Does anyone get sick of hearing about Hillsborough?

Your first post in response to me said 'if it wasn't for fans without tickets the crush wouldn't have happened'
Yet you've offered zero proof.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone as inconsistent and selective as you.
If a court of law ruled a man was not guilty of rape he would not be guilty and you'd be right to argue that he wasn't.
Yet when a court of law determines fans are not guilty of in anyway causing or contributing to the crash you simply ignore their judgement.
That's inconsistent, you pick and choose when to respect the decision of a court of law.

Perhaps there were some ticket less fans. Perhaps some did trespass. That's not the issue, the issue is whether ticketless fans or any fans in anyway contributed to the crush and the court found they did not.

The crush was caused by bad planning, the police opening the gate and then not closing my off the tunnel. In addition to preventing medical help reaching the injured.
The reason for the build up was the lack of turnstiles and bad planning.

The gate was opened to let thousands in, not to let someone out.

I suggest you actually do some research. The gate was opened first to let someone out, around 150 rushed in before it was closed. It was later opened again as this video shows.

I can also offer no proof that life exists on other planets or that fairies aren't real, yet I believe both to be the case.

You're also ignoring that my argument moved toward trespass on the part of the fans.



I believe I would have explicitly said when debating rape that there are people who have committed the offence but are found not guilty. Courts make mistakes, lawyers make mistakes. I've never claimed that courts are perfect and every decision is unquestionably true.



You're yet again explaining all of this as though I've said the fans are entirely at fault and the police did nothing wrong.



I suggest you actually do some research. The gate was opened first to let someone out, around 150 rushed in before it was closed. It was later opened again as this video shows. hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/media/VID0002.html

If you can't be bothered to watch the whole you can read it in the box below.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I really can't be arsed arguing with you anymore.
So i'll make it really short and simple.
A court of law after studying all the evidence has found beyond all reasonable doubt that the fans in no way, shape or form contributed to the disaster and that it was entirely down to the negligence of the police.

That's a court of law, who's studied every piece of evidence, every CCTV clip, every eye witness and every account. Yet you. who's not done any of that obviously knows better. If a court of law found a man not guilty of rape, you'd firmly hold he was innocent and you'd be right to, yet you don't hold the same standards here. You pick and choose which decisions of courts of law are correct to the extent that they fit your viewpoint or narrative.

I'm quite content to trust the decision of a court of law rather than you're 'logic' based on the fact you go to football games now.
Although I must say, given that you can deduce it was all to blame on ticketless fans on the back of the fact you go to football matches now, perhaps you should have just gone down to the inquest and told them that and saved them 296 days.

Well, clearly the ingress of 150 people was unrelated to the disaster, which was caused when thousands were let in later, as the inquiry concluded.

Yet again you're claiming I said things I didn't. Yet again your picking and choosing which of my points you want to acknowledge.

Well it hasn't studied 'every' piece of evidence, don't exaggerate. What you seem to be blind to is that the way that evidence is presented and the arguments it's used to support is just as important as the evidence itself. You're also still hung up on the point of evidence. Although I think there were some dreadful lawyers are largely to blame, the decision in law was correct. That doesn't mean the decision was correct in fact and that's I'm contending. I have no proof a lot of fans didn't have tickets, just as I have no proof that unicorns or mermaids don't exist.

I've said about three times now courts get things wrong, guilty people are sometimes not convicted. If you're going to criticise me for picking and choosing when I believe a court then you need to reevaluate yourself. In a previous debate you were adamant that there are tens of thousands of rapes yet the courts found only one thousand.



A jury also found OJ Simpson liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson. Moral of the story - juries get things wrong.


Posted from TSR Mobile

A court of law after studying all the evidence has found the fans not guilty of in anyway contributing or causing the tragedy. And you're response was to make up a claim and ask me to disprove it- which is laughable. If you allege an offence it's up for you to prove.

It's really simple, if the gate wasn't opend and the tunnel was closed as it should have been there would have been no tragedy.

Huge amounts of evidence and admittance of a massive police cover up using taxpayers money to pervert the course of justice.
Innocent until proven guilty and after an extensive trial they've been found not guilty.

