The Hillsborough Disaster Files

[MatskiMonk]

@Liquid First link needs checking

 

[Liquid]

@Liquid First link needs checking

Fixed. 👍

 

[Stotty]

Both shocking and saddening that this verdict took so long, and required the perseverance of the families of the dead to achieve.

Yes, times were different, and yes, football fans frequently behaved very badly at the time, but this does not excuse the lack of proper care displayed by the police (or at least the senior officers present), and the subsequent blatant attempt to cover this up by blaming the fans for their own deaths.

RIP the 96. YNWA.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Both shocking and saddening that this verdict took so long, and required the perseverance of the families of the dead to achieve.

Seconded. There'll be lots of calls of "why did this take so long?".

Yes, times were different, and yes, football fans frequently behaved very badly at the time

Absolutely, that's what made it so easy to believe the widely seeded stories that rowdy/drunken fans were to blame.

the lack of proper care displayed by the police (or at least the senior officers present)

And the ambulance services and the lack of devotion to duty shown by those officers in both services who were prepared to lie, to be negligent in their sworn duties after the event and who helped to perpetuate the lies around the event. That goes to answering "why did this take so long?", in fact.

RIP the 96.

And those who died without seeing this vindication of their loved ones.

 

[Stotty]

This is why the Sun will never sell in Liverpool...

Lying scum.

 

[ukfan758]

This is why the Sun will never sell in Liverpool...

Lying scum.

Their front page in the morning better be: WE LIED.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Their front page in the morning better be: WE LIED.

It won't be. I rarely defend The Scum but in this case they were fed a line, and the hook and the sinker. Sadly that was part of the institutional cover-up

 

[polysmut]

I get emotional when I hear about the disaster. I was a child when it happened & had no real understanding about what everything meant. As a grown up now, I understand more & almost cry quite hard whenever I think about it.

I know a few scousers through work & I know someone who was in the ground at the time. He was also young but older than me. I've lent him a room for the night in my house before & worked with him many times. He's also had the privilege of watching the Merseyside Derby from the oppositions' chairman's box in recent years & that demonstrates how the 2 big Liverpool teams have always respected each other's fans.

I just hope some people can feel a bit better if they feel their questions have been answered somewhat.

 

[Lissa]

At last!

I was at work yesterday when the news came that justice had finally been done. There was a collective cheer from everyone, no matter which team they support, and nicest of all, I was given a big hug by my supervisor...a lifelong Man Utd supporter.

The Daily Mail has questioned whether the public interest can be served by bringing charges against long-retired, elderly police officers. At least these lying scum LIVED to become elderly. The 96 never got that chance.

YNWA.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As expected The Sun don't carry the story on their front page (they lead with David Cameron using WhatsApp). They do however cover the events on page 8 and 9 and repeat their unreserved apology of several years ago. The Mail and The Express don't have the story on their front pages either, but then Hillsborough wasn't about Immigration, Cholesterol, House Prices or Diana.

 

[Liquid]

What about The Telegraph and Times, out of interest?

 

[Lissa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-36147007

What the papers are saying.

 

[Robin]

I think The Sun is going to come to regret that decision...

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think The Sun is going to come to regret that decision...

I'm not sure, other papers have also relegated the news to the inside pages but none have included an apology like The Sun has. The Sun weren't the only paper to have ever carried the "official story" as headline news, of course.

 

[Liquid]

In one respect, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Imagine the cries of hypocrisy if the Sun ran a JUSTICE AT LAST headline on the front cover.

 

[Famine]

I get that this verdict places sole blame on the stadium design, seating allocations, police decisions and emergency response to the incident, and the subsequent version of events put out by South Yorkshire Police has been found unreliable, but...

One thing I'm still somewhat unclear on is where the pressure at the back came from to crush the people at the front.

Opening or not opening a gate or a tunnel is one thing, people pouring down it to the point of stampede is another - I'd love to know why there was such an overwhelming desire to be over there and not over here that resulted in the movement of people in that fashion. Were they being charged by horses and driven into the pens?

As far as I'm aware this has never been covered. Perhaps there was something in the 14 verdicts I missed though.

If there's zero blame on the fans, they must have been forced in, surely? It seems important to know how, particularly for the criminal investigation - whomever or whatever was doing the forcing is surely culpable.

 

[Robin]

I'm not sure, other papers have also relegated the news to the inside pages but none have included an apology like The Sun has. The Sun weren't the only paper to have ever carried the "official story" as headline news, of course.

