It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hillsborough - The Disaster, the Cover-up..

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:25 AM
I think for 40,000+ people you could argue there weren't enough police, and usually the police have concrete plans which are rehearsed and carried out. This was the case with the South Yorkshire police who had carried out an effective plan of action for this scenario in previous cup matches, but they got it wrong on this occasion. They didn't ensure that access to the central pens was cut off when the tunnel was opened. The reason it was done wrong was probably due to the fact that an inexperienced Chief Inspector (Duckenfield) was drafted in after the previous, very experienced Chief Inspector was transferred to another county weeks before (the reasons behind his transfer provide further evidence for a corrupt police force).

In other events (including massive outside gigs where there is alcohol on sale and crushes could happen) disasters are averted by organised policing, as well as the fact that people aren't penned in by fences, not by the behaviour of the fans.

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:28 PM
I cannot believe that all the fans acted impeccably on that day, are you suggesting that none of the fans outside the gate (went through the gate after it was opened) are in NO way at fault & they bear no responsibility what-so-ever ?

Lets look at the facts.

The stadium was not fit for purpose - stadium owners & FA's fault.
There were not enough police - the polices & FA's fault.
There were too many fans - the fans, Liverpool FC, the supporters association, FA's fault.

You have said that you know two people who were there that day & realised something was wrong & decided NOT to go through the gates, why did the other people not think the same, why is nobody responsible for their own actions,

What about the people who were trying to get through the gates before they were opened ?

I am NOT saying the fans are to blame solely, what i am trying to find out is why all (100%) of the blame is on the police & media, when it was a combination of fans, police, stadium owners & FA's fault ?

Can you explain what the police should of done at the time so that nobody would of come to harm ?

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by DanaKatherineScully

Let's just say that everything you want to know will soon be made available if it isn't already out there on the internet. The authorities, the English FA and the owners of Sheffield Wednesday football club had a duty of care to their customers (i.e the fans). They were there to anticipate any crowd control problems and take actions necessary to protect the public.

People can argue all day about little micro level events to reinforce their subtle biases for or against football fans, Liverpudlians etc.. Personally I am sure that amongst 40,000 fans at the game not all of them were good honest upstanding citizens. Just as some of the senior police officers seem not to have been.

But that misses the point. The point is that certain officials did not carry out their responsibilities and/or made incorrect judgement calls in their roles that proved fatal. They then attempted to cover up the truth and create smear stories to conceal their failures and avoid prosecution 23 years ago. THERE WAS A REAL COVER UP. THAT HAPPENED HERE. Arguing about the minutiae is pointless.

To use an analogy .There was recently a case of a Rail Guard on Merseyside who was jailed for 5 years for signalling a train to move on in the Liverpool underground that caused a fatality to a young girl. The young girl had been drinking under age, had taken drugs, her parents did not deny they knew she was out drinking and her friends did nothing to stop her falling under a train in the state she was in.

However this does not negate the responsibility of the guard who made the crucial and fatal decision to move his train on when he could have waited a few more seconds and a life would almost certainly have been saved. He didn't have the media on his side to spread disinformation. So he was the one who had to face the consequences of his own actions in his position and paid the price.

The people who organised the FA Cup Semi-Final at Hillsborough in 1989, those employed to protect the public who failed and the policemen who lied and spread false stories with the complicity of certain elements of the media now have to face up to the consequences of their actions. If any fans were proven to have broken the law then I'm sure they too should be brought to justice.

What all football fans should be thankful for is that afterwards grounds became a lot safer, policing is a lot lower key and friendlier and that there has been no repeat of such a tragedy in the UK.

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:30 PM
It's always so sad when the few screw things up so much for the rest of us.

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:20 AM
Gambon, I read that blog by adds nothing. She wrote that before the panel report was out, from the first sentence it's clear she loathes the city and the people so I'll give her uneducated, biased view a big swerve.

As for the rest, even Lord justice Taylor, in the original report, confirmed that the disaster was not the result of late, drunk or ticketless fans.