First of all they found him not 'guilty', rather than 'not liable'. Liability is a civil law term.

He was found not guilty for a variety of reasons; because at the time DNA evidence wasn't understood and trusted as it is now, there were huge racial divides the time which the trial somewhat represented and there was a mostly black jury who were sympathetic to him. Also the prosecution was awful- introducing a neo Nazi who had a history of tempering with evidence to the stand and probably tempered with evidence in this case (he refused to deny it) .
Not to mention OJ was found liable in the civil trial and the criminal trial is generally regarded all round as one of the greatest miscarriage of justice, especially considering the huge amount of Dna evidence which proves he did it.

The DNA evidence showed beyond all teals able doubt that he committed the murders- that's a reason to doubt the jurors decision. Hardcore evidence. Not the 'logic' of some 22 year old guy based on the fact he goes to football matches now.
(Although I am surprised to see you claim OK Simpson was guilty and not troll as usual and pretend he wasn't)

Of course courts sometimes get things wrong but to allege they have you have to provide seriously good and convincing evidence, yet you yourself have admitted that you have no evidence.

A court of law after studying all the evidence has found the fans not guilty of in anyway contributing or causing the tragedy. And you're response was to make up a claim and ask me to disprove it- which is laughable. If you allege an offence it's up for you to prove.

Again, you are wildly inconsistent with picking and choosing which court decisions you agree with. In any rape case you claim it hasn't happened until proven by a court of law, yet you don't hold the same standard for this.
If you think the court has got it wrong then present really credible evidence, you haven't, you've simply claimed you go to football matches now. Nor have you shown there were large numbers of ticketless fans which contributed or caused the crush.

It's really simple, if the gate wasn't opend and the tunnel was closed as it should have been there would have been no tragedy.

In this country we have innocent until proven guilty. A court of law found the fans not guilty. They are not guilty.

You're initial claim was that the whole thing wouldn't have happened but for ticketless fans. Now you are back peddling. There is no evidence for large amounts of ticketless fans and no evidence that the fans arrived unreasonably late. No evidence that they were unreasonably drunk. No evidence that there were more fans than the capacity of the stadium allowed.
Huge amounts of evidence and admittance of a massive police cover up using taxpayers money to pervert the course of justice.
Innocent until proven guilty and after an extensive trial they've been found not guilty.

That isn't quite the question the jury was asked for the obvious reason that the immediate proximate cause of the accident was the crush of other fans.

The jury were asked:

"Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?"

In other words the jury were only asked about the situation before the fans entered the ground, not about their entry to the central pens.

The jury's conclusion is against the weight of the evidence. Some may say that was due to a desire to only find official parties guilty. Equally it may have been simply that football fans on that day did nothing other than what football fans typically did in the late 1980s and the jury was not going to find these fans guilty for doing what was typical behaviour of football fans. However, it is obvious from all the video evidence that the fans' behaviour was objectively dangerous. The jury has let the fans get away with a defence that they would not have let a factory owner get away with:- "but we have always done it this way".






There were 1100 police at Hillsborough that day. The Leppings Lane terrace had a capacity of 10,100. The total ground capacity was around 53,000; that is one policeman for every 50 fans.

The capacity was half that of Silverstone; two thirds of Twickenham or the old national stadium in Cardiff. Horse racing regularly exceeded these capacities for big events. There wouldn't be 1100 police on duty at Royal Ascot for a much bigger crowd even with the Irish terrorist threat to the Royal Family.

If football fans had behaved like motor racing, horse racing or rugby fans, the tragedy wouldn't have happened because the stadium commander wouldn't have been a Chief Superintendent and he would not have panicked.






Time's arrow runs forward not backwards. The cover up could not have caused the tragedy.

So you criticise me for saying he was found liable and then this section by saying he was found liable? Seriously? I'm very aware that he was found not guilty in the criminal trial so when I said he was found liable, obviously I was talking about the civil trial.

As you said, a racist police officer with a history of evidence tampering finds the most important forensic evidence and then pleads the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. That alone is reasonable doubt. He wasn't guilty. If you think it's an open and shut case you don't know that much about it.