Yes but the other papers don't have to atone for their past coverage, they simply have to report it. The Sun could have lead with yet another full page apology grovelling fest, probably would have helped somewhat. Like this one...

In one respect, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Imagine the cries of hypocrisy if the Sun ran a JUSTICE AT LAST headline on the front cover.

I can imagine it was a hard decision for them but having nothing on the front about it would I'm sure be quite insulting to the families.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I get that this verdict places sole blame on the stadium design, seating allocations, police decisions and emergency response to the incident, and the subsequent version of events put out by South Yorkshire Police has been found unreliable, but...
As far as I'm aware this has never been covered. Perhaps there was something in the 14 verdicts I missed though.

If there's zero blame on the fans, they must have been forced in, surely? It seems important to know how, particularly for the criminal investigation - whomever or whatever was doing the forcing is surely culpable.

It was known that around 10,000 people wanted to travel from immediately outside the ground to the standing areas. Those outside had no idea that capacity had been reached in the area of the ground that they wished to reach - even players on the pitch and other parts of the crowd didn't realise what was happening until several minutes after kick-off. This wasn't a stampede but a crush that built inexorably as more people were allowed to travel from the outer area to the inner area, each person unknowing of the effect that their travel was having.

The people trying to reach the inner area were conditioned by their previous experience of matches; expedite one's way to a seating/standing area as soon as possible so that one doesn't miss the match. It was known (as shown in evidence) that leaving the tunnel open could lead to too many people being directed from the turnstiles into a crush point - the tunnel had been closed for previous high-attendance matches for that explicit reason.

We should be clear though; that wasn't the only thing that killed 96 people. The services' combined failure to react in an appropriate or timely fashion led to survivable (if critical) injuries becoming fatal.

Yes but the other papers don't have to atone for their past coverage, they simply have to report it.

I disagree, many other rags carried the official lie and just as nastily.

 

[Liquid]

As far as I'm aware this has never been covered. Perhaps there was something in the 14 verdicts I missed though.

If there's zero blame on the fans, they must have been forced in, surely? It seems important to know how, particularly for the criminal investigation - whomever or whatever was doing the forcing is surely culpable.

From what I understand, in order to alleviate pressure outside the ground and to avoid potential fatalities outside the ground, the police ordered Gate C on the southern side of the turnstiles to be opened. People flowed through Gate C "steadily at a fast walk" (Taylor, p12). Gate C led to a narrow, unmanned tunnel which led to two already swollen terrace pens. The pressure and crush at the front went unnoticed by those funnelling in at the back. Because the tunnel and central pens were unmanned, there was nobody directing supporters to the side pens. The intensity of the crush broke the barriers between the stand and the pitch and people began spilling onto the pitch.

So from that, the police opened up gates and directed people to an area which was already overcrowded and was not staffed by either stewards or the police guiding the incoming people to somewhere safer. Supposedly it is because the police underestimated the number of fans coming in (there was said to be 5,000 people outside when Gate C was opened) and did not keep control of how many people were already in the stand and already in the pens which Gate C led to.

"The pressure and crush at the front went unnoticed by those funnelling in at the back" might be specifically what you're looking for but it's clear that the police lost control of the situation even before the crush happened and directed people (unintentionally) towards disaster. The forcing was unintentional and unanticipated but falls at the responsibility of the police for guiding fans in that direction, no?

---

Gresford Athletic, a local club in the Wrexham area, have sacked one of their players for him retweeting a post about Hillsborough. The post speculates about fans' behaviour.

 

[DG_Silva]

After reading what Liquid has written, can you really say that the fans have absolutely no fault with this? Given what has been said, if the crush hadn't happened inside the stadium, there is a very real chance this could have happened outside. Admittedly, they probably didn't know what was going on up ahead, but to not have the intelligence that a high number of people being directed into a funnel could cause an issue is suspect. This appears to have caused a sheep mentality where everyone was driven with one goal in mind: to get to the match.

The police made a judgement based on the very limited information they had at a time when they were faced with an impossible situation. To avoid a situation outside, they opened the gate where the people were pushing - what's the point in opening a gate elsewhere in the ground?

If anyone shoulders the largest burden of blame, it is definitely Sheffield Wednesday. The lack of staff, lack of attending emergency services, the poor planning and lack of controlling facilities outside the stadium had the biggest effect on the tragedy.

I know what I'm saying may cause offence, and I apologise if I do so, this is not my intention. Just merely to postulate a theory which is different from the one the fans and the Hillsborough Family Support Group push.

