Hillsborough

So why was it so much better organised the year before as someone has said on here? You make it sound like all fans had it coming and if 500 had died back at the Dell one day it would've been their own damn fault for going.

Because the Chief Constable removed his experienced local commanding officer and put Duckenfield, who had no local knowledge and had never managed a football match

at Hillsborough, in charge.

"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."

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

Id forgotten about Hameron's take on the matter:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hillsborough-families-demand-david-cameron-87669

Id forgotten about Hameron's take on the matter:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hillsborough-families-demand-david-cameron-87669

Your point? No fan of Cameron but are you trying to highlight him as a bad guy in this affair? His comments in 2012 we very strong in favour of the victim.

You seem to have an obsession with the nature of football fans. Thatchereque.

 

Pathetic and hard to believe so many agreeing with what is a crock of sh it

I'm not obsessed at all just think that the behaviour of some fans in the 80's was disgraceful and people should be responsible for their actions. It's easy to blame the police but fact is football fans were herded around and treated like animals because many acted like animals.

I'm not obsessed at all just think that the behaviour of some fans in the 80's was disgraceful and people should be responsible for their actions. It's easy to blame the police but fact is football fans were herded around and treated like animals because many acted like animals.

Quite correct. The thuggery around football at the time was incredible. I remember going away on 'football specials' and thugs walking up and down the train looking blokes that could handle themselves telling them where the after match fight was going to be. And this was Saints who hardly had the reputation for trouble unlike the skates, Chelsea, etc had.

Too easy just to blame the authorities for what happened.

Deserved blame to the authorities for the following cover up.

Your point? No fan of Cameron but are you trying to highlight him as a bad guy in this affair? His comments in 2012 we very strong in favour of the victim.

The Prime Minister said victims’ relatives would never get over the 1989 disaster and likened them to a “blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there”.

Yeah, that sounds really in favour of them doesn't it.

Quite correct. The thuggery around football at the time was incredible. I remember going away on 'football specials' and thugs walking up and down the train looking blokes that could handle themselves telling them where the after match fight was going to be. And this was Saints who hardly had the reputation for trouble unlike the skates, Chelsea, etc had.

 

Too easy just to blame the authorities for what happened.

Deserved blame to the authorities for the following cover up.

Whats that go to do with too many people being funneled into an unsuitable stand?

Whats that go to do with too many people being funneled into an unsuitable stand?

go back and read previous comments!!!

Whats that go to do with too many people being funneled into an unsuitable stand?

The stand was unsuitable because of the fences, which were installed because of the reputation football fans had in the 80s for hooliganism.

I think the point he is making is... no hooliganism = no fences = no crush = no fatalities.

The stand was unsuitable because of the fences, which were installed because of the reputation football fans had in the 80s for hooliganism.

 

I think the point he is making is... no hooliganism = no fences = no crush = no fatalities.

That's irrelevant to the events of the day. The police have a duty of care. The fact that there were cages makes the crowd control decisions even more important. Can't believe on a football fans forum on today of all days people are still blaming the fans and making out they deserved it. Unbelievable.

That's irrelevant to the events of the day. The police have a duty of care. The fact that there were cages makes the crowd control decisions even more important. Can't believe on a football fans forum on today of all days people are still blaming the fans and making out they deserved it. Unbelievable.

Nobody is making out they deserved it - they clearly didn't. I'm not sure how you arrive at that from what I posted.

It's just a simple course of logic that if the fences weren't there then, regardless of what massive f*ckups the police made on the day, nobody would have died.

The fences were there because of the culture of violence in football at the time. So, in a very small way, that contributed to the events, but nobody is suggesting it was the sole cause. Clearly the biggest cause was the disastrous handling of the situation by the police.

You are correct when you say that the presence of the cages made effective crowd control even more essential, so the fact that it was handled by somebody with no experience and the wrong priorities makes it even more the police's fault.

Nobody is making out they deserved it - they clearly didn't. I'm not sure how you arrive at that from what I posted.

 

It's just a simple course of logic that if the fences weren't there then, regardless of what massive f*ckups the police made on the day, nobody would have died.

 

The fences were there because of the culture of violence in football at the time. So, in a very small way, that contributed to the events, but nobody is suggesting it was the sole cause. Clearly the biggest cause was the disastrous handling of the situation by the police.

