Does anyone get sick of hearing about Hillsborough?

Nope, just interested.

So what was the normal procedure at hillsborough? Were people normally spread across the west and north west? Why wasn't the same procedure followed here? Did the police ever give a reason for following a different procedure?


Posted from TSR Mobile

The normal procedure was that when one pen was full you close the tunnel and direct people into the side pens.
In this case the police panicked, ordered the gate to be opened and directed everyone into the already full middle pen rather than to the side pens. That caused the crush.

As someone who wasn't born in Britain and didn't live here until I was an adult (though I'm a natural born British citizen), I've never felt it's my place to question it. But I've been here for years now, so here goes...

Does anyone seriously believe this would have happened at a cricket match? How on earth can it be found that they were "unlawfully killed"? It was a tragic accident. Tragic accidents happen all the time. But somehow the north, deep down, believe that the south is responsible for this. They'll never stop banging this drum

Except there is no evidence of lots of people without tickets. All the documents were viewed, all evidence collated and nothing suggests there were lots without tickets. There were not more people outside than could have been stood comfortably inside. There were not too many Liverpool fans.
You're committing a logical fallacy. You're alleging an offense on behalf of someone else and asking me to disprove it. That's not how it works. If you allege misfeasance you have to prove it. You don't just make an unevidenced claim and go 'prove me wrong'.

My argument is backed up by the fact a court of law after an extensive inquest found no evidence despite examining all the information. Innocent until proven guilty.

The police ordered the gate to be opened and told fans to head down the tunnel. What should have happened is the pen should have been closed and fans directed into the side pens. The fans had no way of knowing the pen was full, the police did from their tower overlooking the stand.

Well no. Because it's far more likely if people knew that the kickoff would have been delayed an hour or so, that people would have been a lot more chilled and not in such a rush. Also if the kick off had been delayed the police would likely not have opened the gate which led to the crush. Yes there's no guarantee it would have worked but it should have been done to at least have the chance of working.
It's impossible to fly so stupid example.

Except you are talking about an unrelated incident. The crush was caused by the 2000 fans who came in in one go after the gate was opened to let them in. The police lied and said the fans forced the gate open and have since admitted they lied and that they opened the gate.

Appalling logic. You're the one making an accusation saying that the fans misbehaved, you have to prove it. The inquest found no evidence and we go with innocent until proven guilty.

If a man is found not guilty of rape, we presume him innocent and it's the same here. The fans were in effect on trial to see if they in any way contributed and they were found innocent. Please be consistent.
The trial showed there was no evidence of ticketless fans and while there is no evidence we presume innocence.

Greedy? Wow. These people had their children unlawfully killed by the gross negligent actions of the police. They were then accused of being at fault themselves in a massive cover up by the police, who perverted the course of justice. They've lived with the grief of losing their loved ones for 27 years and you call them greedy for wanting the people responsible to be held to account?

People arriving half an hour before kick off is nothing unusual.

We're not taking about rape here. But there's no one even claiming that there was huge numbers of ticketless fans and no credible evidence to suggest there was.

You're wildly inconsistent. You say anyone accused of one crime should be innocent until proven guilty, but when you speak of Liverpool fans you don't hold that standard. Let's have innocent until proven guilty for both.

The trial investigated if there was mass ticketlessness, they said there was no evidence to suggest there was. Not guilty.

There's no evidence of tresspass.
Nor does that prove they did not have tickets.
The trial discussed it and said no evidence. That's the official finding after going over all the evidence.

Your first post said it was only caused by ticketless idiots. You said it wouldn't have happened but for ticketless idiots. You didn't say 'contributing factor'.

There was no contributing factor from the fans. It was the police who didn't carry out adequate safety checks. It was the police who ordered the gate to be opened. It was the police who didn't close the middle pen despite the fact they could see or should have seen it was already full. It was the police who prevented the ambulances reaching injured people. It was the police who lied and covered it up, destroying evidence and fabricating stories to blame the fans.

The only thing the fans did was go to a football game with their loved ones.

I would also question why a unanimous verdict over the unlawful killing question was initially required, but then a majority verdict became acceptable.