150. Lord Justice Taylor's Interim Report condemned the evidence and testimony of senior police officers and rejected as exaggerated the allegations made against Liverpool fans. He stated categorically that fans' behaviour played no part in the disaster. The South Yorkshire Police Federation held a meeting in Sheffield attended by its Parliamentary representative, Michael Shersby MP. Records of the meeting disclosed to the Panel show that the Police Federation considered the Interim Report was unfair and unbalanced. Mr Shersby was invited to assist in the development of a 'counter attack' to 'repudiate' Lord Justice Taylor's findings.

153. Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor's findings, the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead.

There you are. As as already been stated, this was a result of police mismanagement, just herding fans towards an already packed turnstile area.

187. The decision to fill the whole of the north stand from the Leppings Lane end required the 23 turnstiles
there to admit 24,256 spectators. Of those, the seven turnstiles (A to G) serving the terraces had to admit
10,100, ie an average of just under 1,450 through each turnstile. At the Penistone Road end, 29,800 were
served by 60 turnstiles, or just under 500 per turnstile.
188. The Green Guide recognises (paragraph 47) that the rate at which spectators can pass through
turnstiles depends on a variety of local circumstances but states "in general based on observation and
experience, it is unlikely that the maximum notional rate per turnstile would exceed 750 per hour". Since the
semi-final was an all ticket match requiring no cash transactions, the Club considered that a higher rate of
about 1,000 per hour per turnstile could be expected. Even at this higher rate, which assumes the turnstiles
working at maximum efficiency non-stop, it would have taken nearly 1 ft hours to admit all those with terrace
tickets. At 750 per hour, it would have taken nearly two hours.

Late fans.. The "Late" arrival of Liverpool Fans
191. Between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm the crowd waiting for the turnstiles swelled to over 5,000 and became
unmanageable. The case made for the police was that large numbers of Liverpool supporters arrived late; a
high proportion of them were drunk and unco-operative; a high proportion had no tickets; all of them were
hell-bent on getting in on time. They say this was unforeseeable and explains why they lost control.
192. Whether those who arrived between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm were "late" was much debated. The ticket
simply requested its holder "to take up [his] position 15 minutes before kick-off. That may have been
intended to persuade those with stand tickets to take their seats, but it would not be unreasonable for a
standing spectator to arrive at the turnstiles between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm. Whether they were "late" or not,
however, there was certainly a large concentration of Liverpool fans arriving at about 2.30 pm and after.

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:23 AM
Was Drunkenness a Major Factor in the Crisis at the Turnstiles?
196. Of those who arrived at 2.30 pm or after, very many had been drinking at public houses or had
brought drink from home or an off-licence. I am satisfied on the evidence, however, that the great majority
were not drunk nor even the worse for drink. The police witnesses varied on this. Some described a high
proportion as drunk, as "lager-louts" or even as "animals". Others described a generally normal crowd with an
unco-operative minority who had drunk too much. In my view some officers, seeking to rationalise their loss
of control, overestimated the drunken element in the crowd. There certainly was such an element. There were
youngsters influenced by drink and bravado pushing impatiently at the rear of the crowd thereby exacerbating
the crush. But the more convincing police witnesses, including especially Detective Superintendent McKay
and Chief Inspector Creaser as well as a number of responsible civilian witnesses, were in my view right in
describing this element as a minority. Those witnesses attributed the crush to the sheer numbers of fans all
anxious to gain entry. There was no criticism of the crowd by any of the witnesses in the period up to 2.30 pm
or even 2.35 pm. What happened then was not a sudden deterioration in the mood or sobriety of those
assembled there. No doubt those coming behind would have had more to drink and would have included the
unruly minority. But the crisis developed because this very large crowd became packed into a confined
turnstile area and its very density hampered its passage through the turnstiles.
197. Superintendent Marshall and other officers criticised the crowd as unco-operative because police
exhortations to stop pushing and to ease back were not heeded. How could they be? In that crush most people
had no control over their movements at all. Two incidents involving police horses illustrate the point. One
horse was found afterwards to have cigarette burns on its rump. Clearly that was the despicable work of a
hooligan whether in drink or not. However, there were also eyewitness accounts of a horse being physically
lifted off its feet by the crowd. That occurred, as the police accepted, without malice or intent but as an
involuntary consequence of crowd pressure which those by the horse's flanks could not resist any more than the
horse itself.

