Hillsborough inquest

[charitynjw]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...berations.html

• Hillsborough inquests jury has retired after two years of hearing evidence
• They must complete 14-point questionnaire on the 1989 FA cup disaster
• Jury told verdict can use words 'failure', 'inappropriate' and 'unacceptable'
• Coroner told them not to 'shrink' from making critical findings if justified

By STEPHANIE LINNING FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 15:39, 6 April 2016 | UPDATED: 01:16, 7 April 2016


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz457rqnB2m
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[leclerc]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

Justice for the 96




And then this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_...lines/36139592

[leclerc]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEqrwGvn...ngerrard&hl=en

Steven Gerrard's post on instagram after the verdict. His 10 year old cousin was one of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster....

[PAWS]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

27 years ago the police were confidant they could get away with this sort of cover up. After all, they had been covering up mistakes and errors for decades and no one dared question them. In some cases the cover ups allegedly went all the way to the home office. In some police forces intimidation and corruption were inherent – so much so that ‘honest’ police officers were often hounded out of the force or bullied into compliance.
These were the people we were told to trust. These were the people who held our safety and liberty in the palm of their hands and time and time again shown to be rotten to the core.

Many people think the world was a better place 20, 40, 60 years ago. Think again.
Thanks to extraordinary, ordinary people like Doreen Lawrence and the family and friends of ‘The 96’ we will live with the benefit of knowing our police force is open to scrutiny and as a consequence less corrupt.
It is also vital to remember that people on here are threatened and intimidated by powerful Banks and Debt Collection Agencies with limitless access to professional legal teams. They fight despite the fear and sleepless nights and as we have all seen their bravery has often resulted in precedents being set and legislation being amended. It may be a more subdued battle but still pretty tough.

[enaid]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

Almost closure for those that lost family and loved ones, also for the fans who were so wrongly blamed for the tragedy.
I cant' help but feel most for the people who tried their best to help others and yet still feel they didn't do enough. They will have that with them for the rest of their lives.
Very, very sad and much respect from me to those who never, ever gave up in their fight for the right decision and hopefully justice too.

[wales01man]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

If this goes onto a Trial for any Police officers from the tragedy I cannot see a Conviction it will claimed that with 17 years of publicity no one can give an unbiased jury time to respect the memory of those who lost their lives.
In defence the police will try again to blame the supporters and all the old lies will come back no one wins even a conviction will be appealed .
RIP the 96

[Openlaw15]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

27 years ago the police were confidant they could get away with this sort of cover up. After all, they had been covering up mistakes and errors for decades and no one dared question them. In some cases the cover ups allegedly went all the way to the home office. In some police forces intimidation and corruption were inherent – so much so that ‘honest’ police officers were often hounded out of the force or bullied into compliance.
These were the people we were told to trust. These were the people who held our safety and liberty in the palm of their hands and time and time again shown to be rotten to the core.

Many people think the world was a better place 20, 40, 60 years ago. Think again.
Thanks to extraordinary, ordinary people like Doreen Lawrence and the family and friends of ‘The 96’ we will live with the benefit of knowing our police force is open to scrutiny and as a consequence less corrupt.
It is also vital to remember that people on here are threatened and intimidated by powerful Banks and Debt Collection Agencies with limitless access to professional legal teams. They fight despite the fear and sleepless nights and as we have all seen their bravery has often resulted in precedents being set and legislation being amended. It may be a more subdued battle but still pretty tough.

Law is simply that not black and white. In any event, that tragic event could have happened anywhere around the country. The football association, what about them is not their duty, or the clubs themselves, to test health and safety? It was normal practice to have metal enclosures, barriers, fencing so this event was not about health and safety as the grounds were likely 'safe' until the extra variables comes into play. This type of event was foreseeable nevertheless owing to the football stadium design, fencing, and these metal barriers, but foreseeable does not mean probable. For many years also apart from the better parts of the ground to observe the football there has been no seating. Except for the accident in Heysel, Belgium in in 1985 where 39 fans died in a crush because stands collapsed in the Liverpool v Juventus football match et al, Hillsborough 1989 was simply a precedent.

However, mix the wrong variables and you get a disaster. Some fans were likely inebriated as sober people do not take risks to themselves or others but intoxicated persons are not so alert. So, let's discuss the fans' duties. Why didn't the fans recognise there was a problem, as you can't change the law of physics... if the ground was already full, to capacity, then why did they either force themselves in or go in even when the police absurdly in my view, opened the football turn-styles which almost certainly contributed to the 96 fans death that fatal day?