 

You are correct when you say that the presence of the cages made effective crowd control even more essential, so the fact that it was handled by somebody with no experience and the wrong priorities makes it even more the police's fault.

Agree with all that. That's a evenly balanced response.

Nobody is making out they deserved it - they clearly didn't. I'm not sure how you arrive at that from what I posted.

 

It's just a simple course of logic that if the fences weren't there then, regardless of what massive f*ckups the police made on the day, nobody would have died.

 

The fences were there because of the culture of violence in football at the time. So, in a very small way, that contributed to the events, but nobody is suggesting it was the sole cause. Clearly the biggest cause was the disastrous handling of the situation by the police.

 

You are correct when you say that the presence of the cages made effective crowd control even more essential, so the fact that it was handled by somebody with no experience and the wrong priorities makes it even more the police's fault.

Very reasonable. The police were at fault, but it's disappointing that we should need police to control a crowd of people.

The Prime Minister said victims’ relatives would never get over the 1989 disaster and likened them to a “blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there”.

 

Yeah, that sounds really in favour of them doesn't it.

You clearly don't understand and give it no context.

Everyone looking to be outraged so throw up a quote and everyone can mock. Of course it has come from a Tory tiff which helps. Pathetic.

But then most of this thread has been full of such crap.

Hey the inventor of the engine must take some blame for that drunk driver that just mowed down that family.

Very reasonable. The police were at fault, but it's disappointing that we should need police to control a crowd of people.

The point of outrage is not so much the police being at fault but the cover up and smear campaign to divert blame. Why it has run for so long is this lack of acknowledgment by the authorities and the families fighting to clear their name and get to the truth.

Beggars belief that so many don't get this when it is a absolute disgrace and still putting blame on the fans.

So many respect and naively believe the authorities are always the good guys and can be trusted.

As Burnham said South Yorkshire Police seem rotten to the core.

In disaster management and response there is a concept known as "Second Assault" - also applies to victims of crime. Relatives of those who died are much more likely to be able to get on with their lives after the grief has passed if a second assault can be avoided. Examples are an airline refusing to acknowledge they were responsible for the deaths in an air crash, protracted legal battles for compensation, or trying to cover stuff up for legal reasons. A good example of avoiding a second assault is the Alton Towers crash last year - within hours they came out and said they would offer all the support victims needed and would co-operate fully with investigations. They also closed the parks whilst safety checks were carried out. Often when a loved one is lost families are motivated by a desire that their death is not in vain and that it will never happen to anyone else - because they wouldn't wish the pain they feel on anyone else. There's a case in the cruise industry where 15 years on a father is still battling to find the truth about his daughter's disappearance and all because the cruise line didn't engage with him, blamed his daughter, tried to wash their hands of it, and battled every step of the way to avoid paying compensation. Another one would be Thomas Cook and those carbon monoxide deaths in Greece a few years back.

So its nothing to do with being a Scouser, or hating the police, or being anti-establishment. If the police had held their hands up at the time (unlikely I know) this would have been settled and people could have "moved on". As it was they lied and lied and lied and lied and blamed the dead. As a result there have been suicides and ruined lives - not through choice but through being compelled to defend the name of their loved ones and to try to ensure that it never happens again. The second assault has meant that they are quite rightly seeking vengeance and punishment rather than "closure".

Very reasonable. The police were at fault, but it's disappointing that we should need police to control a crowd of people.

Police were needed because of the design of the ground and the bottleneck running down to the ancient turnstiles.

Think back to the Dell - would you have ever got out of the Upper East Stand if there had been a fire? With that narrow alley and only one way out? Or Nottarf with the alley behind the away end?

In contrast think of even the old Wembley and the amount of space around and the number of turnstiles.

The fences at Hillsborough and any other ground were completely safe as long as the police controlled the crowd, and the only reason the police needed to control the crowd were the fences. There was enough space at Leppings Lane to accommodate all those fans, even the scallies trying to bunk in without tickets (the same as fans of all clubs did back then). Opening the exit gate would also have been fine had they closed the tunnel to pens 3 & 4. This is why fan behaviour and hooliganism have nothing to do with it - its a monumental cock up by an inexperienced police officer who had no idea about how to manage a crowd.