Despite a same lack of evidence people claim all sort of things; God is real, unicorns aren't, there are 10's of thousands of rapes a year.

I haven't made up a claim and asked you to disprove it.

I'll accept that if you also accept that in any given year around 1,000 people commit rape. The other tens of thousands have not been found guilty, thus they are not guilty.

Well after a very long trial OJ was found not guilty, yet you're still doubting that decision.

Oh deary me, you are saying he is inncoent. Oh deary deary me. Yes he was a neo-nazi, he may or may not have planted or tempered with evidence, but OJ was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It's widely known as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice. DNA evidence proved beyond all reasonable that OJ was guilty. No one elses DNA was found at the crime scene or on the gloves. Only OJ's.

And all of those need evidence... or else we cannot hold that they happened. You're using the fact that other people make unevidenced claims as an excuse to make your own. No, that's not how it works. If you are alleging a claim that someone has committed an offence, it's up for you to prove. If you are making a claim that God exists, it's up to you to prove. If you are making a claim that unicorns exist, it's up to you to prove.

I will accept absolutely 100% that anyone found not guilty in a court of law is not guilty unless proven otherwise.
Tens of thousands aren't found not guilty. Most claims of rape are never reported, many victims withdraw because they find the system traumatic. I'm not saying such rapes definitively happened, i'm saying we need to make it easier for people who feel they have been raped to go through the system.

In this case the jury were asked to decide if the fans were effectively guilty or not guilty, they chose not guilty and unlike the OJ Simpson case there is no startling evidence to suggest otherwise.
The difference is i'm consistent, you pick and choose which decisions of a court you agree with depending on whether they fit you're narrative.

Which is known as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice. DNA evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it. Heck even his defense attorney, Robert Kardashian later admitted he did it. There were several reasons why he was found not guilty, largely that DNA evidence wasn't understood and trusted like it is now. Not to mention a nearly all black jury at a point of very high racial tensions and the fact the prosecution was awful. Then you have the play acting with the glove and the fact OJ had arguably the best defense team in the world.
But despite that, DNA evidence found only his DNA at the scene. No one else was ever arrested, nor was ever charged nor was even a subject. For you to claim OJ was innocent is quite startling.

Not to mention that he was found liable by the civil trial later...

I can't believe you. You first say Hillsborough was down only to ticketless fans. Then you say OJ was not guilty. What next? Let me guess, the moon landing was fake? 9/11 was an inside job?

Like I said to think it's an open and shut case shows a lack of knowledge. It isn't widely known as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice, the reaction was very split. This is all DNA evidence that the lead detective wouldn't deny planting himself.

And just to point out the word is tampered, not tempered. It's the second time you've said it now.




Do you have trouble reading? I quite clearly said people claim unicorns AREN'T real, despite having no evidence.




But as you said you're innocent until proven guilty. So all of those people who are the subject of claims that never make it to court are innocent because they're never proven guilty.




You're consistent yet telling me I have to believe in one court decision whilst you don't agree with another? Very consistent.




Robert Kardashian never said he did it. I think you're basing all of your knowledge on the recent TV show. DNA evidence still isn't really understood, people have just been told for so long that it works that it's the default position now. So you're suggesting black people cant judge objectively if another black person has committed an offence? That is to disrespectful. The jury was also made up of 10 women in a case that was made into 'domestic violence that turns to murder' so the jury was up in the air really. The glove just didn't fit. If you actually look it up people are often quick to criticise the legal team, too many alphas. You do realise after he gave a blood sample it was taken to the crime scene? No one was ever charged because they decided they had their man. For you to think it's an open and shut case is startling.



1. No Johnnie Cochran
2. Balance of probabilities



You're clearly ignorant to the OJ Simpson case if you're mentioning it in the same breath as 9/11 conspiracies. I suggest you desist debating it until you've educated yourself.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Ah so now we are acting dna evidence is a conspiracy and doesn't really work? Is that based on your logic too? Never mind all the scientific data.

