Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Hillsborough Disaster: Fans Unlawfully Killed
http://
At last...the truth is out.
Some important points from the above :::
Police failures led to the deaths in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the turnstiles.
At last...the truth is out.
Some important points from the above :::
Police failures led to the deaths in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final.
The behaviour of Liverpool fans did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the turnstiles.
Answers
Retrocop - in reference to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire's suspension - //Why has this man got to be the scapegoat and fall on his sword.// It is nothing to do with being a 'scapegoat' - it is to do with being head of an organisation which is revealed to have wilfully obstructed the inquest in its investigatio
08:28 Thu 28th Apr 2016
This highly contentious issue was always going to result in an emotive reaction when the verdict was reached and advised.
To put some context into the debate - at the time of the tragedy, there was a large amount of casual bias towards sections of society, fostered and reflected by the media at the time, which happily has been eradicated with the passing of time.
Part of this casual stereotyping was the notion that Liverpudlians are chancers, drunkards, and hooligans, all of which fitted into the overall media perception of the fans' supposed behaviour surrounding the events on that day.
The police were delighted to foster the notion that the tragedy was caused by drunken rampaging ticketless hooligans - they even took blood samples from corpses including children (!) to bolster their excuses that alcohol played a major part in what occurred that day.
Evidence now proves that alcohol was not to blame, nor did ticketless fans force open a gate - the police opened the gate, and the fatal consequences unfolded as a result.
I am always happy to sympathise with anyone who makes a mistake - and we all do - even though the mistake(s) on this scale had such tragic consequences.
What is unacceptable is the fact that the police authorities lied repeatedly in order to cover up their part in the events, and furnished a scurrilous untrue report of the behaviour of fans which has blighted to lives of bereaved families for decades.
Now the truth is out, and contrary to some posters on here, any legal action will not be a 'witch hunt' - or anything of the kind. It will be (late) justice for the real offenders in this tragedy.
If the police cannot be brought to book for breaking laws that they themselves enforce, then what hope for our legal system, or future faith in the police themselves?
So the notion of 'hounding a retired policeman to his death ...' is so much nonsensical hyperbole - it is justice for the families who lost loved ones from decisions made by an officer who was incompetent, and then a liar, in court, on various occasions.
I cannot say any argument why those involved should not be tried - their law-breaking must be accounted for. Their individual consciences are something they will have to accept themselves.
I hope they are denied a decent night's sleep for the rest of their lives. That will put them on a par with the families of those who died on that day - albeit for different reasons.
To put some context into the debate - at the time of the tragedy, there was a large amount of casual bias towards sections of society, fostered and reflected by the media at the time, which happily has been eradicated with the passing of time.
Part of this casual stereotyping was the notion that Liverpudlians are chancers, drunkards, and hooligans, all of which fitted into the overall media perception of the fans' supposed behaviour surrounding the events on that day.
The police were delighted to foster the notion that the tragedy was caused by drunken rampaging ticketless hooligans - they even took blood samples from corpses including children (!) to bolster their excuses that alcohol played a major part in what occurred that day.
Evidence now proves that alcohol was not to blame, nor did ticketless fans force open a gate - the police opened the gate, and the fatal consequences unfolded as a result.
I am always happy to sympathise with anyone who makes a mistake - and we all do - even though the mistake(s) on this scale had such tragic consequences.
What is unacceptable is the fact that the police authorities lied repeatedly in order to cover up their part in the events, and furnished a scurrilous untrue report of the behaviour of fans which has blighted to lives of bereaved families for decades.
Now the truth is out, and contrary to some posters on here, any legal action will not be a 'witch hunt' - or anything of the kind. It will be (late) justice for the real offenders in this tragedy.
If the police cannot be brought to book for breaking laws that they themselves enforce, then what hope for our legal system, or future faith in the police themselves?
So the notion of 'hounding a retired policeman to his death ...' is so much nonsensical hyperbole - it is justice for the families who lost loved ones from decisions made by an officer who was incompetent, and then a liar, in court, on various occasions.
I cannot say any argument why those involved should not be tried - their law-breaking must be accounted for. Their individual consciences are something they will have to accept themselves.
I hope they are denied a decent night's sleep for the rest of their lives. That will put them on a par with the families of those who died on that day - albeit for different reasons.
Andy...there are people who will still believe it was the fans fault, no matter how much evidence is heard to the contrary. The verdicts yesterday should have drawn a line underneath this sorry affair, but for some on here, it never will. You can take a horse to water, etc.
As regards to the Police. it was reported on the Today Program this morning that there are already investigations on-going into the Police. If people have lied during giving evidence to a Inquest, that is very serious indeed, and those people should be held to account. The passage of time since the acts of perjury and now makes no difference whatsoever.
As regards to the Police. it was reported on the Today Program this morning that there are already investigations on-going into the Police. If people have lied during giving evidence to a Inquest, that is very serious indeed, and those people should be held to account. The passage of time since the acts of perjury and now makes no difference whatsoever.
