
And the poor fellow was unable to understand the point ( once someone has lied on an important point you never trust them again ) let alone answer it. [The Appeal court said no you dont do a look back.]
I am not sure if you do have a valid point 3T - I resist the idea that the ticketless fans, fanned by mob hatred of something flung themselves on the barriers and walls and killed themselves. I may be wrong
The ticketless bit comes from the Police and is that one has been shown to be lying, so it is natural to ask whether other things he said at that time are true or not
It is a question of trust - once a liar always a liar -or do we forgive a mere slip of the tongue ?
I did run this point past Retrocop - If a cop has been shown to have perjured himself in 1980 do you or should you do a look-back at his other cases that came before and look for porky pies.
And the poor fellow was unable to understand the point ( once someone has lied on an important point you never trust them again ) let alone answer it. [The Appeal court said no you dont do a look back.]
// Didn't the Sun get into big bother for blaming the ticketless fans ?//
Specifically Rupert Murdoch's infected organ ( that would be the Sun newspaper ) carried reports that drunken fans had urinated on the bodies of other fans
This untrue rumour was spread by various anonymous police contacts and was untrue ( see above )
sales I think fell to 10% in the 'Pule area and have recovered
Outsiders who were unwise enough to try to purchase this quality newspaper ( er The Sun ) were at times beaten up ( OK just hit around a bit to teach them)
Specifically Rupert Murdoch's infected organ ( that would be the Sun newspaper ) carried reports that drunken fans had urinated on the bodies of other fans
This untrue rumour was spread by various anonymous police contacts and was untrue ( see above )
sales I think fell to 10% in the 'Pule area and have recovered
Outsiders who were unwise enough to try to purchase this quality newspaper ( er The Sun ) were at times beaten up ( OK just hit around a bit to teach them)
Lord Justice Taylor's interim report said ...
2.12.140 Further, LJ Taylor found no evidence to demonstrate that there was a 'very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up'. He also dismissed the 'slender evidence' on which the 'suggestion that fans without tickets conspired to arrive late and create such trouble as would force the police to admit them to the match' was based. //
There were very few ticketless fans and no evidence of any forged tickets. They did not contribute to the tragedy. The congestion at the turnstiles was just a natural bottleneck, the same thing had happened at a previous FA Cup semi final at the Leppings Lane End.
The decision to open the gates after the match had kicked off led to a surge into the ground. There was the right number of supporters at the Lepping Lane End, just that they were packed into the two middle pens. The two end pens were sparcely populated.
2.12.140 Further, LJ Taylor found no evidence to demonstrate that there was a 'very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up'. He also dismissed the 'slender evidence' on which the 'suggestion that fans without tickets conspired to arrive late and create such trouble as would force the police to admit them to the match' was based. //
There were very few ticketless fans and no evidence of any forged tickets. They did not contribute to the tragedy. The congestion at the turnstiles was just a natural bottleneck, the same thing had happened at a previous FA Cup semi final at the Leppings Lane End.
The decision to open the gates after the match had kicked off led to a surge into the ground. There was the right number of supporters at the Lepping Lane End, just that they were packed into the two middle pens. The two end pens were sparcely populated.
"....sales I think fell to 10% in the 'Pule area and have recovered
Outsiders who were unwise enough to try to purchase this quality newspaper ( er The Sun ) were at times beaten up ( OK just hit around a bit to teach them" - so they'll beat up a stranger for buying the wrong rag but do nothing about those in their midst that are the primary cause of this? right oh!
Outsiders who were unwise enough to try to purchase this quality newspaper ( er The Sun ) were at times beaten up ( OK just hit around a bit to teach them" - so they'll beat up a stranger for buying the wrong rag but do nothing about those in their midst that are the primary cause of this? right oh!
youngmafbog - //Just what was Duckenfield supposed to do? Let them mash themselves at the turnstile?
Yes, he was very wrong to lie, but that is no reason to place all the blame on him. By doing so it is obvious why he felt the need to lie in the first place - The scouse lynch mob. //
I have got 20/20 hindsight, the same as everyone on here, and everyone involved. No-one including Mr Duckenfield could have possibly predicted what would happen on that dreadful day. He made his decisions based on what he thought was solve a situation that was evolving second by second in front of him.
The issue here is not blame - that is difficult to apportion in terms of the events, it is about responsibility.
The responsibility for what happened lies with Mr Duckenfield because he was in charge pf policing.
I can entirely sympathise with him for getting it wrong,, and he must live with that.
But lying for all this time was a simple act of cowardice and immorality - to say nothing of involving his subordinates in his scheme.
If you want to be a senior police office with the salary and status and perks, and take the plaudits when things go right, then be willing to step up and admit your errors, and take the conseqences whatever they may be.
I don't think Mr Duckenfield should be castigated for honest mistakes made in a pressurised situation.
I do think he should be prosecuted for perjury, involving junior officers, and then staying silent for twenty-five years - twenty five years!!!
That is not an instant, but tragically wrong decision, it is deliberate avoidance of consequences and it is the action of a moral coward.
Yes, he was very wrong to lie, but that is no reason to place all the blame on him. By doing so it is obvious why he felt the need to lie in the first place - The scouse lynch mob. //
I have got 20/20 hindsight, the same as everyone on here, and everyone involved. No-one including Mr Duckenfield could have possibly predicted what would happen on that dreadful day. He made his decisions based on what he thought was solve a situation that was evolving second by second in front of him.
The issue here is not blame - that is difficult to apportion in terms of the events, it is about responsibility.
The responsibility for what happened lies with Mr Duckenfield because he was in charge pf policing.
I can entirely sympathise with him for getting it wrong,, and he must live with that.
But lying for all this time was a simple act of cowardice and immorality - to say nothing of involving his subordinates in his scheme.
If you want to be a senior police office with the salary and status and perks, and take the plaudits when things go right, then be willing to step up and admit your errors, and take the conseqences whatever they may be.
I don't think Mr Duckenfield should be castigated for honest mistakes made in a pressurised situation.
I do think he should be prosecuted for perjury, involving junior officers, and then staying silent for twenty-five years - twenty five years!!!
That is not an instant, but tragically wrong decision, it is deliberate avoidance of consequences and it is the action of a moral coward.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.