So, we have the football association's duties, the football ground's directors/ other owners. Next, we have the police. The police seemingly stood there that day and apparently watched people die. Why didn't they do anything about it, you know acts or omissions? After-all, it may have been a royal co-cock-up but the fans who could hurdle the metal enclosures, the medical staff who coincidentally were Liverpool fans, some medical doctors, were doing their best to provide medical assistance.

Perhaps irrationally, absurdly even, do you know that Criminal law states that there is no duty for omissions except in certain circumstances, ie making matters worse. The police were ordered to stay where they were, why? More to the point why would the police listen to their police line-managers when they can see carnage, people squashed up against the metal fences, trying to breathe. It comes down to psychology, the same way the Germans soldiers followed the instructions of the Nazi leaders. Ref: see Stanley Milgram test. It's likely all about the word 'sue' and 'negligence.' The senior police officers including the Chief knows full well that they're going to have a flood gate of tort claims against them. So, lawyers put the blame on the claimants and Hillsborough in my view is no exception. The lawyers and senior police likely foreseen the potential that this scandal would cause so rather than admit fault they stuck together like glue, with the effect that the directions were top-down in that the normal PCs etc were told to obey or face dismissal.

27 years later, an investigation into Hillsborough is acceptable rather than in 1989 or the attempts to have investigations not longer after. At the time, it was such a huge scandal and the public could not know that the immorality of the state including the police when it has its proverbial back up against the wall. In my view, the cover up went right to the very top of the tree, this is no different than the British involvement of the 1970s scandal which saw many innocent Irish families gunned down by trigger-happy soldiers. When did we hear about this scandal to the extent that something was done about it, again many years after the event.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

If this goes onto a Trial for any Police officers from the tragedy I cannot see a Conviction it will claimed that with 17 years of publicity no one can give an unbiased jury time to respect the memory of those who lost their lives.
In defence the police will try again to blame the supporters and all the old lies will come back no one wins even a conviction will be appealed .
RIP the 96

The jury has already gave a verdict of criminal negligence against the former Chief of Police. Criminal negligence is a tort that is so serious it justifies being criminal. The CPS and IPC are further investigating in any view of potentially convicting. I note that a private prosecution for manslaughter was attempted but apparently refused by the CPS in 2000.

I note too that all the football fans were cleared of wrong doing. In terms of evidence, how would you know apart from the 96 who died which persons were inebriated. This is 1989 for heaven's sake, and a coach trip to Sheffield for Liverpool fans? This is Liverpool, famed for lest we forget a city of a 'hard-knock', working class scouse culture. Sorry to say but Liverpudlians do enjoy a drink before even a local match and after it usually to celebrate or commiserate, and football fans up and down the country are no exception. Now, on that fatal day there was an approximate 2 hour trip to Sheffield so there was immense potential to arrive at Sheffield's grounds rather tipsy or potentially drunk as a skunk. I believe it was also a semi final football match that day too, so fans would certainly be celebratory mood before they even sat their bums on those coaches. I say this as someone who thinks like a lawyer.

[PAWS]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

At Heysel Fans trying to escape fighting ran towards the wall and the excess weight caused the wall to crumble. Yes it was probably in need of replacement but the unexpected excess strain put upon it caused the collapse.
Newspapers, particularly the Sun have been vilified for claiming that the Liverpool supporters were intoxicated when they rushed into the stadium. Subsequent reports and eye witness statements show that this was not the case. My husband went to his first Manchester United match in 1966. He was a terraces fan until Hillsborough. For years he would be in a crowd of thousands as they made their way into various home and away games but with proper crowd control, stewardship and policing they were never herded through a narrow gate, all at one time, where only one entrance to the pitch was clearly visible. The match had already begun and naturally a rush to see the action followed. This is natural when you have any large group of passionate, eager fans be they drunk or sober.

I do agree that the terraces were dangerous. At many games, when a goal was scored my husband, a 6’1” Rugby player with an 18” collar, would be lifted off his feet and often landed yards away from where he was originally standing. The fencing was also dangerous and had to go. To simply say that crowds in a rush to get in to see a match -as they were in hundreds of grounds all over the world -were responsible for this dreadful disaster is hard to believe.
Unless you regularly went to this type of event during the late 70’s and 80’s it is hard to imagine the massive pack of people all moving in the same direction. It was the duty of those organising the crowd to ensure the fans were properly filtered through various entrances as at all other matches.
The fans did not know the ground was full to capacity when they rushed in. They assumed they were the crowd. Police on horseback and stewards would usually heard the fans into a pack before they even reached the ground and once in that pack you have little choice but to go with the flow as anyone caught up in a mob will tell you. I actually hoped all of them were too plastered to have the clarity of thought to realise what was happening but unfortunately it seems this was not the case.

