hodgy0_2

in fact the police and their legal council continuing to conflate this issue in the inquest (along with the other long debunked cr4p)

was the main reason the Police chief was suspended

lozgti1

It is an utterly awful song. 😱

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Knew I wasn't 'Alone 'in thinking that

The silly winging *******s take any excuse or opportunity to wheel out the same old ' oh we are so hard done by' crap whilst murdering that song . Makes my ears bleed

Paben

iTrader: (5)

If you really want your ears to bleed try standing in the middle of Liverpool and shouting that

Felix.

The 'pens' were introduced at Hillsborough in 1985 - the same year as Heysel.

I've not insinuated anything here by the way, just pointing out the irony as 'post hoc'

I'm merely suggesting that other factors are at play here, not just the police, in causing the disaster - as a few on here have pointed out.

hodgy0_2

there is no need to guess, speculate or insinuate

the questions the jury answered are here


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-35401436

Felix.

Yes - and i agree with a lot of the findings. And the subsequent cover up is inexcusable

But I can not accept the fact that the fans were totally blameless. They must carry some of (all be it small) the blame as to what happened that day.

Where was the force coming from that caused the crush? This can only be from the incoming fans down the tunnel and must have been apparent to some of them that there is "....no more room here - why not try a bit further down." Some of the people killed had been the ones who had come through gate 'C' so they must have pushed their way through to the front of the pens. And this is not just gentle pressure or a slight push - you are talking of sufficient pressure to cause 96 people to die if asphyxiation.

Its a tragic incident - but i think there was a lot factors linked to what happened

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

If that was the case then the jury would have found so after having the evidence.

They did not because it was not the case.

There is no defending it. Once a crush is initiated you can't just turn around and walk out, what utter bollocks. The police opened the gates to let people in to stop a crush outside. But all they did was move more people into an enclosed space with no where to go.

In the panic caused by a possible crush outside people would have been stampeded in with no where to go. All the police did was move the problem from one area to another and caused the deaths of all of those INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Then spend all these years covering it up and wonder why they have no respect...

Felix.

Ah, so juries have never made the wrong decisions in the past - there has never been a miscarriage of justice when a jury is involved?

So, should the police have just keep the gates closed and risked deaths at gate 'C'. I think it was in 1981 at that ground, they opened a gate when a 'crush' occurred and it prevented any deaths.

But the ones at the back can move back or not push and push and push. If you can see that there is no room for you in a set place do you just pile in? And if you have all got tickets, you know you will be accommodated in the stand - no need for the rush

Martin2005

I can't find anything to verify your statement about the pens at the Leppings Lane end. If they were constructed in 1985, that doesn't mean that had anything to do with Heysel.
From my own experience, pens on the terracing date back until the 70s (at least)

hodgy0_2

lol, yes - and this was to correct the mistake 25 odd years ago

when jury were corrupted by bent coppers

hodgy0_2

give up Felix, you are just making yourself look like a t0sser

neil-h

And what caused the crush? The police may have opened the gates but they didn't force all the people in. Same with the crush outside before the gate was opened. People queue safely all over the country on a daily basis, so the supporters at Hillsborough must have played some part in what happened.

Felix.

Oh sorry. I thought the original thread was "....views, comments, discussion"

Didn't realise that Scoobynet had moved to a total "yes man" philosophy

hodgy0_2

It is not about "yes man", it is about endlessly repeating long debunked falsehoods

And concern trolling

I find whenever a bullsh1tter is called out they always play the victim card

johno01

Listen...as a Liverpool fan, you have no idea what it means unless you are a Liverpool supporter..the facts are 96 Liverpool fans went to a football game and died...they got blamed for being drunk (9 year old etc!) And the cover up went right to the top ( Margaret Thatchers government) some say there sick of hearing about it...if your child..son..daughter..brother etc went game..died and got accused of being drunk then you would fight for justice...use have no idea of the situation so don't comment on something you have NO IDEA ABOUT...****1n prick5

hodgy0_2

Pete brant's posts have answered all this nonsense

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What an unhelpful post.

Unless we are Liverpool supporters we cannot understand or have any feelings? What utter crap.

And as for your last sentence, get back under whatever stone you crawled out from.

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

Been a Liverpool fan has nothing to do wi5h it at all....