 

[TenEightyOne]

After reading what Liquid has written, can you really say that the fans have absolutely no fault with this?

Yes, that was clear in evidence. They did nothing out of the ordinary and were directed in their movements by ground staff and police.

Given what has been said, if the crush hadn't happened inside the stadium, there is a very real chance this could have happened outside.

Rubbish. Show an example from the millions of matches that have taken place where this has happened.

Admittedly, they probably didn't know what was going on up ahead, but to not have the intelligence that a high number of people being directed into a funnel could cause an issue is suspect.

They were behaving as normal - you arrive at an event and are marshalled into position. The fans are not (and will never be) in a position to self-police themselves in the tens of thousands. That would be a ludicrous idea.

The police made a judgement based on the very limited information they had at a time when they were faced with an impossible situation.

However, the evidence shows that they'd been provided with plenty of experience at exactly that ground. The situation wasn't impossible, it had been managed many times before. On this occasion the police and ambulance commanders were grossly negligent and didn't use any previously established good practice or experience.

I know what I'm saying may cause offence, and I apologise if I do so, this is not my intention. Just merely to postulate a theory which is different from the one the fans and the Hillsborough Family Support Group push.

And that's a theory that's been long covered, well dissected and roundly dismissed in several judicial reviews, no? To blame the fans for doing as directed by staff seems crazy to me. What else should they have done? Turn around and head against the tide of people still being corralled in? A new crush would have occurred.

 

[yabiggoose]

🤬 the tabloids, 🤬 The Sun.

At least this is providing, FINALLY, some sense of closure to an extent.

RIP, horrific scenes which never should have been allowed to take place.

YNWA..

 

[Liquid]

Turn around and head against the tide of people still being corralled in? A new crush would have occurred.

That itself was a factor in the crush. Those entering through Gate C first found that the central pens were overcrowded but couldn't turn around and go back the way they came due to the sheer influx of people continuing to enter through Gate C, meaning that the central pens became even more overcrowded.

Officially, the central pens had a maximum capacity of 2,200 but there was an estimated 3,000 people in the pens at 3:00. Another five minutes of people pouring into the pens and then, critically, unable to leave, is what led to the front barriers bursting and fans spilling onto the pitch.

This was known by those in the control room monitoring the situation, including match commander Duckenfield, and nothing was done to prevent it. I watched a parliamentary discussion about this and Steven Rotheram MP said, and I'd never heard this before, that when Graham Kelly of the FA entered the control room at 3:15 Duckenfield said that the fans had rushed Gate C and recklessly entered the ground when in fact Duckenfield himself is the one who ordered Gate C to be opened.

Emtionally, it's terrible facts like this which lead one to believe or at least understand that a cover-up was being done from the get go.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Lying scum.

"If the price of a free press is a boycott of our newspaper, then it is a price we will have to pay."

Except that freedom of the press isn't freedom to post whatever you want without consequence, or absolve you of your journalistic responsibilities.

As far as I'm aware this has never been covered.

Going by the way it has been covered down here, the stadium was overcrowded, so the police made the decision to open one of the gates in the hopes that they could relieve the pressure inside - but the fans amassing outside took this to mean that another entry point was being opened up, and tried to get in. If you're wondering what the inciting incident was, it was probably groupthink. I know that's a business-y buzzword, but it rings true; if the police were struggling to control the crowd outside and had limited means to communicate with one another, much less the crowd, then when the gates were opened, thousands of people already whipped up into a frenzy came to the same conclusion: that the stadium was being opened up, which would have been enough to push them over the edge, break the containment line and surge toward the entry.

 

[Liquid]

Going by the way it has been covered down here, the stadium was overcrowded, so the police made the decision to open one of the gates in the hopes that they could relieve the pressure inside - but the fans amassing outside took this to mean that another entry point was being opened up, and tried to get in. If you're wondering what the inciting incident was, it was probably groupthink. I know that's a business-y buzzword, but it rings true; if the police were struggling to control the crowd outside and had limited means to communicate with one another, much less the crowd, then when the gates were opened, thousands of people already whipped up into a frenzy came to the same conclusion: that the stadium was being opened up, which would have been enough to push them over the edge, break the containment line and surge toward the entry.

That's not quite true. The West Stand of Hillsborough had a capacity of 10,000 and there were 5,000 fans already inside the ground by 2:45. The police opened Gate C to alleviate the pressure outside the ground because there was another 5,000 fans still trying to get in via too few turnstiles (Liverpool had 20 whilst Forest had 60) and turnstiles which were dilapidated and not fit-for-purpose even in 1989.

