Originally Posted by Fizzbin:
“So it is!
Teach me for getting my news from Twitter.”
“So it is!
Teach me for getting my news from Twitter.”
Hillsborouģh
6 of 50
Originally Posted by Eater Sundae:
“I have not said that cover ups don't matter, in fact just the opposite if you'd care to read back.
The issue of the cause of the deaths is about how the police and others acted in the lead up to and during the events on the day. Something that happened afterwards clearly couldn't have caused the deaths. How hard is that to understand.
Although a cover up is pretty damning in itself, it's no proof of guilt in matters that went before.”
“I have not said that cover ups don't matter, in fact just the opposite if you'd care to read back.
The issue of the cause of the deaths is about how the police and others acted in the lead up to and during the events on the day. Something that happened afterwards clearly couldn't have caused the deaths. How hard is that to understand.
Although a cover up is pretty damning in itself, it's no proof of guilt in matters that went before.”
You're at risk of appearing foolish here, I suggest that you read David Conn's piece up on the Guardian website
Originally Posted by anais32:
“I'm trying to work out if you actually understand that the police covering things up is slightly more concerning than ordinary people. Because it DIRECTLY affects the administration and delivery of justice. If they can do it with something this big; how much have they been doing it with 'smaller things' (like planting evidence on people they 'know' to be guilty; not disclosing evidence to the defence; etc).
They managed to do this despite clear video evidence available to the whole world that their story was a load of cock and bull.”
“I'm trying to work out if you actually understand that the police covering things up is slightly more concerning than ordinary people. Because it DIRECTLY affects the administration and delivery of justice. If they can do it with something this big; how much have they been doing it with 'smaller things' (like planting evidence on people they 'know' to be guilty; not disclosing evidence to the defence; etc).
They managed to do this despite clear video evidence available to the whole world that their story was a load of cock and bull.”
And it is only due to the steadfastness of the families that the truth has been rammed down the authorities' throats.
The statement from Cameron sticks in the throat a little bit - especially when it was that bitch that he adores that was part of the cover up in the first place. Hell is too good for that creature for what she oversaw with this whole thing.
Originally Posted by Miss Chiefmaker:
“You're at risk of appearing foolish here, I suggest that you read David Conn's piece up on the Guardian website”
“You're at risk of appearing foolish here, I suggest that you read David Conn's piece up on the Guardian website”
I have put the link up to that in this thread but seems like some people just won't be told.
This isn't about opinion now, it's about fact. There was a 2 year inquest, the findings of that Inquest is fact.
Originally Posted by walterwhite:
“Is it a fact though? How many people went to Hillsborough without a ticket?
Sounds like you are blaming the fans to me.”
“Is it a fact though? How many people went to Hillsborough without a ticket?
Sounds like you are blaming the fans to me.”
I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.
Originally Posted by Heavenly:
“This isn't about opinion now, it's about fact. There was a 2 year inquest, the findings of that Inquest is fact.”
“This isn't about opinion now, it's about fact. There was a 2 year inquest, the findings of that Inquest is fact.”
The problem with what you're saying is that it is the sort of thing the police could have said years ago when the official version of events was in their favour. It is indicative of an attitude of silencing opposition, which leads to cover-ups and leads to injustice.
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
No - ticketless fans was NOT a factor. The jury completely dismissed that. That would not have made the day any different to any other matchday. At every match there are ticketless fans - even today.
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
Could you point put the jurors findings that prove your point thanks
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. There were of course, as the jury has rightly identified, other contributing factors.
The ordered altering of statements proves South Yorkshire Police made fatal decisions that they wanted to hide. They were not mistakes. When people make mistakes they admit their mistakes and apologise. One of the people involved in that process moved to West Yorkshire Police and would probably have progressed his career further had his actions not been brought to light.
The best thing to come out of the Hillsborough Disaster is all-seater stadiums.”
Jury says you're wrong re ticketless fans,see Q7.
Kelvin Mackenzie, a ratbag who has spent his whole "journalistic" career doing nothing but red top muckraking and still has the audacity to ignore the many reports and refuses to accept any accountability for his disgraceful lies to further his career.
Shame on you ****er. Rot! Scum. Alongside those dirty coppers.
JFT96
Shame on you ****er. Rot! Scum. Alongside those dirty coppers.
JFT96
Originally Posted by anais32:
“No - ticketless fans was NOT a factor. The jury completely dismissed that.”
“No - ticketless fans was NOT a factor. The jury completely dismissed that.”