I doubt you were there or involved so I bet you have no idea either

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Yes yes. Jurys can only give answers to what is presented to them: 8,9,10 and 11 are ones that I think need more highlight. Further questions of the FAs responsibilities needed to be asked.

Fwiw I agree with all the answers given. Although they can be only be answered based on evidence presented and allowed (and a problem with some UK court cases where evidence was used leading to incorrect convictions).

All speculative by the way.

When a decision is made in court it had to be without reasonable doubt.

The problem here is with the evidence tampering, cover ups, malicious press involvement combined with time frame. I feel there is a reasonable doubt on some issues. Question 7 has reasonable doubt: You cannot give a verdict on a crowd as if it were a single entity, so the answer to this question will always be "NO", regardless if some fans outside were acting up or not, the majority were likely to be following the heard and were more concerned about getting inside to see the game. And evidentially most were. Reasonable? I would say so.

Just look at this video and tell me honestly that a death was unavoidable regardless of gate C being opened or not....

http://hillsborough.independent.gov....a/VID0002.html


The moment that backlog of people occurred, the police were screwed in whatever they did thereafter. That match should not have took place at that venue.

Felix.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov....part-1/page-4/

neil-h

You'll have to enlighten me, how is it nonsense? Or are we exempting those involved from their responsibility for their personal safety and that of the others involved.

Felix.

No it hasn't. If a million people turn up at a night club and the door staff suddenly open the door, the people just walk in and take their time - they don't force their way in.
I have been at fun parks etc when the doors are opened and a mass of people are wanting to be in - no problems, we just take our time to get in - no issues no dramas
There were no deaths from crushing when they opened the Olympic parks in the Olympics

The only recent times where you have seen a crush was black Fridays - people rushing in to get the latest bargain. I would suggest the same has happened here, fans rushing in at once to try and see the match or get the best spot in the stand.

You have seen the videos - when the gates are opened, how come they don't just walk in, in an orderly fashion - especially if there are children there.
And if they did all just walk in, do you think the crush would have happened at all?
If they all have tickets, then they are all going to see the match regardless.

He can't just say "Well, crowds don't work like that" and expect them not take some of the blame for what transpired.

Martin2005

So exactly my point then, no linkage between Heysel and changes to Hillsborough

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

I rest my case

hodgy0_2

I go to to the watch Arsenal - I see the queues attemting to enter Arsenal tube station and Highbury overground station after the game (I have my children in tow)

I also regularly travel on the London tube system from Piccadilly, Kings cross (and many other tube stations) in peak time it is/are regularly closed due to excessive crowds

for safety reason people are restricted from entering - not to absolve them of "responsibility for person safety"

But a simple recognition of the dynamics of crowd safety - where pumping people, unchecked into a space that cannot physically handle them would be dangerous

To say you can portion blame to people entering the back of a queue is frankly nonesense

The Hiilsborough coroners Jury (once able to see that facts free from Police corruption) agreed

neil-h

We're not talking about blaming those entering at the back (at least I'm not), more a case of apportioning some blame to the crowd as an entity. Trying to single out individuals would be complete madness but the group as a whole should be recognised as playing a part in what happened.

hodgy0_2

yes the problem is the "crowd" cannot be seen as an entity to which "blame" can be apportioned

as I said that is nonsense

and about as relevant as blaming "society"

so we are, in a way, ALL to blame for Hillsborough - because we ALL would behave in the same way - in a crowd being funnelled into a space to small

it is a NONSENSE argument

neil-h

So blaming South Yorkshire Police as an entity is reasonable but blaming the Liverpool fans as an entity isn't? You're not a scouser by any chance are you Hodgy?

hodgy0_2

lol, ok here it comes - personnel attacks

SO - for the record I have posted on this very forum my experiences with "scousers", both directly when supporting Arsenal and generally living (and growing up - and born) in London for 40 years

you can search for them if you wish - but they are not "glowing"

so lets get that out of the way

my comments on this thread are simply my view on the facts, not what I personally think of "scousers" - so sorry, try again

I and I repeat I am not apportioning "blame"

I am simply backing up the view of a Jury that has sat through 2 years of evidence, a Jury that has heard the facts free of institutional bias and deception

they came to the view that the Liverpool supporters were in NO way to blame, but simply people exercising a right to go to a football match in safety

fine - you think they were in some way to blame - I get that


the jury did not