So, now you see that the level of drunkenness was no better or worse than at any other comparable game.

Also, a little insight into the crowd dynamic whereby something as large as a police horse can be lifted up.

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:26 AM
Were Fans Without Tickets a Major Factor in the Build-Up?
200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not
possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police
estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares"
during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area.
Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not
consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of
201. First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at
a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing
pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could
account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40
pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.
202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses
by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed
through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of
10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G.
However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film
and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644
passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst
gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering
through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be
rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there
would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do
suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.

So ticketless fans were'nt the cause either. Nor was the Leppings lane end over capacity...You see now? What caused this was people being directed to already full pens.

I don't really expect this to open the already closed minds, but it serves the purpose of at least countering the ill informed idiocy of banging on about late, drunk, ticketless thugs causing this, which, frankly, I'm sick of hearing about as it's plainly rubbish.
edit on 21-12-2012 by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by SprocketUK

The only people tested for alcohol were dead.No one else was tested .Of course no one is saying that those killed at the front who made there way into the ground in reasonable time were drunk...they were innocent victims of the whole sorry saga..

So to say there is no record is right as noone else tested.
edit on 21-12-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 04:36 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:49 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 02:45 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:37 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:32 AM
And, on the actual topic of Hillsborough (

Some of the latest news: Hillsborough families to get legal representation funded by government

The government has agreed to fund legal representation for the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster after the original inquest verdict was quashed and a new one ordered.

The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, on Wednesday ruled that the original verdict of accidental death should be quashed in light of new evidence revealed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel report in September.

MP Steve Rotheram and other campaigners called on the government to fund the legal fees of the families of the victims amid concern at the likely costs.

The Commons leader, Andrew Lansley, told MPs: "The government will provide funding for the legal representation of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests."

Following an application by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, in the wake of the panel's report, Lord Judge ruled it was "necessary, desirable and in the interests of justice" that a new inquest took place.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:56 AM
Crowd behaviour is never impeccable, and there will always people that turn up drunk, that can in no way be used to attribute blame to the fans in a one-off disaster, your points on the behaviour of fans is becoming quite tiresome now.

Think about the usefulness of it - what changes can be made if the conclusions to the disaster were merely that it was the fans fault?

On other hand, making responsible conclusions about inadequate facilities, incompetent police, and corruption has forced changes to be made which have no doubt saved lives already.

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by twfau

Who is JUST blaming the fans...not me ...I would just like to see someone actually admitting some fans where responsible (alongside others) for deaths in that ground , rather than this holier than tho attitude that seems soley about absolving any fan from blame that day.

I have also done it without the personal attacks that where seen above.
edit on 22-12-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by twfau

Who is JUST blaming the fans...not me ...I would just like to see someone actually admitting some fans where responsible (alongside others) for deaths in that ground , rather than this holier than tho attitude that seems soley about absolving any fan from blame that day.

I have also done it without the personal attacks that where seen above.
edit on 22-12-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

But the truth you are seeking for may not exist.

If there were fans to blame for deaths in the ground then surely they will have been prosecuted by the South Yorkshire Police?

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:01 PM

edit on 22-12-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by gambon

If you can identify specific fans who were drunk and disorderly then you might have an argument for responsibility, but it's a mute point to say 'some fans' were and then tarring Liverpool fans in general, as there were drunk fans at every match, and still are, without any problems occurring.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:30 PM
Two many, Liverpool supporters.were there.? Will nobody answer the question.Why.?
They knew how big the stadium was right. Fact the police lost control. What were the F.A doing.? Liverpool is a big football club. Should of know'n better. And the fan's who went in to the grond with out tickets. No one's on there back.? Why sure the police lost it. Not just down to them it's down to the F.A & fan's with out ticket's who went into the stadium that day.

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:30 AM
As I posted before, they found the total number of fans were below the stated capacity for that end.
Ticketless fans causing it is a myth. The problem was that the police herded everyone up to inadequate turnstiles and panicked when they saw the resulting crush.

There were not thousands of ticketless fans.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in