Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I wish we had not heard about it for the last 20 or so years, which would have happened if there had been a proper inquest and those who tried to cover-up the truth had been prosecuted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    See the only reason I feel some sense of 'accident' is because I can't imagine people (especially those who are consistently monitoring football matches and make lots of decisions under pressure) making such a rash decision


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Was there something wrong with the gates to north and north west stands?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    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
    As a Northerner I call *******s
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I just don't get how they think they're getting justice. So far the chief of the county's police force has been suspended, but it's 27 years after the fact - he didn't have the gig back then and is getting punished for actions that were not his.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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'.
    I haven't asked you to prove me wrong. I don't quite understand why you keep banging on about evidence when you 1. Are yet to produce any when requested and 2. I've said that the police very obviously didn't go around checking who had tickets and who didn't.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Yet in a prior debate you supported figures claiming there are tens of thousands of rapes a year despite their being so little evidence most of these 'incidents' don't even get to court.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    That wasn't what you said. You said the police ordered them in to the middle pen. So that was a lie.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    They opened the gate to relieve the crush outside, that would have still taken place if kickoff was delayed. For someone who pretends to be such an expert on Hillsborough you miss a lot of points. Well you don't actually know flying is impossible, that would be proving a negative.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Well those who jumped the turnstiles and ran in through the gate the first time it opened are also partially responsible, they counted toward the crushing force.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Except you don't when it comes to rape, it's you who needs to apply some consistency.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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?
    No, greedy for pursuing millions of pounds off of the back of a family member dying.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    People arriving half an hour before kick off is nothing unusual.
    Some people arriving half an hour before isn't unusual, half of the people in one stand is.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    No but I have evidence of trespassing.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    I do have that standard but there was undeniably trespass at least.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The trial investigated if there was mass ticketlessness, they said there was no evidence to suggest there was. Not guilty.
    I don't see why you can't understand that getting evidence to support that would have been madness. Going around a stadium with people dying to check how many people had tickets and how many didn't.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    There's video footage of trespassing. I didn't say it did but by trespassing you raise contributory negligence.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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'.
    No it didn't say it was 'only' caused by fans.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Well some trespassed and contributed to the death of 96 people and the injury of hundreds.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There are a few things from the inquest that do sit a little bit uneasy with me

    1) Unlawful killing verdict
    I'm unsure that such a verdict is correct when so many agencies are to blame. Even if the match commander had been competent, the inquest highlighted so many risk factors that (in my opinion) it cannot be said that his sole actions constitute gross negligence manslaughter.

    2) Attitudes
    It was reported that the victim's families spokesperson said that they would not accept a verdict if Liverpool fans were to blame, or if an unlawful killing verdict wasn't returned. The point of an inquest is to establish who died, what happened and the cause of death. It is NOT to establish blame as many suggest. The inquest was so detailed the verdict had to be accepted, even if it was not the one that the families wanted.

    3) Conduct of Inquest
    At the inquest it was said that the question about Liverpool fans behaviour was "controversial". I'm not sure why this is controversial. It's a relevant question to ask in order to investigate fully.

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

    4) Prolonger Litigation
    I'm not sure that prolonged criminal enquiries are in the best interests of the victims. I used to work with a family member of a victim, who was (privately) unhappy that old ground kept getting dug up, and he felt this meant his family struggled to grieve and move on.

    I can see the situation getting uglier if attempts at prosecution fail, which they could on the unlawful killing point if a jury could not reach a unanimous conclusion at an inquest.

    5) Police Conduct
    And this of course if the most obvious. I cannot describe how callous it is to lie, changed statements use intimidation to obstruct justice. It is disgraceful. You can only hope lessons have been learned from this, but I'm not convinced they have been.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chris22)
    I would also question why a unanimous verdict over the unlawful killing question was initially required, but then a majority verdict became acceptable.
    That is the process followed at all British jury trials, including inquests. There is first an attempt to be unanimous but a majority may be necessary to avoid a re-trial. Had 10-2 not been possible the jury would have been discharged and the whole thing started afresh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You said the police ordered them in to the middle pen. So that was a lie.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Yeah but he went to a football match a few weeks ago so therefore knows exactly what happened at Hillsborough. Amazing that his 'logic' based on no evidence is so much better than a legal judgement based on mountains of evidence and documentation.

    Have to wonder why the police didn't get him to represent them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No. This is a 27 year cover up by the police and people are finally being brought to account. You really aren't angered by this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swagyolo420)
    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
    Exactly. The police could see that the middle pen was full but rather than closing it and directing people into the side pens, they just let everyone into an already full one.

    It was entirely avoidable and that's the saddest part.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    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

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    he claims that the gate wasn't opened to let someone out, then I prove that.
    The gate was opened to let thousands in, not to let someone out.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ever considered that Underscore_ may be... what's the word... a troll?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    Ever considered that Underscore_ may be... what's the word... a troll?
    No, just an idiot.
    Trolls can be quite funny.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.