The Mail & The Express have Hillsborough at the top of the front page above their main headline. The Sun has no reference to it whatever.

You'd think they'd at least have the common decency to headline with "Sorry, we were wrong". Arrogant bastards.

Fair comment, I think that The police had a ingrained view of Liverpool fans. The default position was "They are trouble remember what they did at Hysel". Of course this was not true but you can tell from watching videos of Hillsborough at the start Police officers were throwing people back into the pens. As they thought they were dealing with. "Another Liverpool pitch invasion/fight".

I have always thought that's what they do not want to admit. That they set out that day to make sure no Hooligans wrecked the game, and they did not take peoples safety into consideration. Which should have been their number 1 priority.

You are right though I think if it had happened to Tottenham fans in 1981, which it nearly did. I don't think they would have been tarred with the kind of brush that Liverpool fans got.

It doesn't affect their sales figures so they don't care. The sales will never recover in Liverpool and they know that.

Maybe if they did what Dalglish asked them to do in the first place.

I have a recollection that he hadn't even looked around the ground before match day. That would have been a good start, get an idea of the layout and so on.

Whoever made the decision to put a new commander in post at the ground just a couple of weeks before one of the biggest matches of the season was an idiot as well.

I agree with this - that how thing were back then should be considered by the courts - and not how things are today.

Although I will say that in my experience, a great many Police Officers back then were bastards toward football fans, and threw their weight around. I've seen load sof it. One example was in the mid 80s, when I witnessed a line of Police enter a crowd and start walking up a well behaved terrace, with many of them aggressively shoving people out of the way as they went. As you might expect, someone eventually took umbrage to being shoved, and a huge brawl kicked off between the Officers and the crowd, with fists and truncheons being thrown about all over the place. Of course, it would have been reported that those poor Officers were attacked by mindless thugs as they went about their duty.

Did the police open the gate not only because of the crush outside the ground but because of the fact that Liverpool supporters were already entering the ground over the roof of the turnstiles?

Either way, that centre tunnel should have been barred by the Police before they opened the gates.

If the fans had been filtered into the terraces to the left and right, the tragedy would have been avoided. Instead, the gates were opened, and the fans headed straight for the nearest terrace - the centre one, through the tunnel, which was already at bursting point.

These families have acted with such dignity and strength. The coverage is very poignant this morning.

I was involved in a minor crush situation at a gig once and it was terrifying so I feel so sick whenever I think of those poor victims. Not just the 96, but the many injured and affected on the day.

unlawful deaths??

in fairness i mean it wasn't like the police purposely went out to kill them that day? now is it?

gross negligence yes, unlawful and a criminal prosecution for manslaughter??...i don't think so

But isn't that exactly what manslaughter can arise from? Causing an unlawful death without intent, but due to gross negligence?

I would have to agree with you; it was obvious even before this inquiry started what the conclusion would be.

Imagine being a juror on this case, the venue was conveniently chosen as Warrington, just outside Liverpool rather than somewhere impartial like London. The families of the bereaved were allowed to attend and over the course of the inquiry would have got to know the faces of the jury very well. For their own personal safety the jury could hardly have come with any other verdict than to blame everyone but the fans for the tragedy; imagine the repercussions if their face was known to Liverpool fans and they'd not reached the verdict the fans demanded!

Yes of course the police were largely to blame for the tragedy. But are we really expected to believe that not a single Liverpool fan had a few beers before the game? Or that not a single Liverpool fan turned up without a ticket? Or that every single Liverpool fan behaved impeccably and didn't act violently? Or that not a single Liverpool fan arrived late for the game and tried to force their way onto an already overcrowded terrace?

You can have as many public inquiries as you like but anyone who went to football matches in the 1980s knows that the fans behaviour did contribute, albeit in a small way, to the tragedy.

Well i always thought that...Manslaughter is where you mean harm but not death.

the police didn't mean harm

A person driving a car doesn't set out to kill someone but if they do hit a pedestrian or cause an accident through reckless or negligent behaviour then they're going to get prosecuted for manslaughter.

You accept that gross negligence took place. Gross negligence can be enough to convict someone for involuntary manslaughter. The jury in the inquest believed that Duckenfield's behaviour on the day was so reckless and negligent that it amounted to a criminal act and I can't say I disagree.

Rupert Murdoch.

The Sun put a small article on Page 10 and the Times put out a second edition with a mention of it on a band at the top of the paper but its not the main headline. There was a social media backlash last night when the first edition was released online.

I follow a couple of sport journalists from The Times on twitter and they were mortified when the first edition came out.

Of course! It can't be that a jury that's sat through the longest ever inquiry in this country and listened to all the evidence and deliberated long and hard about their findings could have come to the correct conclusion, oh no, they were under threat and nobbled by the families.

Come off it! In the desperation to blame the fans people like you will come up with any pathetic reason you can think of to put blame where you wish it lay not where it actually lies. Take a look at the actual evidence, not the stuff the police made up to cover their backsides but the real evidence. You'll understand then why the jury concluded as they did.

Your allegations about the families though are genuinely some of the lowest, most mean spirited and nastiest I've seen in relation to this case. Shame on you.

By the end of the year the CPS will decide if there is enough evidence to pursue prosecutions. Senior officers have already been interviewed under caution. Fortunately for the families and anyone who wants to see truth and justice need not be concerned about what you do or do not think.

No otherwise that would be murder!

I agree, ...........funny I dont remember the jurors from the first inquest being strung up in Liverpool.

One of the biggest injustices for 'ordinary' people has finally been righted, institutional cover ups exposed and the lies that covered bottoms ripped away - and yet some folk are still trying to turn it round? I mean, really?

Death by gross negligence IS manslaughter.

And of course, if the police think they did nothing criminal; why did they cover up? And then lie, and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

And then force others to either lie or stay silent?

And then doctor people's statements?

Not only that, he didn't even bother going to the pre-match briefing. All a bit beneath him apparently.

I think The Sun made the right decision not to reference Hillsborough on the front-page, because really, what could they have printed that wouldn't have been seen - and criticised - as being hypocritical, bad taste, arse-covering etc? Yes, they could have re-iterated the 'we were wrong' message, or apologised, but yesterday wasn't about The Sun.

The last two years has been 'simply' an examination of the known facts to reach a verdict on the deaths of the ninety-six people who died, and yesterday was the culmination of those two (and twenty-seven) years. Any media report should be focusing on those who died and what happened yesterday, not making their front-pages about themselves, even if that is to apologise for past events. The Sun were damned whatever they did, so I like to think they decided it was better not to try to cover it on the front-page and risk get it horribly wrong again. Yes, they likely knew they'd come in for criticism, but at least it's for what they didn't print on the front-page, not what they did.

By the end of the week, if not the day, no-one will care what they didn't do today. Had they done it wrongly, no-one would ever forget, and I'm sure no-one wants that again.

Or was Duckenfield the fall guy for systemic ineptitude by the police - for not ensuring that someone more knowledgeable or was in charge. Was it his decision to try to cover up the opening of the gate or that of his bosses?

It was his decision. His alone.