I think the bosses have to take their share of the blame. It seems it was them who came up with idea to push the blame onto the 'tanked up mob' which they then set out to create in the minds of the public, politicians and press. And of course moving an experienced officer and replacing him with someone totally inexperienced must give them a large amount of blame.

But at the same time it was Duckenfield's actions that caused the deaths. If he had taken the time to learn what he needed to know in order to be able to police the match properly then it's much less likely deaths occurred. And the initial lie about Liverpool fans forcing the gate was told by him at 3.15, I suspect far too soon for him to be acting under orders of a cover up at that point.

It was fans' behaviour which led to the introduction of pitch-side fencing, without which there would not have been the terrible crush.

This then raises the question "who decided that this person was suitable to be put in charge of such a high profile match, especially as it was at a ground where there had been previous problems?"

And it was the actions and inaction of senior police officers which led to the deaths of ninety six people at Hillsborough. Not drunk or ticket less fans, not violent hooligans or latecomers. The jury decided that after hearing all the evidence.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Crowd control measures would simply take into account the safe capacity of the enclosures.
It's really simple if you concentrate on trying to understand rather than scoring feeble points.

That is the entire point of this whole issue.
If you're missing that no wonder you're posting such statements

Once he had done that, then why didn't his superiors hang him out to dry at the time?

So a public enquiry, an independent panel and an inquest jury found no evidence to support this slur that was started by Duckenfield and the rest of the police, but you cannot seem to accept what is right in front of your face!!!!!!!

We'll find out in due course.
Please stop trying to score points, you're failing badly.

Why should they when his superior (a fellow freemason) could instead allow him and his black PR man (Bettison) to start messing about with evidence and briefing scum press and generally concocting a false story placing the blame elsewhere? (Allegedly)

Literally. There is full TV footage of the entire incident. Where are the drunk fans? What you can see is fans hauling people up into the boxes; helping others, running people through the stadium on makeshift stretchers while the majority of the police formed a line with dogs.

Exactly, and this is the bottom line for me. Yes, there would have been drunk, ticket-less and late fans and hooligans at the game, but this had been the case for years prior, so why hadn't it happened before at similar high-profile games? It stands to reason that it would have done, doesn't it, if it was largely caused by these fans? Why didn't it happen every week, in fact?

The reason the Hillsborough deaths happened was solely because of a 'perfect storm' of mis-management, incompetence and action or in-action by those connected with ground safety, policing, first-aid and so on that all conspired, on that particular day, to allow this terrible tragedy to occur.

Yes, I think the fact it happened to Liverpool fans made it easier for the establishment but we have to remember this wasn't the first time they had done this. am not turning the thread into politics but Orgreave is relevant. The same police force only 4 yrs earlier stitched up thousands of miners, those people came from everywhere, they've also been refused justice.
The same police force, the same Chief constable. some of the same senior officers.
This what is so sickening, they lied and committed perjury Orgreave yet no action was ever taken, this allowed them to police Hillsborough,
So it was more easier to stich up the Liverpool supporters but SYP would have done it to any club supporters.




We have no idea what he did most of that morning, he drove off for something like 2.5hrs and that's all a mystery. he can't remember where he went.
He had been to Hillsborough before over the years he had policed Hillsborough 2 times as a match commander leading up to the match, more as an observer than barking out orders.
He knew the layout already.
Think that was the ass Chief Con Jackson, i may be wrong though remember he said something about being impressed with him over the way he handled a hostage situation. i agree 100%. you don't need police training to know it was a crazy decision to put him in charge, at the same time Duckenfield thought he had no problem doing it.
Many witnesses have said Duckenfield was a very arrogant know all.
He spoke at people not too them, do it my way or the highway. the whizz kid of the times who was going to drag SYP into modern policing.

Damn right. They were from the wrong place, basically.

Not always. Manslaughter is usually causing death without the intent (which is murder) and that can arise from many circumstances, including negligence. If somebody dies because somebody else was incompetent or couldn't be bothered to do something that may have ensured their safety, then they can be found to be criminally negligent, and cause an unlawful death as has happened here.

What a waste of typing. Here's where your 'case' falls down: even if the jury had been behind a screen in London, and the families had not been present, - the EVIDENCE, including some given by ex-police officers, pointed in just one direction - Liverpool fans were not to blame and the dereliction of duty was so great that fans were unlawfully killed.
To suggest the jury feared for their personal safety is disgraceful.