[leclerc]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

Law is simply that not black and white. In any event, that tragic event could have happened anywhere around the country. The football association, what about them is not their duty, or the clubs themselves, to test health and safety? It was normal practice to have metal enclosures, barriers, fencing so this event was not about health and safety as the grounds were likely 'safe' until the extra variables comes into play. This type of event was foreseeable nevertheless owing to the football stadium design, fencing, and these metal barriers, but foreseeable does not mean probable. For many years also apart from the better parts of the ground to observe the football there has been no seating. Except for the accident in Heysel, Belgium in in 1985 where 39 fans died in a crush because stands collapsed in the Liverpool v Juventus football match et al, Hillsborough 1989 was simply a precedent.

However, mix the wrong variables and you get a disaster. Some fans were likely inebriated as sober people do not take risks to themselves or others but intoxicated persons are not so alert. So, let's discuss the fans' duties. Why didn't the fans recognise there was a problem, as you can't change the law of physics... if the ground was already full, to capacity, then why did they either force themselves in or go in even when the police absurdly in my view, opened the football turn-styles which almost certainly contributed to the 96 fans death that fatal day?

So, we have the football association's duties, the football ground's directors/ other owners. Next, we have the police. The police seemingly stood there that day and apparently watched people die. Why didn't they do anything about it, you know acts or omissions? After-all, it may have been a royal co-cock-up but the fans who could hurdle the metal enclosures, the medical staff who coincidentally were Liverpool fans, some medical doctors, were doing their best to provide medical assistance.

Perhaps irrationally, absurdly even, do you know that Criminal law states that there is no duty for omissions except in certain circumstances, ie making matters worse. The police were ordered to stay where they were, why? More to the point why would the police listen to their police line-managers when they can see carnage, people squashed up against the metal fences, trying to breathe. It comes down to psychology, the same way the Germans soldiers followed the instructions of the Nazi leaders. Ref: see Stanley Milgram test. It's likely all about the word 'sue' and 'negligence.' The senior police officers including the Chief knows full well that they're going to have a flood gate of tort claims against them. So, lawyers put the blame on the claimants and Hillsborough in my view is no exception. The lawyers and senior police likely foreseen the potential that this scandal would cause so rather than admit fault they stuck together like glue, with the effect that the directions were top-down in that the normal PCs etc were told to obey or face dismissal.

27 years later, an investigation into Hillsborough is acceptable rather than in 1989 or the attempts to have investigations not longer after. At the time, it was such a huge scandal and the public could not know that the immorality of the state including the police when it has its proverbial back up against the wall. In my view, the cover up went right to the very top of the tree, this is no different than the British involvement of the 1970s scandal which saw many innocent Irish families gunned down by trigger-happy soldiers. When did we hear about this scandal to the extent that something was done about it, again many years after the event.

Openlaw. FFS! stop it.

The year before the semi final was between the same two sides and Liverpool were allocated the Leppings Lane and no one died. WHY? not because the fans were inebriated and "forced" their way in.
There were half the entrances open for Liverpool fans as there were for the other team(I just can't remember who they were) prior to the police taking the decision to open the gates. We were in a time when not delaying the kick off was in force. Furthermore, previous years, the police had stopped people going down the tunnel into the leppings lane end which directed them to the two side pens that were relatively empty. That year it did not happen.

In reference to Nazi soldiers following orders: there was a defence that was used by death camp officers that they were following orders, however, I think at the turn of this century a prosecution succeeded in a case where that defence was given.

I do think your comments about inebriation are offensive in this particular thread considering that The Sun claimed that inebriated fans urinated on the dead and stole money from them. On THIS particular thread that comment, which you later clarify it on the further post makes that comment appalling.

Anyone on these boards either from Liverpool or Merseyside would be offended by your comment and I would suggest you retract the latter comment rather than the former one.

[Crazy council]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

I feel it was an accident, were everyone learned that we needed to do better around large crowds.

I feel as sorry for the police involved, as i do the fans and relatives, nobody should have this tragerdy placed on there shoulders. it was a tragic accident.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

Openlaw. FFS! stop it.

The year before the semi final was between the same two sides and Liverpool were allocated the Leppings Lane and no one died. WHY? not because the fans were inebriated and "forced" their way in.
There were half the entrances open for Liverpool fans as there were for the other team(I just can't remember who they were) prior to the police taking the decision to open the gates. We were in a time when not delaying the kick off was in force. Furthermore, previous years, the police had stopped people going down the tunnel into the leppings lane end which directed them to the two side pens that were relatively empty. That year it did not happen.

In reference to Nazi soldiers following orders: there was a defence that was used by death camp officers that they were following orders, however, I think at the turn of this century a prosecution succeeded in a case where that defence was given.