In disaster management and response there is a concept known as "Second Assault" - also applies to victims of crime. Relatives of those who died are much more likely to be able to get on with their lives after the grief has passed if a second assault can be avoided. Examples are an airline refusing to acknowledge they were responsible for the deaths in an air crash, protracted legal battles for compensation, or trying to cover stuff up for legal reasons. A good example of avoiding a second assault is the Alton Towers crash last year - within hours they came out and said they would offer all the support victims needed and would co-operate fully with investigations. They also closed the parks whilst safety checks were carried out. Often when a loved one is lost families are motivated by a desire that their death is not in vain and that it will never happen to anyone else - because they wouldn't wish the pain they feel on anyone else. There's a case in the cruise industry where 15 years on a father is still battling to find the truth about his daughter's disappearance and all because the cruise line didn't engage with him, blamed his daughter, tried to wash their hands of it, and battled every step of the way to avoid paying compensation. Another one would be Thomas Cook and those carbon monoxide deaths in Greece a few years back.

 

So its nothing to do with being a Scouser, or hating the police, or being anti-establishment. If the police had held their hands up at the time (unlikely I know) this would have been settled and people could have "moved on". As it was they lied and lied and lied and lied and blamed the dead. As a result there have been suicides and ruined lives - not through choice but through being compelled to defend the name of their loved ones and to try to ensure that it never happens again. The second assault has meant that they are quite rightly seeking vengeance and punishment rather than "closure".

Interesting, thanks. I'd never heard of it before. Two great examples (Thomas Cook and Merlin) of how to handle / not handle incidents. I think the problem with Hillsborough is that it was a case of range of factors coming together which lead to a diffusion of responsibility.

Police were needed because of the design of the ground and the bottleneck running down to the ancient turnstiles.

 

Think back to the Dell - would you have ever got out of the Upper East Stand if there had been a fire? With that narrow alley and only one way out? Or Nottarf with the alley behind the away end?

 

In contrast think of even the old Wembley and the amount of space around and the number of turnstiles.

 

The fences at Hillsborough and any other ground were completely safe as long as the police controlled the crowd, and the only reason the police needed to control the crowd were the fences. There was enough space at Leppings Lane to accommodate all those fans, even the scallies trying to bunk in without tickets (the same as fans of all clubs did back then). Opening the exit gate would also have been fine had they closed the tunnel to pens 3 & 4. This is why fan behaviour and hooliganism have nothing to do with it - its a monumental cock up by an inexperienced police officer who had no idea about how to manage a crowd.

There are still potential traps at present grounds. One in particular that I know of is the away section at Ipswich. The toilet and food area has only one narrow entrance and no fire exit. How they get a safety licence is beyond me.

The stand was unsuitable because of the fences, which were installed because of the reputation football fans had in the 80s for hooliganism.

 

I think the point he is making is... no hooliganism = no fences = no crush = no fatalities.

Mind you there were no fences at Hysel if memory serves so whilst fences clearly had an effect the bigger problem to my mind the was poor standard of terracing that was clearly unsafe - even at the Dell back in the day the pushing down following a goal was an disaster waiting to happen.

I can't help feeling that if there were still terraces in top level grounds we would still get the patently dangerous surging of the crowd after every goal even now.

The problems should have been less with the police than the owner/operators of stadiums and H&S inspectors who treated the whole football experience with contempt - what is despicable is the cover up by the authorities following Hillsborough - mistakes were clearly made which led to the disasterous consquences so what price a life - I'll guess we'll find out soon enough now that the class action is starting up again....

...and for what its worth the recent media coverage recently has been over the top, mawkish and actually a tad tasteless for my liking.

In disaster management and response there is a concept known as "Second Assault" - also applies to victims of crime. Relatives of those who died are much more likely to be able to get on with their lives after the grief has passed if a second assault can be avoided. Examples are an airline refusing to acknowledge they were responsible for the deaths in an air crash, protracted legal battles for compensation, or trying to cover stuff up for legal reasons. A good example of avoiding a second assault is the Alton Towers crash last year - within hours they came out and said they would offer all the support victims needed and would co-operate fully with investigations. They also closed the parks whilst safety checks were carried out. Often when a loved one is lost families are motivated by a desire that their death is not in vain and that it will never happen to anyone else - because they wouldn't wish the pain they feel on anyone else. There's a case in the cruise industry where 15 years on a father is still battling to find the truth about his daughter's disappearance and all because the cruise line didn't engage with him, blamed his daughter, tried to wash their hands of it, and battled every step of the way to avoid paying compensation. Another one would be Thomas Cook and those carbon monoxide deaths in Greece a few years back.