My point on rape has always been clear. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I will always accept a court deciding someone is not guilty (unless like in the oj case there is serious evidence to suggest otherwise). The problem is that not enough women feel like they can take their cases to the police. Many women claim they are raped, that doesn't mean they did or didn't happen but the system needs to allow more cases to be heard, that way we distinguish between false accusations and women who have a case. But as you do love to act as a rape apologist I've no doubt you'll claim it's all perfect.

But that's irrelevant to this case. Because the fans were tried and found not guilty and there is no serious evidence to suggest otherwise. If any guy was found no guilty of rape then you'd hold he's not guilty yet you don't apply that standard here.

As to people saying unicorns don't exist. Of course they can say that because the onus is on people saying they do to prove it. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence especially when someone is arguing about the metaphysical existence of something which there is no evidence that it exists. I can't prove to you that Santa clause doesn't exist. I can't prove to you the tooth fairy doesn't exist not can you prove there isn't a magic invisible dragon say in my room now. The onus is on the person alleging that such things do exist, of which there is no evidence of there existence to prove. You don't need evidence to show that something metaphysically unproven doesn't exist- the onus is on the person to show it does- you can never prove that something doesn't exist but the position is that it doesn't until proven otherwise. Do I have to prove Santa clause doesn't exist? Your logic seems to be 'well we can't prove that unicorns don't exist so we don't know'. Well we also can't prove that invisible fire breathing dragons don't exist so I guess we can't say the don't either? You lack the basic understanding of how evidence and burdens of proof work.

And you do love a conspiracy, Hillsborough was entirrely down to fans, oj was guilty, Dan evidence isn't reliable... What next? Global warming isn't real?

The oj trial is widely regarded as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice as despite the overwhelming Dna evidence which showed the chances of someone else doing it were 1 in hundreds of millions he was found guilty largely on the basis Dna evidence was new and not understood at the time as it is now. He did not plant all the evidence, his refusal to say either way only related to one bit of the Dna found- not all of it.

And you play the race card? Very sneaky. Anyone with half a brain knows that the oj trial was at a point of extreme racial tensions between the black and white community, especially following the Rodney King incident and LA riots. Why do you think the Defense team did their best to get a black dominated jury? Why do you think Cochran did his best to make it all about race and play on pre existing racial tensions? You claim to know about the trial yet know nothing of the racial tensions which were such a prominent part of it: The case officially remains open yet no one else has been charged or ever been a suspect. No one else's DNA was found at the crime scene. Yet you seem to be one of the few fooled by ojs acting with the gloves. Not to mention ojs history of beating up his wife and all the times she called the police for his aggression. But of course you know better of course you know that DNA isn't reliable and of course you know better than just about everyone else who knows it was the greatest miscarriages of justice of all time.

Of course you know why ojs DNA was found in the bronco, on both gloves, on the bodies of the victims, in the victims house and in his own house... Of course you know why no one else's DNA was ever found. Of course you know why he tried to flee from the polic because that's of course what innocent people do. Of course you know why kardashain refused to speak to him after the trial and admitted he was guilty, as did Shapiro. You're an idiot.

Listen its a joke that 96 people dying at a football match 30 years ago is still talked about in the way it is! Do we still go on about the ira bombings of manchester year after year after year! No1 except liverpool fans or those affected cares at all really! Give it up its a p155 take now. No one cares! It was tragic....why is it anymore tragic than every other bad thing in the uk! IT ISNT LET IT GO FREAKS!

Listen its a joke that 96 people dying at a football match 30 years ago is still talked about in the way it is! Do we still go on about the ira bombings of manchester year after year after year! No1 except liverpool fans or those affected cares at all really! Give it up its a p155 take now. No one cares! It was tragic....why is it anymore tragic than every other bad thing in the uk! IT ISNT LET IT GO FREAKS!

Listen its a joke that 96 people dying at a football match 30 years ago is still talked about in the way it is! Do we still go on about the ira bombings of manchester year after year after year! No1 except liverpool fans or those affected cares at all really! Give it up its a p155 take now. No one cares! It was tragic....why is it anymore tragic than every other bad thing in the uk! IT ISNT LET IT GO FREAKS!

I mean it happened such a long time ago it obviously wasn't intentional yet we have to keep hearing about it

I feel the shame about the holocaust- It was over 70 years ago get over it.