[Football] Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield will go on trial *** Not Guilty ***

[Thunder Bolt]

Wrong.
How mature.
Maybe you should do some research. Lord Justice Taylor accepted there were small groups without tickets looking to exploit any chance of getting into the ground.

That is of course different from the myths at the time, that the whole thing was a result of a mass of ticketless fans. I've not suggested that. But some people didn't have tickets, and to pretend otherwise defies logic and reason.

And as above, this doesn't change my view that the blame lies with the authorities.

The Hillsborough inquests overruled the Taylor report.

 

[Saunders]

No, that's perverting the course of justice, and three other people are charged with that.

Well as I say he will likely not be found guilty of that and I can understand a mistake made but he should be charged for something he has done. Its like Grenfell and the fire service they have admitted they made mistakes how much worse would it be for the families if they blamed the residents for the disaster instead of owning up.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The Hillsborough inquests overruled the Taylor report.

The Hillsborough inquests were conducted at a very different place in time. As much as fans were wrongly blamed in the immediate aftermath and subsequent few years, the inquests were conducted in a time where the battle for hearts and minds had overwhelmingly been won by a lengthy and orchestrated campaign, JTF96. In all probability the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

[essbee1]

Sure the lieing, but he's not being tried on that, so put it to one side.

He's a public servant, put in charge of handling the crowds and he had to make a judgement call at very short notice under huge pressure. He was empowered to make a decision, which I presume he did to the best of his ability. It turns out he made the wrong call. It doesn't feel like something that someone should be sent to prison for. Are we now going to have the Grenfell fire chief tried and imprisoned for not recommending an evacuation earlier?

Wrong decisions in the line of duty are regularly made, we have enquiries, work out what went wrong, and improve procedures and training. Its risky to embark on witch hunts, or the next police commander to make a tragic error is also going to lie and cover it up.

This, DD thought he was solving the problem of congestion at the turnstiles. Catastrophic mistake, but a mistake all the same.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well as I say he will likely not be found guilty of that and I can understand a mistake made but he should be charged for something he has done. Its like Grenfell and the fire service they have admitted they made mistakes how much worse would it be for the families if they blamed the residents for the disaster instead of owning up.

I think you ought to read the inquest findings or wait until the trial to find out whether a 'mistake' was made.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Hillsborough inquests were conducted at a very different place in time. As much as fans were wrongly blamed in the immediate aftermath and subsequent few years, the inquests were conducted in a time where the battle for hearts and minds had overwhelmingly been won by a lengthy and orchestrated campaign, JTF96. In all probability the truth lies somewhere between the two.

So a coroners court, where evidence (not guesses or opinions) is given, under oath, and heard by a jury, isn't a place where truth lies? Ok.

 

[Triggaaar]

The Hillsborough inquests overruled the Taylor report.

Show me proof that no one went to that game without a ticket, and I'll take it back. There were always some people going to these games without tickets.

But I'll repeat, just in case someone's jumping conclusions, that I've only considered the authorities to blame for the whole thing.

 

[Triggaaar]

As has already been stated, cctv was used to painstakingly count every person there.

So according to that, the total number was right. That does not mean there weren't any no shows, and that there were no ticketless fans at all.

It was stated categorically there were not any ticketless fans.

It's a bit weird to state it categorically when they clearly don't know.

The court ruled the fans weren't to blame and were unlawfully killed.

Which I've agreed with.

 

[Saunders]

I think you ought to read the inquest findings or wait until the trial to find out whether a 'mistake' was made.

Arrogant assuming you are the only one reading into this. I didnt say a "mistake" was or was not made did I. I said I could understand a mistake being made and I will be very surprised if he is convicted for the events of that day. His actions afterwards and others thats a different matter for me, they should absolutely for that. The most guilty were the people who allowed the fencing to be put up they will never face any justice though. It actually made me shudder hearing them called "Pens" in the transcript.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Show me proof that no one went to that game without a ticket, and I'll take it back. There were always some people going to these games without tickets.

But I'll repeat, just in case someone's jumping conclusions, that I've only considered the authorities to blame for the whole thing.

Evidence, under oath, at the coroner's court. Not guessing, not opinion, but hard evidence in a court of law. I've already posted a link to the inquest report, but you can Google it for yourself.

As I'm retired, I followed the inquests every single day, and read the reports by David Conn, an excellent journalist.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Arrogant assuming you are the only one reading into this. I didnt say a "mistake" was or was not made did I. I said I could understand a mistake being made and I will be very surprised if he is convicted for the events of that day. His actions afterwards and others thats a different matter for me, they should absolutely for that. The most guilty were the people who allowed the fencing to be put up they will never face any justice though. It actually made me shudder hearing them called "Pens" in the transcript.

I'm basing my post on facts from the inquest, not arrogrance. There was a series of 'mistakes' even before the actual match.

I agree the safety of the ground was important in the outcome which is why the former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell is charged with health and safety, and safety at sports grounds offences. He is going on trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44656778

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So according to that, the total number was right. That does not mean there weren't any no shows, and that there were no ticketless fans at all.
It's a bit weird to state it categorically when they clearly don't know.

Which I've agreed with.

The number of people there, were UNDER capacity for the stand. The two side pens were almost empty.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-inquests-hear-how-police-7197225

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The Hillsborough inquests were conducted at a very different place in time. As much as fans were wrongly blamed in the immediate aftermath and subsequent few years, the inquests were conducted in a time where the battle for hearts and minds had overwhelmingly been won by a lengthy and orchestrated campaign, JTF96. In all probability the truth lies somewhere between the two.