 

So its nothing to do with being a Scouser, or hating the police, or being anti-establishment. If the police had held their hands up at the time (unlikely I know) this would have been settled and people could have "moved on". As it was they lied and lied and lied and lied and blamed the dead. As a result there have been suicides and ruined lives - not through choice but through being compelled to defend the name of their loved ones and to try to ensure that it never happens again. The second assault has meant that they are quite rightly seeking vengeance and punishment rather than "closure".

Or, to put it another way, if they had just moved on after the taylor report they could have got on with their lives without all the hassle. They got everything needed from the taylor report, it's just about vengeance now.

The fences at Hillsborough and any other ground were completely safe as long as the police controlled the crowd

Yes but Police are human, and humans will always make mistakes. 6ft high fences with spikes on the top are an obvious potential hazard - and they were only there because of the behaviour of some football fans.

Or, to put it another way, if they had just moved on after the taylor report they could have got on with their lives without all the hassle. They got everything needed from the taylor report, it's just about vengeance now.

No, because large sections of society including the media and police didn't accept the findings of the Taylor Report. The final report was also watered down compared to the interim report in terms of its criticism of the police and the inquests were patently wrong due to the 3:15 cutoff. Too many reports of victims being alive after that time who potentially could have been saved had the SYP/SYAS had implemented a disaster response plan. Just look at the footage of all the police "maintaining order" rather helping the injured.

Yes but Police are human, and humans will always make mistakes. 6ft high fences with spikes on the top are an obvious potential hazard - and they were only there because of the behaviour of some football fans.

So if there is a fire in a prison with poor staff and safety and all the prisoners die, it's the prisoners fault for being criminals who happen to be locked in a cell?

There are still potential traps at present grounds. One in particular that I know of is the away section at Ipswich. The toilet and food area has only one narrow entrance and no fire exit. How they get a safety licence is beyond me.

Selhurst Park is also a disaster waiting to happen while for all Manchester United's money the away section is far less safe than the rest of the stadium due to the very narrow gangways.

Would this mean the whole all seater stadium thing came about a bit too early?

 

If so, surely strengthens the case for "safe standing"?

The Taylor Report said lots of nice things about all-seaters, but didn't suggest that standing was inherently unsafe. If anything, it just pointed out that crowds are easier to manage when it is known how many people are in an area, and that that should be more closely monitored. It didn't stop the football authorities running with all-seaters once the chairmen worked out they could charge more per head to cover the fewer heads they could get in, get their grounds upgraded at the same time, and encourage some of those cash-rich middle classes who'd discovered football was all lovely and that during England's run to the World Cup semis in 1990 to spend some of their money at grounds too.

The awkwardness of the whole "Families" thing has always been the stigma about standing that persists which has never been the reason their relatives died to begin with.

The whole fencing and pen installations were a complete over reaction at the time, so all those being reductionists and putting some blame on general fan behaviour has to then also put some blame onto the authorities and media for whipping up a moral panic over football violence that led to measures that were a gross overkill and inherently dangerous.

So if there is a fire in a prison with poor staff and safety and all the prisoners die, it's the prisoners fault for being criminals who happen to be locked in a cell?

Why are you persisting with this line? Nobody is suggesting it was the Hillsborough victims fault or that they deserved to die.

The point is very simple, if it wasn't for the persistent violence between fans in the 70s and 80s, there would be no need for large fences and walls. Were any of the 96 involved in football violence previously? Possibly not. Did they deserve to die if they had been? Of course not.

Blaming the Police is all well and good, they should face justice for their part in the tragedy. Fact is though that football violence played a part in the design of that stadium, without which the accident would never have taken place.

The whole fencing and pen installations were a complete over reaction at the time, so all those being reductionists and putting some blame on general fan behaviour has to then also put some blame onto the authorities and media for whipping up a moral panic over football violence that led to measures that were a gross overkill and inherently dangerous.

Exactly.

The whole fencing and pen installations were a complete over reaction at the time, so all those being reductionists and putting some blame on general fan behaviour has to then also put some blame onto the authorities and media for whipping up a moral panic over football violence that led to measures that were a gross overkill and inherently dangerous.

Wasn't it the Liverpool supporters who blamed lack of fencing for the Heysel tragedy a few years before Hillsborough?

