96 fans went to a football match and did not return home. Families were lied to about times of death and children had their blood tested for alcohol to help with the cover up.

The paramedics were also prevented from doing their job.

For 27 years the families have only wanted the truth. They couldn't believe the slander against their passed relatives and they have worked earnestly and tirelessly for justice.

Today is a big step in the right direction.

Only the families will know what their next step is and I'll back whatever action they take.

This isn't about malice or compensation this is about the truth and justice.

How would you feel if your loved one was painted as a hooligan and blamed for their own death, but you knew in your heart it couldn't be true? Surely, you'd fight to clear their name?

Some of the posts in this thread are down right disgusting, and those posters need to take a long hard look at themselves.

There is a list of victims and their ages here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/...h-victims-list

The way the mostly young people were painted is frankly atrocious.

Mackenzie couldn't wait to publish the lies that were told to him by the police. The police's strategy emerged very quickly. Blame the fans. Not only blame the fans, but cast them as depraved human beings.

From the Guardian's report on the Sun headlines:

Under the headline "The Truth" there were three subheadings:

Some fans picked pockets of victims
Some fans urinated on the brave cops
Some fans beat up PCs giving the kiss of life

Why are you disagreeing with the jury who heard all the evidence? What do you KNOW that they don't?

It's called being South Yorkshire Pig. They'd had practice at Orgreave.

If you disagree with the jury can you please point me to the evidence that supports your opinion of all these ticketless fans, i.e back up your argument

Rugby has terraces. Rugby League does anyway and I gladly watch it standing.

Got MacKenzie wrong, but Bernard Ingham is still unrepentant - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...belled-7837120

Ingham's worse really, as being Thatcher's lap dog he would have been involved with the policy of putting up those blasted fences in the first place.

Amazes me that some people seem to think families have battled for 27 years because they want money.

Those still claiming anything other than the jury findings need to slither back under the rock from whence they came.

Repulsive.

In fairness... This poster already has.

People are allowed to disagree with a finding of a jury. By saying a finding is fact suggests that every jury is correct.

I don't really have an opinion either way with this case, however don't like seeing a poster condemned for simply giving an opinion.

Strange way of looking at things.

Yet a jury who listened to 2 years of evidence decided that the fans were in no way to blame. Why do you think you know better?

In which case you must know how many ticketless fans there were correct? Otherwise how on earth can you say that ticketless fans contributed?

Of course you can disagree with them.

How many days of the 2 years of testimony were you present for by the way?

where, I am asking for the evidence of the many many (supposedly) ticketless fans, this is merely not an opinion the poster is stating that it was a contributing factor for the disaster I would like to see the evidence of this.

When did they state the number of ticketless fans?

I think you may be waiting a while.

Luckily the idiots on this thread are slowly being found out and leaving.

Hopefully Satan turned up the heat on Maggie today. If you believe in that sort of thing.

It's that posters opinion that the presence of ticketless fans would have contributed. without evidence either way someone can only form an opinion, which that poster had done.

As I said it's not unusual for people to disagree with a jury. Had this gone the other way you would have been arguing Against them.

I really don't have an opinion on the case as such, but the whole point of a forum is to discuss things and there's nothing wrong with someone having a difference of opinion.

Question 7 - Supporters' behaviour: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Answer - No

This verdict suggests that the Police had no reason whatsoever to open the gates and let the supporters enter the tunnel. Is this a sound verdict.....I'm not challenging it just puzzled?

It could only have gone the other way if the facts were different and in that case would not have had any reason to object to that verdict.

Sorry what are you talking about, can you please let the poster just post the evidence that supports his conclusions, that ticketless fans were a contributing factor, opinions dont just arise from thin air they are formed through evidence seen read watched etc etc, I am asking for his evidence, what part of that dont you understand?

Its a crying shame to me that these families have fought and fought to disprove such fallacies, yet some will just not open their eyes to what the actual true real facts are

So a jury is correct 100% of the time in their findings?

So you're putting the blame for the crush in the living room on the person letting the people in. In that case, it's still Duckenfield who's to blame for the Hillingsborough disaster because Instead of controlling the situation, he let more in. ( the ticketless fans weren't at fault.)

What are you puzzled about?

They were made to enter through bottle neck that caused a build up, the stadium was not fit for purpose there were too few turnstiles made available to them, what part of this would be the fans fault?