Well I disagree with them. There is a limit to how many people can be in an area before that area becomes unsafe. That is why there is ticketing. If you don't believe that, there is a simple experiment you can do in your own home which will prove me right, so long as you can find willing participants. Simply keep increasing the number of people in your living room. It will become more crowded. People will be less able to move. Then, after even more people have entered your living room, people will be unable to breathe. People will be crushed against the walls. The addition of yet more people will lead to casualties.
Quote:
“At every match there are ticketless fans - even today.”
“At every match there are ticketless fans - even today.”
I know. If the amount of people let into a stand was far greater than the capacity there would be more injuries and may een be deaths. Hopefully that never happens.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“I'm trying to work out if you actually understand that the police covering things up is slightly more concerning than ordinary people. Because it DIRECTLY affects the administration and delivery of justice. If they can do it with something this big; how much have they been doing it with 'smaller things' (like planting evidence on people they 'know' to be guilty; not disclosing evidence to the defence; etc).
They managed to do this despite clear video evidence available to the whole world that their story was a load of cock and bull.”
“I'm trying to work out if you actually understand that the police covering things up is slightly more concerning than ordinary people. Because it DIRECTLY affects the administration and delivery of justice. If they can do it with something this big; how much have they been doing it with 'smaller things' (like planting evidence on people they 'know' to be guilty; not disclosing evidence to the defence; etc).
They managed to do this despite clear video evidence available to the whole world that their story was a load of cock and bull.”
What makes you think that I don't think it is serious? I think it is very serious.
I actually believe that the performance of the police commander on the day was down to him being out of his depth and panicking when put under pressure. And that he acted in good faith based upon how he honestly thought events were unfolding. His decision to open the gates was made, in my opinion, because at the time he thought it was the lesser of two evils and was to be preferred to what he perceived to be a risk of crushingnoutside. As such, I'm inclined to the view that he is being judged by public opinion with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I realise that the current review sees things differently, but I'm just putting my take. I think a good look should be taken at those senior to him who put him into a position where he was out of his depth.
I think a lot of leeway should be given when someone fails because he made the wrong decision when under pressure, especially when put into a position where he was out of his depth. The result of his actions was incredibly serious, but his actions may have been understandable in the situation he found himself.
Moving on to any subsequent cover up. These are thought through decisions. As such, if cover ups and attempts to pervert the course of justice are subsequently proven in a criminal trial, then I can actually see this as resulting in much longer prison sentences than for, say, manslaughter. Although 96 were killed, due to inadequate performance, it was close to being an "accident", IMO. (I'm realise it wasn't an accident, but neither was it in any way malicious, it was down to incompetence.). However, any cover up would be malicious and as such very very serious.
My point has been that I think the deaths and any cover up should be treated separately. That doesn't means that I think a cover up is not important, in fact just the opposite. If it is proven, at any level, but the higher up the chain of command is more serious, then I think it should result in very serious jail time for the senior officers. Less so for the underlings, eg any forced to doctor their evidence, as it's difficult to know what pressure they were under.
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. ”
“I'm saying fans turning up without tickets was a contributing factor. ”
Oh dear. Ignorance of ignorance is such a burden.
Quote:
“7) Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
The jury answered NO.
Claps again from the gallery.
They were asked if behaviour may have caused or contributed.
They answered NO.”
“7) Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
The jury answered NO.
Claps again from the gallery.
They were asked if behaviour may have caused or contributed.
They answered NO.”
Quote:
“The Taylor Inquiry & Report dealt with issue of ticketless fans very clearly.
There were fewer than 30 ticketless fans by best estimates.”
“The Taylor Inquiry & Report dealt with issue of ticketless fans very clearly.
There were fewer than 30 ticketless fans by best estimates.”
Originally Posted by lockes no 1 fan:
“Could you point put the jurors findings that prove your point thanks”
“Could you point put the jurors findings that prove your point thanks”
I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
You're not in a position to disagree with the jury.
Their findings are now a matter of fact, not opinion.
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“The jury says you're wrong. What better system could we have?”
“The jury says you're wrong. What better system could we have?”
Are you saying that the jury have said that a cover up caused the deaths?
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
And the mask slips and the facade is revealed.
*sigh*
[quote=codeblue;82229344]
I didn't post the compensation comment you quoted. I repeat, people don't battle for quarter of a century for money. The Hillsborough case is much bigger than that. What happens next I really don't care - the point of this thread was to admire the tenacity of the families in winning a great legal victory over shameless officials.