// /Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant ....// from Retrocop's reply and made assumptions. //
and so did the contributor who commented later
////Christina Lambert QC, counsel to the new inquest, said earlier that alcohol levels in the victims' blood, which were measured after their deaths on the order of the first coroner and found not to be significant, were "not relevant to the disaster or cause of death". She called on lawyers at the inquest to state whether they intended to suggest that drinking was a contributory cause.//
.... conclude that the rumour that the fans were possed was being recycled by a retired member of the police. I anonymise her considering the abusive nature of some replies (to spare her pretty innocent ears )
and yes I am quite prepared to suck in my belly button in and say that
retrocop's
Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant ....//
really DOES clearly expel any idea - as Christine Lambert QC asks - that the fans were drunk and brought their painful and drawn out doom on themselves. This is a false false rumour started by other police who were there ( and Retro wasnt - I will happily assert he was in a police canteen at the time if he wishes or elsewhere ) which Retro by using his words
"Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant ....//
is clear in dissociating himself from. I assert that nothing could be clearer - that retro is stating the fans at hillsborough were stone cold sober and blameless. I think that any other interpretation was indeed brought on by the ccancer drugs that I have recently been given ( for cancer) as rretro generously suggests[or the demon drink]. I thank retro for giving a sick man such much needed slack in moderate terms - I am righthanded by the way.
Hey it must have been fun cross examining statements such as these in court but that of course is another story
God retro you must have had a helluva twenty years
saying the fans were sober when the rest of the boys were certain they were drunk and disorderly. I really take my hat off to you for swimming upstream when so much could be gained by agreeing with the herd
and so did the contributor who commented later
////Christina Lambert QC, counsel to the new inquest, said earlier that alcohol levels in the victims' blood, which were measured after their deaths on the order of the first coroner and found not to be significant, were "not relevant to the disaster or cause of death". She called on lawyers at the inquest to state whether they intended to suggest that drinking was a contributory cause.//
.... conclude that the rumour that the fans were possed was being recycled by a retired member of the police. I anonymise her considering the abusive nature of some replies (to spare her pretty innocent ears )
and yes I am quite prepared to suck in my belly button in and say that
retrocop's
Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant ....//
really DOES clearly expel any idea - as Christine Lambert QC asks - that the fans were drunk and brought their painful and drawn out doom on themselves. This is a false false rumour started by other police who were there ( and Retro wasnt - I will happily assert he was in a police canteen at the time if he wishes or elsewhere ) which Retro by using his words
"Trying to ask inebriated football fans pre kick off to be compliant ....//
is clear in dissociating himself from. I assert that nothing could be clearer - that retro is stating the fans at hillsborough were stone cold sober and blameless. I think that any other interpretation was indeed brought on by the ccancer drugs that I have recently been given ( for cancer) as rretro generously suggests[or the demon drink]. I thank retro for giving a sick man such much needed slack in moderate terms - I am righthanded by the way.
Hey it must have been fun cross examining statements such as these in court but that of course is another story
God retro you must have had a helluva twenty years
saying the fans were sober when the rest of the boys were certain they were drunk and disorderly. I really take my hat off to you for swimming upstream when so much could be gained by agreeing with the herd
Having read through this post, it is apparent (to me, at least) that there are those who, upon hearing of the incident, immediately blamed the Liverpool fans. Their belief would have been strengthened by some sections of the media (the Sun especially) during the next few days, spoon-fed lie after lie about what actually took place before, during and after the tragic event. They will have long-since bored their ever dwindling group of friends to death by 'their' version of what happened and, when the truth finally came out and Duckenfield actually admitted lying about the opening of the gate, it was far too late (and they were far too stubborn) to alter their views and openly admit they got it wrong. Well, you did get it wrong. Duckenfield didn't admit his lie as a PR exercise; members of the police force didn't admit to falsifying their statements because it was PC to do so. There is nothing whatsoever PC about these verdicts, imho, so shame on some of you for thinking so. Especially if, as i suspect in one or two cases, your refusal to believe anything other than drunken, ticketless fans caused this tragedy is born of your hatred for Liverpool FC.
-- answer removed --
God . You are not allowed to defend yourself when words are placed in you mouth. You accuse me of stating they were all drunk (at any time). I clearly didn't. I enquired if alcohol/blood results were published and I was told they were.
This is a sensitive OP and you are clearly trying to label me with giving insensitive opinions. I know little about this tragedy and to educate your lack of Geography the Met are in London not South Yorkshire.
I note when I protest my answers are removed!!!!
This is a sensitive OP and you are clearly trying to label me with giving insensitive opinions. I know little about this tragedy and to educate your lack of Geography the Met are in London not South Yorkshire.
I note when I protest my answers are removed!!!!
I have not read all of these posts and I admit to not knowing much about this case, but i feel that I must ask certain questions.
Can anyone explain why this tragedy was deemed an unlawful killing?
