Caporegime
It's not effectively the same thing at all that's why.
I'm not seeing much police hatred to be honest, only for the ones who lied and tried to cover it up. There is still a lot of respect for the ones in uniform who tried and did help.
Hillsborough inquest verdict.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
- Status
It's not effectively the same thing at all that's why.
I'm not seeing much police hatred to be honest, only for the ones who lied and tried to cover it up. There is still a lot of respect for the ones in uniform who tried and did help.
Man of Honour
Very informative and well constructed Nix.
I've been to grounds in the past where you are just part of the crowd and you become part of a flow. It happened Monday when i went to the game and people were late due a train problems. No one rushed from the station to the ground but the turnstiles couldn't cope with the sudden arrivals from the stations. Fortunately, it was promptly and effectively dealt with by trained personnel (not police).
It's like letting water out of a bath..
You're missing the point completely and not understanding the multiplier effect at all.
Do you understand why they have variable speeds on the motorway?
They didn't force themselves in. As Huddy has said previously, you need to understand how football was back then to understand what happened properly.
Supporters were used to be treated like animals, being packed into pens so tightly that they could barely move through their own will. I remember talking to an old teacher of mine who was at Hillsborough a year or so before the disaster and he told me how he ended up about 20 meters from where he was originally standing by the end of the half just through the pressure of people around him because they were so overcrowded. My dad also told me how a friend of his lost both shoes at a game (not at Hillsborough) through people stepping on the back of his feet because they were so tightly packed in to the pen.
To those entering the pen there was nothing unusual - it was the norm to be overcrowded. And if you've been in any crowded area where a large number of people are trying to get to the same place (even waiting to get on a tube or a bus), everybody gradually squeezes forward inch by inch but it those at the front that run out of room first.
Caporegime
Right, but just because it was nothing unusual does not mean it's not a contributing factor does it?!
And I understand exactly how it happened...and again someone trying to argue against me has said it themselves. Everybody was squeezing forward inch by inch. If everybody didn't do that - it wouldn't have happened. Therefore they were a contributing factor.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
In 1988 I went to game that was over subscribed in the away end .. They squeezed us in to get us off the streets.."Football's problem.. not ours". We were so tightly squeezed that there were surges.. the police answer - they put the bloody horses in the stand..!! It was frightening.
Whilst i understand some of the conflicting opinions, you have to understand what things were like back then. No one had a ******* clue about anything or anyone.
Whilst i understand some of the conflicting opinions, you have to understand what things were like back then. No one had a ******* clue about anything or anyone.
Caporegime
Nix, I've used your own words and you're still in denial. If those people at the back were not trying to get to the front would there have been a crush?
Yes or no?
If no, then what caused it? Where did the pressure on those at the front and sides come from if not from other fans trying to get in? The police did not force people in.
What the police did was not let people out.
For any crush you need 2 things. A restricted space and a force. The police provided the restrictive space, the crowd provided the force.
Don
last chance:
people didn't push in. There weren't enough turnstiles for the amount of people (which was under the acceptable limit of the pen). Police opened up due to time constraints (traffic should have forced a delayed kick off which never happened) an exit gate. people funneled in leading to the crush. All of this should never happened. Filtering in through turnstiles should have carried on. The gate should never have been opened. The match should have been delayed and allowed the people to filter in.
You claimed that they knew it was obviously full - they didn't know this. To them it was no different to any other game.
By your thinking the fact that they bought tickets to go to the game, supporters were a contributing factor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Manslaughter is (one of the possible) criminal charges you bring after an unlawful killing verdict from an inquest (which is there to determine how someone may have died).
Man of Honour
I think people are still brain washed by what they read or heard in the Sun Hilly.
The crowd provided the force only insomuch as they were trying to watch a football game, something which was expected and predetermined. People's momentum towards the stadium becomes part of a flow. That flow is what creates the inevitable force. Have you ever been to a music concert?
By your reasoning, anyone who gets shuffled away from their friends due to the movement of the crowd is at fault.
Read this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-disasters-happen-and-how-they-can-be-avoided
Caporegime
No, by knowing the person in front of you is unable to move you know it's full. You therefore shouldn't continue to try and push forward "inch by inch" (remember, that's a direct quote from you). If you do that you are providing that crush force that I've mentioned the whole way through.
Just had a chance to listen to Theresa May's statement and she confirms that one of the offences under investigation is gross negligence manslaughter. So answering your original question, it would appear as if gross negligence is enough to return an unlawful killing verdict.
I didn't mention pushing so no it's not a direct quote from me and it wasn't the people directly in front of them that couldn't move, there were 1000's of people in between those at the back entering the pens and those at the front that were first to run out of room.
It's a sad fact. I've mentioned it a couple of times already that it's incredible how so many people believed that the lies spread via the Sun were part of the Taylor report in 1990.
Don
Agreed Huddy and those people are just clueless. Sad state:
From yesterday:
7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
Jury's answer: No
it's black and white. End of.
From yesterday:
7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
Jury's answer: No
it's black and white. End of.
yet no one(as far as I can see) is promoting lies spread by the Sun, that is quite a lazy argument - why not quote the actual posts you're referring to
some posters aren't taking the view that all the fans are saints and the police are 100% at fault - surely the police are largely to blame but it seems that any view that doesn't 100% blame the police is taboo
Man of Honour
I think it's time this was locked to be honest it's obviously far to of an emotive subject for a lot of people for there to be any discussion on it without it getting heated intentionally or not.
Just because a jury say so doesn't make the answer infallible so there's always going to be discussion to contrary.
Just because a jury say so doesn't make the answer infallible so there's always going to be discussion to contrary.
it isn't really black and white - there were quite clear witness statements including from a turnstile operator contrary to that
but yes a panel of 3 men and 6 women, from Warrington, have answered the question with a No
- Status