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“
No need to be that cynical.
I am sure that any civil compensation awarded, paid by the taxpayers of the UK, will be donated by the families to charity and good causes.”
“
No need to be that cynical.
I am sure that any civil compensation awarded, paid by the taxpayers of the UK, will be donated by the families to charity and good causes.”
I didn't post the compensation comment you quoted. I repeat, people don't battle for quarter of a century for money. The Hillsborough case is much bigger than that. What happens next I really don't care - the point of this thread was to admire the tenacity of the families in winning a great legal victory over shameless officials.
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“You're not in a position to disagree with the jury.
Their findings are now a matter of fact, not opinion.”
“You're not in a position to disagree with the jury.
Their findings are now a matter of fact, not opinion.”
Oh I am. I'm also in a position to say I agree with most of the jury's findings.
I live in a democracy which gives us both the freedom to express our opinions, and gives the Hillsborough campaigners the right to fight against people like you who try to silence those with whom they disagree. Are you seriously suggesting that had the jury found in favour of those the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, they would have reacted the same way, and would not have questioned or expressed disagreement with the jury's conclusions?
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
“I am disagreeing with the jury, something I am entitled to do. Why do you resort to the tactics of the police which the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, on a forum that is about opinions?”
I find it shameful you even attempt to take some sort of high ground here.
You don't have any semblance of connection with those campaigners since you think their fight has been a waste of time clearly.
Originally Posted by BelfastGuy125:
“I find it shameful you even attempt to take some sort of high ground here.
You don't have any semblance of connection with those campaigners since you think their fight has been a waste of time clearly.”
“I find it shameful you even attempt to take some sort of high ground here.
You don't have any semblance of connection with those campaigners since you think their fight has been a waste of time clearly.”
I find it disappointing that you don't realise I'm glad they are fighting for justice.
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“Oh I am. I'm also in a position to say I agree with most of the jury's findings.
I live in a democracy which gives us both the freedom to express our opinions, and gives the Hillsborough campaigners the right to fight against people like you who try to silence those with whom they disagree. Are you seriously suggesting that had the jury found in favour of those the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, they would have reacted the same way, and would not have questioned or expressed disagreement with the jury's conclusions?”
“Oh I am. I'm also in a position to say I agree with most of the jury's findings.
I live in a democracy which gives us both the freedom to express our opinions, and gives the Hillsborough campaigners the right to fight against people like you who try to silence those with whom they disagree. Are you seriously suggesting that had the jury found in favour of those the Hillsborough campaigners have been fighting against, they would have reacted the same way, and would not have questioned or expressed disagreement with the jury's conclusions?”
Is Dewsbury that dull that you've nothing better to do with your afternoon?
Originally Posted by Heavenly:
“From the David Conn article in The Guardian. This was a tragedy just waiting to happen.
Duckenfield failed to do basic preparation for the semi-final. He did not study relevant paperwork, including the force’s major incident procedure, and signed off the operational plan two days after taking over, before he had even visited the ground.
He turned up to command the semi-final, he admitted, knowing very little about Hillsborough’s safety history: about the crushes at the 1981 and 1988 semi-finals, or that the approach to the Leppings Lane end was a “natural geographical bottleneck” to which Mole carefully managed supporters’ entry.
Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four
He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing.
”
“From the David Conn article in The Guardian. This was a tragedy just waiting to happen.
Duckenfield failed to do basic preparation for the semi-final. He did not study relevant paperwork, including the force’s major incident procedure, and signed off the operational plan two days after taking over, before he had even visited the ground.
He turned up to command the semi-final, he admitted, knowing very little about Hillsborough’s safety history: about the crushes at the 1981 and 1988 semi-finals, or that the approach to the Leppings Lane end was a “natural geographical bottleneck” to which Mole carefully managed supporters’ entry.
Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four
He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing.
”
Even so, how did Duckenfield manage to live with a lie for 27 years?
He made two fatal errors - opening the gates (then blaming the the fans for it) and calling for police dogs instead of ambulances.
I'l never forget watching this tragedy unfurl, live on TV. It was horrendous and terribly sad.
Originally Posted by Miss Chiefmaker:
“You're at risk of appearing foolish here, I suggest that you read David Conn's piece up on the Guardian website”
“You're at risk of appearing foolish here, I suggest that you read David Conn's piece up on the Guardian website”
What bit of the Guardian article do you think I don't understand?
6 of 50