Who actually killed these unfortunates if not the crowd, these were not stampeding cattle, they rushed in when the gate was opened.
Yes in after thought, the senior police officer made the wrong decision regarding the opening of the gate, but then what would have been the outcome if he had not?
I make no apology for any 'cover-up' by the police or the club etc, but to me even if the whole of the crowd had not touched a drink (which would be most unusual) how could anyone have controlled such a rush of people all intent on getting into the ground?
Can anyone explain why this tragedy was deemed an unlawful killing?
Who actually killed these unfortunates if not the crowd, these were not stampeding cattle, they rushed in when the gate was opened.
Yes in after thought, the senior police officer made the wrong decision regarding the opening of the gate, but then what would have been the outcome if he had not?
I make no apology for any 'cover-up' by the police or the club etc, but to me even if the whole of the crowd had not touched a drink (which would be most unusual) how could anyone have controlled such a rush of people all intent on getting into the ground?
AOG....you need to read the outcome of the Inquest for your answers.
Its all the papers today and there is ample provision on the web....my original BBC link above is very thorough, for instance.
I am not sure about the "unlawful killing" and I was hoping that New Judge would have come along to explain the legal points, but he hasn't, as yet anyway.
Its all the papers today and there is ample provision on the web....my original BBC link above is very thorough, for instance.
I am not sure about the "unlawful killing" and I was hoping that New Judge would have come along to explain the legal points, but he hasn't, as yet anyway.
Mr AOG
I have not read all of these posts and I admit to not knowing much about this case, but i feel that I must ask certain questions.
Don't admit to that whatever you do. You will have words very quickly inserted that you didn't say. I made one enquiry as to post mortem and have pretty much been accused of being there and opening the gates.
I have not read all of these posts and I admit to not knowing much about this case, but i feel that I must ask certain questions.
Don't admit to that whatever you do. You will have words very quickly inserted that you didn't say. I made one enquiry as to post mortem and have pretty much been accused of being there and opening the gates.
retrocop - aren't you just the teensiest bit too old to be displaying such sulky behaviour all over AB?
PP, mamya and myself all live up in the North where the Hillsborough Tragedy still evokes strong feeling and we are probably slightly better informed about the events than the rest of the country....
To read any comments which appear to hark back to long disproved suggestions that the fans were complicit creates an automatic response.
PP, mamya and myself all live up in the North where the Hillsborough Tragedy still evokes strong feeling and we are probably slightly better informed about the events than the rest of the country....
To read any comments which appear to hark back to long disproved suggestions that the fans were complicit creates an automatic response.
Svejk - //Obviously, the crushed fans were sober. They were the ones that got there early. If there were drunk ones they'll be the ones that came in late and caused the crush. //
Crowd crushes don't happen because people are drunk, they happen because they are in a crowd.
All crowds behave in certain ways - regardless of the event they are attending, or how much alcohol they may or may not have consumed.
If this had been a pensioners' outing to a Vera Lynn concert, the result would have been the same - if a crowd are struggling to get free from each other, and they see an open gate, they will go for it at once.
That is what happened here.
Crowd crushes don't happen because people are drunk, they happen because they are in a crowd.
All crowds behave in certain ways - regardless of the event they are attending, or how much alcohol they may or may not have consumed.
If this had been a pensioners' outing to a Vera Lynn concert, the result would have been the same - if a crowd are struggling to get free from each other, and they see an open gate, they will go for it at once.
That is what happened here.
This is from the BBC link :::
Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent
"A lot of evidence has come to light here and in the police investigation. The inquest has done its job and now the criminal justice system takes over.
"They [Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)] are looking at both organisations and individuals. The unlawful killing conclusion that we have had today the route to it was considering the actions of match commander David Duckenfield.
"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can consider a prosecution against David Duckenfield."
The CPS said it would "formally consider whether any criminal charges should be brought against any individual or corporate body based upon all the available evidence".
A criminal investigation into the disaster, Operation Resolve, is being led by Assistant Commissioner Jon Stoddart.
So its seems that there already 2 investigations into the disaster ongoing.
I suppose the verdicts announced yesterday will hep these investigations, although it is likely to be at least another year before we know if any charges are to be made.
Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent
"A lot of evidence has come to light here and in the police investigation. The inquest has done its job and now the criminal justice system takes over.
"They [Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)] are looking at both organisations and individuals. The unlawful killing conclusion that we have had today the route to it was considering the actions of match commander David Duckenfield.
"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can consider a prosecution against David Duckenfield."
The CPS said it would "formally consider whether any criminal charges should be brought against any individual or corporate body based upon all the available evidence".
A criminal investigation into the disaster, Operation Resolve, is being led by Assistant Commissioner Jon Stoddart.
So its seems that there already 2 investigations into the disaster ongoing.
I suppose the verdicts announced yesterday will hep these investigations, although it is likely to be at least another year before we know if any charges are to be made.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Hyperlinks And Copied Documents
Technology38 mins ago
Insurance49 mins ago
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.