I do think your comments about inebriation are offensive in this particular thread considering that The Sun claimed that inebriated fans urinated on the dead and stole money from them. On THIS particular thread that comment, which you later clarify it on the further post makes that comment appalling.

Anyone on these boards either from Liverpool or Merseyside would be offended by your comment and I would suggest you retract the latter comment rather than the former one.

I considered all perspectives not just the Liverpool fans. I did say I say the things as someone speaking as though I were a lawyer, ie not being personally involved (objective) and considering all angles without prejudice to any person. I personally do not believe that the Liverpool fans were to blame, I was merely playing devil's advocate. i am sorry if my objective views caused offence and do in this event retract any part of my statement which has caused offence albeit that was clearly not my intent. It is merely debating the legalities not the emotional reality of that tragic, terrible, horrendous day. If I were intent on blaming the Liverpool fans in such narrow mind I would not have considered other liabilities, including police liability. My personal view however is irrelevant.


As to the Sun, well the paper reported what the authorities told it, albeit the authorities included the police. This is no different to British media reporting that Saddam Hussein could stock pile weapons of mass destruction in 24 hours, which was later discredited ie it was 'sexed up' to sell to the public. What was the consequence, well it persuades the public that there was a public interest to invade Iraq. The elephant in the room, 'the commercial transaction'...the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have the power to manipulate, so indirectly the US institutions (IMF, World Bank), put pressure on Iraq to privatise its oil, privatise its state (ie welfare 'stream line' was the key term), notwithstanding the entire North American (USA, Canada Mexico) continent had only 20 billion barrels of oil although the US had oil thirsty economy and 300 million population. Iraq however had 43 billion barrels of oil pre war and 55 billion barrels post war for its relatively small 30 million population, ie 1 to 10 of the US's. The other IMF's key term was 'enhance Iraq's oil.' How did it do this, by putting in a West-friendly government. This is more likely the reality of what happened. Coming back to my original point, newspapers/ the media sell stories without relying on the facts as the headlines are not as juicy or sexy as the facts. Ergo, the Sun newspaper sold the story that Liverpool fans caused Hillsborough or at least substantially contributed to it...but to its detriment it was vilified by Liverpool's citizens, to this day apparently.

About the point on the Nazis, well the apparently senior Nazis (ie senior SS) used the defence at Nuremburg 'that the British and Americans practiced eugenics since the early 1900s', which was true and it continued in America in some states, ie either North or South Carolina up to the 1970s where women were still being sterilised, and in England too for long time after, ie Winston Churchill was on the Eugenics board at Oxford University. I do not think the defence was successful however. I however was alluding to the experiment that Stanley Milgram carried out that people will apparently follow orders whether they agree with them (or the order maker), as long's they continually hear, 'it's ok, you can carry on.'

[wales01man]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

I am sure the relatives have looked into history Openlaw what boglocksRightly they want justice and more important the truth after the cover up of all these years I cannot begin to imagine what they went through on the day and for so many years after whilst I support them I think that this all needs to be brought to a speedy conclusion going for the jugular of some police will draw this out longer and IMO will not end in a suitable punishment for anyone convicted sorry to say I do not know where this will end never for the relatives but life has to go on

[leclerc]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

Thank you for your comments [MENTION=77627]Openlaw15[/MENTION] which I appreciate but the hard cold facts are that Duckenfield told the FA Chairman that ticketless fans forced the entrance open.

The Sun's front page was based on a report from Sheffield which derived from police chiefs version of events.

In my honest opinion, I think that only those who were at the top can ultimately be held responsible for the disaster. The way the ground was designed is not the issue, but the manner in which the police policed the game both inside the ground and outside and I'm afraid that is the top echelons of the police. Furthermore, after 25 years when the inquest began, the police prolonged the inquest and continued to blame the fans despite the fact that they were exonerated and that they were apologised to by the same force prolonging the inquest. But for their intervention we would have seen a verdict last year.

I don't know anyone personally involved in the disaster but I suggest everyone take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvBWZsCZNM

The dramatised events does not look to blame ALL police for their actions but clearly shows that ambulances waited outside the ground as people died inside the ground because the police refused to allow them in.

I don't put blame on ALL police that worked that game but the police are to blame for the deaths, I'm afraid.

Before I go on too much, we finally have JUSTICE for the 96. Miscarriages of justice have been found out in less than the 27 years it took for it to happen.

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Hillsborough inquest

As a Sheffield Wednesday supporter I have been to Hillsborough many times over many years. In the games afterwards, the pens at Leppings Lane were closed, but the twisted metal of the barriers remained in place for all to see. It was heart-breaking to see and impossible to imagine the force that it took to twist those barriers. No one deserves to die in those circumstances. To try and cover this up is inconceivable and in my view those responsible for doing so deserve to be punished, however long it takes.