It is difficult for someone to know his own limitations until they wre put to the test and found wanting. It is up to his superiors to satisfy themselves that he is up to the job and give him any necessary training. If he was being so arrogant that he wasn't taking opportunities to gain that experience and training, then this should have sounded alarm bells with his superiors and they should have reacted accordingly. People should not be dropped into a position that they cannot handle.

Where he is shown to have wilfully ignored set out procedures, and that led to deaths, then he is to blame. However, if the situation had never been envisaged, or if his training and support was inadequate, then prosecutors should be looking higher up the tree than just at the commander on the day.

The jury in the inquest were asked, as I understand it, to consider unlawful killing with respect to the match commander on the day. Is this because he was the conduit of police control on the day? I hope that the CPS do not work on the basis that the buck automatically stops with him, as that could result in scapegoating. IF his failings on the day were the cause, then fair enough, but if the root cause was lack of training or poor choices by his superiors, then those superiors should be held accountable.

When it comes to lies and cover ups, initial lies are of course wrong, but it is understandable why a weak person, our of fear, may try to blame someone else in the immediate aftermath. It is not acceptable, but it is understandable. In the heat of the moment, people can act badly. However, for this then to grow into a full blown organised cover up is on a completely different level, in my opinion. Any conspiracy is much much more serious, in my opinion. Where this is found, long prison sentences are appropriate lMO. Also, the highest sentences should be given to those at the highest levels and who controlled such cover ups. I have more sympathy for any underlings if they are forced into a conspiracy for fear of what might otherwise happen to them and their career.

Is jury selection for this type of thing the same as for criminal trials, i.e the call up is obligatory? I can't imagine what sort of person has two years of their life to spare to sit on a case like this, or how they afforded to do so.

Most inquests don't require a jury. It is only where there is a possibility of criminal action or significant civil liability and/or gross negligence.

Therefore the selection is exactly the same.

The Sun is a newspaper - It's meant to print the news but instead decided to leave the most important story of the day, off it's front page?

Too much overthinking on their part, or not enough. It's always been a useless paper.

Yep, we've all seen the footage of the fans heroics whilst the majority of the police are lined across the halfway line doing nothing to help. Given that this is all available on film it's incredible to think that the police could ever get away with the blatant lies that flew in the face of all the available film evidence...

"Police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon by a hooligan element in the crowd."

"Some thugs rifled the pockets of injured fans as they were stretched out unconscious on the pitch

'As we struggled in appalling conditions to save lives, fans standing further up the terrace were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead."

"The fans were just acting like animals. My men faced a double hell - the disaster and the fury of the fans who attacked us."

As gashead says, their historic connection to the story probably meant that their low-key reporting of it yesterday was very deliberate, so as not to inflame matters or divert attention.

Why wouldn't they think they could get away with it? They'd done it before with the Bloody Sunday massacre, which also happened in front of television cameras, and gotten away with it then. Once they'd been let away with that in one part of the UK it was only a matter of time before they pulled the same trick elsewhere.

I think you are embarrassing yourself by wilfully ignoring the background to events.

There was a history of crowd trouble. As a result, fans were penned in. This was to prevent them invading the pitch and/or attacking other fans. An unintended effect was that in the event of a crush (or a fire), there was no way of escape.

Also, the police tended towards regarding fans as violent and drunk thugs. In this atmosphere, a police officer made decisions when he saw a build up outside the turnstiles. He made incorrect decisions. Because of the background, he was inclined to treat fans with disdain, and he allowed them into an area which (also due to the background) was less safe. Yes, he should have managed fan control in order to keep them safe, but this was made harder by his experience and prejudices and by the design of the ground, as well as pressures to keep the match on schedule.

Disasters are rarely caused by one single event. You appear to be unable to accept this.

what makes me really sad about this is that the police officers, st johns ambulance and emergency workers who did help and go above and beyond their duties have will now basically be forgotten because of the actions of their peers

Following on from our reminiscences on safety issues earlier in the thread, I've been thinking as well about how we took for granted mistreatment by police at matches in 70s/80s.
Never been in trouble myself, never travelled in a party who started something, but have plenty of memories of coppers suddenly bundling into part of the crowd nearby - they liked to get it 'kicked off' themselves.
At Chelsea some officers specialised in "raring up" their Alsatians into a frenzy straining at the leash, and on the way to the ground you often had to walk within inches of the fangs. I just remembered another of their 'tricks', walking closely behind someone (going in or leaving ground) for no apparent reason, constantly treading on the person's heels to make them stumble.
We experienced or saw this, hooligans or otherwise, anyone would do. A different time and culture, all before cameras everywhere.