The blame of Hillsborough lies with the Police because whatever the type of people going - it was their job to ensure supporter safety. But the way football was going in the 80's (violence, old stadiums etc) probably made a tragedy like Hillsborough inevitable. It could have been us or any other set of fans, it was just bad luck on Liverpool.

But the behaviour of supporters in the 80's day did play a part. I remember hearing the news filter through on the radio (I think we were away at West Ham, might be wrong), at first it was "crowd trouble at Hillsborough" and most people's first reaction was to assume it was hooliganism that caused it "not those ****ing scousers again" - until the facts became clear. I expect the Police at the time absolutely hated football fans (along with much of the UK population) because of the minority of idiots who thought it big and clever to beat people up because of the team they support. Idiots who think they have some sort of right to get ****ed up, cause all sorts of havoc and expect the Police to clear their **** up and keep everyone safe at the same time. I'm not surprised in the Police's siege mentality and cover-up at all.

Wasn't it the Liverpool supporters who blamed lack of fencing for the Heysel tragedy a few years before Hillsborough?

 

The blame of Hillsborough lies with the Police because whatever the type of people going - it was their job to ensure supporter safety. But the way football was going in the 80's (violence, old stadiums etc) probably made a tragedy like Hillsborough inevitable. It could have been us or any other set of fans, it was just bad luck on Liverpool.

 

But the behaviour of supporters in the 80's day did play a part. I remember hearing the news filter through on the radio (I think we were away at West Ham, might be wrong), at first it was "crowd trouble at Hillsborough" and most people's first reaction was to assume it was hooliganism that caused it "not those ****ing scousers again" - until the facts became clear. I expect the Police at the time absolutely hated football fans (along with much of the UK population) because of the minority of idiots who thought it big and clever to beat people up because of the team they support. Idiots who think they have some sort of right to get ****ed up, cause all sorts of havoc and expect the Police to clear their **** up and keep everyone safe at the same time. I'm not surprised in the Police's siege mentality and cover-up at all.

Of course the complete blame lies with the police on that day, they were responsible for policing within the limitations of Hillsborough.

Today there are no pens or fences and there are hardly any incidents of football violence in grounds. The problem has been solved by using different means but there was this narrative at the time that football fans were scum that didn't deserve anything other than cages and anyone who went to the football during this time will know how some police regarded them.

We football fans just accepted the cages and the police behaviour though.

If you are viewing Hillsborough through the eyes of a modern day football fan you will blame the Police 100%.

If you experienced the late 60/70/80's you may have a different view on things.

Nowadays you can wonder around the streets of most clubs with your teams shirt on and wear scarves etc and have no bother at all.

Not in those days. I can remember many Saints home games when the Milton road was just a sea of violence and fights. On more than one occasion the Policwe made announcements on the tannoys warning they would clear the Milton and the game abandoned if the fighting didnt cease. it was bedlam. i was a kid of 8 watching it from the Archers end and was forbidden by my parents to go in the Milton. Football violence was seen in Europe as the English disease and it was shameful.

Attendances were dropping and football was in crisis.

The authorities had to do something and whilst it was crude it had to be done.

The sad thing is that it wasnt the morons who were killed it was innocent fans going to watch their team.

The Police were wrong but football fans did make the fences etc necessary at that time.

The fault for the existence of the fences lies with hooligans and those who decided fences were required to control crowds (though it's difficult to see how else control could have been achieved at the time without some kind of physical barrier, pitch invasions were a frequently-repeated feature of the period immediately prior to the installation of fences and segregation).

The fault in terms of the design of the stadium at Hillsborough (and the specifics of not having enough gates to escape the pens, and not managing the numbers in the pens) lies with the process of issuing a safety certificate to a ground which didn't meet safety criteria, and the FA for not insisting on counting people into each area.

The fault for not meeting the safety criteria to begin with lies with the ownership of Sheffield Wednesday FC.

The fault of giving a big game to a venue without a valid safety certificate lies with the FA.

The fault for not managing the crowd outside the turnstiles, and for opening a gate and not ensuring fans were channelled away from the overcrowded pen lies with Wright and Duckenfield.

The fault for not allowing people to exit the front of the terrace onto the pitch earlier lies with the mindset of the South Yorkshire police of quelling trouble not managing crowd safety.