A significant factor is that the 5,000 fans still outside the ground came as one large hoarde rather than a continuous, but steady, stream. This is what the police were not prepared for and ultimately lost control over by opening a Gate which led to two individual pens which were already at full capacity with no staff or police to direct fans to safer areas.

 

[Famine]

It simply can't be the case that 5,000 Liverpool fans mindlessly walked in through an exit and caused the crush, as the inquiry has put zero blame at the feet of the fans. They must have been forced or coerced in, or else some of the blame would be on them - after all, every other party involved (except Nottingham Forest and the FA) has shouldered some blame.

Except that freedom of the press isn't freedom to post whatever you want without consequence

... since, again, that isn't what freedom is.

 

[Liquid]

The FA surely have to take some blame for using stadiums without valid safety certificates? And this is to explicitly disregard any rose tinted idea that that was how it was at the time and Hillsborough probably wasn't the only major stadium with an expired safety certificate and that is how football culture was.

No, that's completely unacceptable and it was unacceptable at the time. The FA must be held to account for failing to make sure stadiums had valid certificates and for organising major games at stadiums with expired ones. I highly suspect that the FA wanted to cover their own backs because of that too.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is what the police were not prepared for and ultimately lost control over by opening a Gate which led to two individual pens which were already at full capacity with no staff or police to direct fans to safer areas.

Sounds like they underestimated the crowds outside. Their plan makes perfect sense, if you assume that the crowds outside would remain in place - which is an assumption that was faulty, to say the least.

It simply can't be the case that 5,000 Liverpool fans mindlessly walked in through an exit and caused the crush, as the inquiry has put zero blame at the feet of the fans. They must have been forced or coerced in, or else some of the blame would be on them - after all, every other party involved (except Nottingham Forest and the FA) has shouldered some blame.

Then what? How do you force or coerce five thousand people to act in the same way at the same time? The only thing that I can think of is an explosion or gunfire, but survivors or witnesses would have noted it in their testimony, and the likely outcome would be five thousand people running in five thousand different directions. As @Liquid noted, it was a steady stream of people entering the grounds - as chaotic as it was, there was a semblance of order and logic to it.

 

[Famine]

Then what? How do you force or coerce five thousand people to act in the same way at the same time? The only thing that I can think of is an explosion or gunfire, but survivors or witnesses would have noted it in their testimony, and the likely outcome would be five thousand people running in five thousand different directions.

At a football match during the hooligan era of British football - an era in which England's football teams were forbidden from playing in European competition due to our hooligan element that caused things like Heysel? Kettling or charging with horses would do it.

Amongst the - now clearly proven untrue - allegations printed by the Sun was the notion that a significant number of the fans on the outside were drunk and ticketless, trying to force their way in. That would cause the observed behaviour, but as the fans shoulder no blame we know that it isn't true...

As @Liquid noted, it was a steady stream of people entering the grounds - as chaotic as it was, there was a semblance of order and logic to it.

But again, that would lead to some blame on the fans. 5000 people walking where they shouldn't, on purpose, sounds blameworthy to me.

As they were all completely exonerated of any responsibility, that can't be the case...

Something other than the fans themselves drove those people into the stadium and a criminal prosecution will have to find out what it was...

 

[Liquid]

But again, that would lead to some blame on the fans. 5000 people walking where they shouldn't, on purpose, sounds blameworthy to me.

As they were all completely exonerated of any responsibility, that can't be the case...

Something other than the fans themselves drove those people into the stadium and a criminal prosecution will have to find out what it was...

But isn't that known to be the police? 5,000 people were walking somewhere where they shouldn't but were doing so because the police opened the gate and allowed them to do so. Crucially, the 5,000 walking in had no idea they were walking into disaster. The people at the front were then unable to turn around due to the inertia of the people behind them. The police lost control of the situation and extraneous factors like errors on the printed tickets and no staff in the narrow tunnel between Gate C and the pens made the situation worse. And once the disaster unfolded, the police went into protection mode due to their errors of judgement.

There's no obvious criminal intent in the police wanting to stick an extra 5,000 people in a 2,200 capacity pen. It was a mistake. A blunderous decision with fatal consequences. I'd say the issue is pinpointing which individuals of the South Yorkshire Police could be held responsible; I don't think you could try the force as a corporate entity.