I can't believe I have read this, to be honest. You need to do a bit of reading on the subject. Did drunken fans urinate on the dead (as stated by the police and reported in The Sun?). Did Maradonna handle the ball in that game or not? The truth is somewhere between the two I guess.

The cover up was orchestrated. Who orchestrated it and why? Who ordered countless police officers to change their witness statements? Who authorized mendacious leaks to The Sun? My hypothesis is that either the man at the top organized it or he negligently allowed his junior officers to do so. A court case will find the truth.

The 'team' involved were the same lackies who 'managed' the miners' strike. My dad who was socially conservative (always on the side of the authorities) and politically disinterested was shocked and ashamed by the behaviour of the police, and that was on the strength of the highly partial reporting of the strike on the evening news. Yes it was a different time. A disgraceful time.

I am please the man is being prosecuted. The 'it was all a long time ago' argument is quite inappropriate in this case.

 

[Saunders]

I'm basing my post on facts from the inquest, not arrogrance. There was a series of 'mistakes' even before the actual match.

I agree the safety of the ground was important in the outcome which is why the former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell is charged with health and safety, and safety at sports grounds offences. He is going on trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44656778

The arrogant bit was revering to you saying "you ought to read the inquest". Again though the ones who should have faced charges were the ones who allowed fences to be put up, not the ones who were left to manage the consequences of that. They cant say they werent warned of the dangers of fencing because they were but we were ignored. I am finding a lot of parellels with Grenfell here, who is more at fault the council for cost cutting, the company who supplied flamable cladding, MPs for ignoring the residents or the building management. If Grenfell was Hillsborough the only ones being looked at would be the fire chief and his collegues and the building management.

 

[Saunders]

The cover up was orchestrated. Who orchestrated it and why? Who ordered countless police officers to change their witness statements? Who authorized mendacious leaks to The Sun? My hypothesis is that either the man at the top organized it or he negligently allowed his junior officers to do so. A court case will find the truth.

The 'team' involved were the same lackies who 'managed' the miners' strike. My dad who was socially conservative (always on the side of the authorities) and politically disinterested was shocked and ashamed by the behaviour of the police, and that was on the strength of the highly partial reporting of the strike on the evening news. Yes it was a different time. A disgraceful time.

I am please the man is being prosecuted. The 'it was all a long time ago' argument is quite inappropriate in this case.

This is what I want to have out in the open, I just fear it will be concentrating on the events on that day and before rather than what they did afterwards.

 

[Triggaaar]

Evidence, under oath, at the coroner's court. Not guessing, not opinion, but hard evidence in a court of law. I've already posted a link to the inquest report, but you can Google it for yourself.

I've looked at your links and googled it, but can't find it. Could you post a link where is proves there were no ticketless fans there please?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is what I want to have out in the open, I just fear it will be concentrating on the events on that day and before rather than what they did afterwards.

There are five separate trials, one for manslaughter, one for the safety in the ground and three for perverting the course of justice. The CPS is still looking at evidence for a hearing to determine whether former Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison will be tried, andhas been adjourned until August.

 

[wellquickwoody]

So a coroners court, where evidence (not guesses or opinions) is given, under oath, and heard by a jury, isn't a place where truth lies? Ok.

'Evidence' is an emotive term, the fact that something is said does not make it fact, that a court accepts 'evidence' does not make it factually correct. If evidence was undoubtedly true then the legal system would not need a jury, or even a judge. But you as Mother Superior obviously know best.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've looked at your links and googled it, but can't find it. Could you post a link where is proves there were no ticketless fans there please?

It's mentioned here in David Conn's report. It is difficult when the inquests into 96 deaths which took two years to pinpoint the exact detail from the court, but this definitely says ticketless fans were fiction.


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

Duckenfield admitted quite readily in court that as people were suffering this terror, he told his lie to Kelly. This fiction, that fans without tickets had forced the gate, had already found its way to the BBC, reported as a version by John Motson, the television match commentator, at 3.13pm. Alan Green, commentator for BBC Radio 2, broadcast an unconfirmed report of “a broken-down door” at 3.40pm, then at 4.30pm he reported that police had said “a gate was forced” – the police story of misbehaviour settling on the initial public consciousness.

Another link here reporting Duckenfield admitted he lied when he said fans gained unauthorised admittance.

Duckenfield did not admit that his lie involved him telling Graham Kelly, then secretary of the Football Association, that Liverpool supporters had forced or stormed the exit gate, as Kelly and other witnesses have testified. But Duckenfield admitted that, when Kelly came to see him in the Hillsborough control room at 3:15pm on the day of the semifinal, 15 April 1989, he said fans had gained “unauthorised access” through the gate. Duckenfield did not tell Kelly that, in fact, he had ordered the gate to be opened, at 2:52pm, to alleviate serious congestion outside the turnstiles to the Leppings Lane end.

Christina Lambert QC, for the coroner, Sir John Goldring, asked Duckenfield: “Do you consider you told Graham Kelly and others something that was not true?”

“Yes ma’am,” Duckenfield, 70, replied.

“Do you consider now that you told them a lie?” Lambert asked.

“Yes ma’am,” he said.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

'Evidence' is an emotive term, the fact that something is said does not make it fact, that a court accepts 'evidence' does not make it factually correct. If evidence was undoubtedly true then the legal system would not need a jury, or even a judge. But you as Mother Superior obviously know best.

Evidence heard in court is open to cross examination by the defence lawyers and for a jury to decide.