It's difficult to apportion blame to the specific set of fans who were acting like pretty much any crowd would in that circumstance, although the "completely blameless" angle required for the Families to accept a verdict is also not a realistic reflection of the situation, as there would have been the usual levels of misbehaviour and drunkenness - but within the parameters of being "normal at football", which the police should have been able to manage, and was certainly not the thing that caused the disaster.

Part of the problem at the time was that the lie was so easy to believe. The passage of time has left us with a different football-following experience, and millions of current, younger fans with no the understanding of why the policing mindset was how it was, along with 25 years of far improved crowd behaviour, has moved society to a place where the majority of people with an interest in football can't even fathom why these conditions were in place, and see the only possible explanation being terrible policing. In some ways, the gentrification of football post-Hillsborough, caused by Hillsborough (and Italia '90) is the thing which has finally led to the widespread acceptance of police culpability.

this last post is spot on..... Of course drunken Liverpool fans contributed to the situation and indirectly were one of the causes of the deaths.... but.... the inquest delivered the correct verdict because as pointed out , they were behaving as per the norm. Sadly the reality of the time was that the police were paid to protect the civilised from the uncivilised at matches and in this they and the others mentioned failed miserably that day. The Verdict was correct but it should not be confused with the obvious observations of that day and the day-to-day context in which they occurred.

I don't know of a gate to the ground being opened by the police before or after Hillsborough. That match commander was clueless and out of his depth. I can't believe that because of the behaviour of the fans outside that this was the only course of action to take.

People going on about the police having a mindset, but the police shouldn't. They should be passive until they are called to react. I'm 45 and went to plenty of away games in the 80's and we were treated with contempt by many coppers, I've never thrown a punch or been punched by a fellow fan. But I been hit by the police, bitten by a police dog, herded and man handled by them. All because I was a certain age out with a bunch of mates, having a laugh going to watch a football match. It must be remembered that non-violent fans outweighed violent fans many times over.

The9, you are spot on that attitudes and behaviour were different. Heysel just 4 years before would have been fresh in the minds of many and I imagine when the police saw a big surge and a lot of shouting and the crowd behaving in a manner that they were unaccustomed with, that they may well have thought it was hooliganism rather than a huge crush from having far too many people. Now mentioning Heysel in context with Hillsborough seems to be a bit of a no no, yet I am not saying that Hillsborough was down hooliganism, just that there was a lot around at the time and that prior events might have had an influence on the reaction from the police. 1985 was also the year that Ken Bates erected a 12 foot high electric fence around Stamford Bridge, something that would be very alien in today's game. Not much had really changed by 1989.

This in no way excuses the behaviour of those who covered up what they did or didn't do. To that end, I can well understand the desire of those affected to get justice. But I don't see why it has to be remembered every year by everyone else. I suppose we are going to play YNWA or have a minutes silence/applause before the game tomorrow. If so, why don't we ever do that for the 66 crushed at Ibrox or the 56 killed in the Bradford City fire or the 39 killed at Heysel (2½ weeks after Bradford)? Was there something last season to mark the 30th anniversary of Bradford? I do realise that it was important for those in Liverpool to keep it fresh in the public eye so that it wasn't forgotten and swept under the carpet but I am afraid to say that I feel that it is somewhat rammed down my throat. I was alive at the time (unlike many others) and can well remember both Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough. I suppose the big difference is that with Ibrox, Bradford and Heysel people were held accountable and were handed custodial sentences.

Anyway, I hope that the families of the 96 can find appropriate resolution to this and move on. 27 years of fighting to get to the truth is not what your life should be about. If only this had all happened and come out 25 years ago......

this last post is spot on..... Of course drunken Liverpool fans contributed to the situation and indirectly were one of the causes of the deaths.... but.... the inquest delivered the correct verdict because as pointed out , they were behaving as per the norm. Sadly the reality of the time was that the police were paid to protect the civilised from the uncivilised at matches and in this they and the others mentioned failed miserably that day. The Verdict was correct but it should not be confused with the obvious observations of that day and the day-to-day context in which they occurred.

That is not what the verdict was though. The fans were completely exonerated of any blame towards the deaths.

The fans have been exonerated but the problem surrounding football at the time was very real. To have portrayed the fans on that day as done by the police was a wicked thing to do. And the worst bit of all to me was the accusation of looting off of the dead. I think it that particular lie that would have incensed me the most and I guess I would likely have spend half a lifetime trying to get the truth out.