You said the police ordered them in to the middle pen. So that was a lie.

x
Posted from TSR Mobile

You presence in this discussion, with such a poor knowledge of what happened is disruptive and unhelpful.

The police opened the gate; the crowd, acting as all crowds do, sought the quickest way to the terraces, which was dead ahead and down the obvious tunnel, into the central pens.

It would have been unnatural for it (not knowing the stadium, as visiting spectators don't) to have turned aside and sought the smaller entrances to the other, uncrowded, pens.

The police did not give orders, but their actions led to an inevitable and foreseeable consequence. They could have directed people to the side routes , once through the gate, but they did not do so.

See this is where I get confused.. Because If that's true, did the police not acquire brain cells when they were born? What did they expect when they started putting people with tickets allocated elsewhere into an already crowded area. Madness.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You presence in this discussion, with such a poor knowledge of what happened is disruptive and unhelpful.

The police opened the gate; the crowd, acting as all crowds do, sought the quickest way to the terraces, which was dead ahead and down the obvious tunnel, into the central pens.

It would have been unnatural for it (not knowing the stadium, as visiting spectators don't) to have turned aside and sought the smaller entrances to the other, uncrowded, pens.

The police did not give orders, but their actions led to an inevitable and foreseeable consequence. They could have directed people to the side routes , once through the gate, but they did not do so.

Let me make it really simple.
A court of law found there to be no evidence of lots of ticektless fans. None.
That is their judgement after discussing all the evidence.

If a court of law find a man not guilty of rape, then he is not guilty. It's the same here. The court found the fans not guilty of arriving without tickets or contributing to the tragedy, therefore they are not guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you are alleging a misfeasance, that lots of fans broke the law then the onus is on you to prove it. The onus is always on the person making a claim of wrongdoing to prove it. It would be like me saying 'loads of fans there were Neo-Nazis', then me saying 'since you cannot disprove it, its true/probably true'.

No, if you allege an offence you have to prove it.

A court of law has found the fans not guilty and the police to blame. If a court of law found a guy not guilty of rape you certainly wouldn't question it. You cannot pick and choose which court decisions are correct, depending on your view point.

Your first post said if it were not for idiots without tickets the tragedy wouldn't have happened. That implied it's entirely the fans fault. Yet you have not a jot of evidence, not a jot of evidence that a lot of people arrived without tickets, not a jot of evidence that anyone who did arrive without tickets in any way contributed.


The fans were exonerated in a court of law after all the evidence had been discussed, after all the documents looked at and all the witnesses listened to.

These people for years have been told they were to blame for the death of their loved ones. Now the court has shown that the entire fault was on the police, not the fans. It's right they seek judges for their lost ones. And for you to call such people greedy is disgusting.

The crush was entirely and only the fault of the police's gross negligence. The match should have been delayed (that's not the main part), the gate should NEVER have been opened and the tunnel should have been closed off, ambulances should have been allowed on the pitch. To fail to do those things, especially the latter three was grossly negligent and the deaths flowed from that.

If the gate was never opened and if the pen was closed the crush wouldn't have happened. Causation. The crush was caused solely by the police opening the gate and not closing the tunnel.
The police could see the pen was full from their tower yet they failed to direct people around it.
They then lied, destroyed evidence and engaged in a huge cover up.

The entire thing would have been avoided had the police acted to a reasonable standard and that's the legal verdict that was reached.
Yet despite it all, despite the hugely comprehensive trial, despite the thousands upon thousands of documents of evidence, despite all the witness reports, despite confessions by the police that they lied, despite all the evidence of a police conspiracy to blame the fans, you seem to think that your judgement trumps the whole thing. That you can work it out on the basis that you go to football matches now.

You're hilarious. I have a poor knowledge? The other person arguing with me firstly claims people didn't jump over the turnstiles then I provide video evidence, then he claims that the gate wasn't opened to let someone out, then I prove that. The he claims the police 'ordered' people into the middle pen



Haha you are funny. I don't think I've encountered someone who is so keen on ignoring what people say.



Posted from TSR Mobile

he claims that the gate wasn't opened to let someone out, then I prove that.

Ever considered that Underscore_ may be... what's the word... a troll?