I was looking around and came across this article, which I made a similar presumption a couple of posts further up. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/05/hillsborough-tragedy-barrister-police-football-hooliganism TBH it's quite hard to know what to believe and what not seeing as so many lies have been told, but I can understand that this may well have been a very real possibility.

The9, you are spot on that attitudes and behaviour were different. Heysel just 4 years before would have been fresh in the minds of many and I imagine when the police saw a big surge and a lot of shouting and the crowd behaving in a manner that they were unaccustomed with, that they may well have thought it was hooliganism rather than a huge crush from having far too many people.

The point is though that the pens were over-capacity before the fatal injuries took place. It is obvious from the footage from way before (about 2:30pm)when the exit gate was opened that the pens were too full, and I would suggest that over the course of two hours people could still have died from exhaustion/collapse (hot day for time of year). The tunnel to the central pens should have been closed and if it had there might just have been a couple of fatalities or just some serious injuries.

If you read one more thing about Hillsborough, read this - from a now journo who was a 19yo at the time and survived the crush http://gu.com/p/4tmgz/stw

It covers one aspect of the disaster not covered much elsewhere - the ongoing trauma for survivors. And he's bang on the money that lives depended on those verdicts.

I can only recommend that anyone interested in this tragedy should make sure that they watch Daniel Gordon's sombre, but quite brilliant, 'Hillsborough' documentary shown on BBC 2 yesterday - indeed I think that EVERY football fan should watch this.

In particular, the key role that Professor Phil Scraton has played in exposing the truth of what happened on that terrible day, and therefore obtaining at least a mesure of (horribly delayed) justice for the many victims is beyond praiseworthy.

NEVER AGAIN.

If you are viewing Hillsborough through the eyes of a modern day football fan you will blame the Police 100%.

If you experienced the late 60/70/80's you may have a different view on things.

Nowadays you can wonder around the streets of most clubs with your teams shirt on and wear scarves etc and have no bother at all.

Not in those days. I can remember many Saints home games when the Milton road was just a sea of violence and fights. On more than one occasion the Policwe made announcements on the tannoys warning they would clear the Milton and the game abandoned if the fighting didnt cease. it was bedlam. i was a kid of 8 watching it from the Archers end and was forbidden by my parents to go in the Milton. Football violence was seen in Europe as the English disease and it was shameful.

Attendances were dropping and football was in crisis.

The authorities had to do something and whilst it was crude it had to be done.

The sad thing is that it wasnt the morons who were killed it was innocent fans going to watch their team.

 

The Police were wrong but football fans did make the fences etc necessary at that time.

No behaviour by football fans can justify making deathtraps for them.

No behaviour by football fans can justify making deathtraps for them.

Indeed. But why did it take such a tragedy to get them removed?

Institutional complacency, to use a phrase from the professor in the documentary.

Indeed. But why did it take such a tragedy to get them removed?

Unfortunetly it is in the nature of things that tragedy is often required to overcome inertia and complacency - the reform process initiated in the wake of Hillsborough by the Taylor Report mirrors closely how civil aviation has over time become the relativly safe business it now is. If only the rest of the establishment reaction to this event had been as honest and unbiased as Lord Tayor's was then a lot of Human suffering could have be avoided.

It is surely only right that the many errors and injustices committed on and after that terrible day in Sheffield are now widely acknowledged - indeed I hope that there is a special place in hell reserved for the bastard who told that poor grieving mother that she couldn't hold her dead son's body one last time becaue he was now quote "property of the coroner". But the real monument to the Hillsborough 96 is not the verdict of history or any court, but rather the safe all seater stadia we now see in our game.

The matchday experience we football fans enjoy today is a far better one that what it once was I think - so it may be that the 96 did not die entirly in vain.

If you haven't watched the Hillsborough documentary you really should. One of the most powerful pieces of TV I think I've ever seen.

If you haven't watched the Hillsborough documentary you really should. One of the most powerful pieces of TV I think I've ever seen.

I'll second that.

I'll second that.

2/3 of the way through

Just finished it - yes, very powerful indeed.

If you haven't watched the Hillsborough documentary you really should. One of the most powerful pieces of TV I think I've ever seen.

Agreed. Just watching it tonight and how anyone at all can still believe the bs churned out beggars belief. Heartbreaking