Justice For The 96

[cmonurz]

instead of turning up late and being intent on getting in the ground before kick off

The report has stated that fans turning up late were not to blame for the crush. The report has stated that the build-up of fans was not related to turning up late, drunkeness, or ticketlessness. The turnstiles were inadequate, and this created the mass of people outside the ground.

Two reasons people assume you are trolling - a) your history on this subject, b) the fact that any right-minded individual can and will accept the findings of this 18 month investigation and not continue to peddle the same bullshit that has been thrown around for all these years about the behaviour of the fans.

[Royalist]

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"

People seem to be parroting the lies of Police covering their own backs even when they've been shown up to be lying. They are clearly of limited intelligence, have some sort of vendetta against Liverpool fans or are bored and trying to get a reaction.

[No Fixed Abode]

instead of turning up late and being intent on getting in the ground before kick off

The report has stated that fans turning up late were not to blame for the crush. The report has stated that the build-up of fans was not related to turning up late, drunkeness, or ticketlessness. The turnstiles were inadequate, and this created the mass of people outside the ground.

Two reasons people assume you are trolling - a) your history on this subject, b) the fact that any right-minded individual can and will accept the findings of this 18 month investigation and not continue to peddle the same bullshit that has been thrown around for all these years about the behaviour of the fans.

So it was just magical forces which made people push and shove into each other which caused the crush outside? Measures were not put in place like the previous years semi there - so it was a bit of a free for all - which some people tried to take advantage of. It's human nature to most people and you're very naive to think that people don't push and shove at such major events - but this still doesn't make it acceptable social behaviour. If people were more considerate to others around them it WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Simple. So fans do need to accept some of the blame imo. But there is no way people will come forward and say, "yes, I was pushing".

I accept most of the findings. Let's not forget John Terry was found 'not' guilty in the Anton Ferdinand case, but people still think he's guilty - but it was very hard to convict him. I have a right to my opinion without being accused as a troll...

[Schards#2]

To give kes the benefit of the doubt, he is correct that

- some people arrived late
- some will have had a few drinks
- as kick off approached people would push to get into the ground quickly

But this is not exclusive to this game and not exclusive to Liverpool supporters as they would happen with any set of supporters at any big game. What caused the problems was the lack of turnstiles and the failure of the police to plan for the normal behavior of a large crowd or to adequately respond when problems arose.

Why I have a little agreement with Kes is in disagreeing with the assertion that is sometimes heard that 100% of Liverpool fans behaved impeccably as this cannot be the case, nor would it be at any big game. Some will have turned up late, had a few drinks, pushed impatiently but that does not make them in any responsible for what happened in any way.

Back then, I will have done all of these things at many games, I'd even go so far as to say the crush of the crowd, the swaying and a slight feeling of not being entirely in control all added to the experience of the game. But none of us could have forseen this as being an end result.

[No Fixed Abode]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying this is exclusive of Liverpool fans. It's people in general. If it didn't happen at Hillsborough it could well have happened elsewhere. So, at least some good has come out of this and people's attitude and understanding of others has certainly improved at football matches in the current era.

Just seen a news report re the urinating on police officers. Whilst I don't believe this to be directly true - there were reports on people urinating in the upper tier of the Leppings Lane end and I can believe this. Went to many a game in the 80's/90s where this was common place - Loftus Road away end for example when I went to see United with my mate.. Piss streaming down from the upper tier.

[6ft Kerplunk]

There's no doubting it was a perfect storm of events. Road works on M62 meaning lots of fans turning up later than expected causing more of a crush outside, inexperienced policeman in overall charge, gate opened that pretty much channelled supporters into the middle pens of the stands etc. The only thing thats irritating me slightly is they keep saying 'emergency services' not doing their jobs. Thats not fair on the ambulance service, they were stopped from going into the ground to help people because the police told them the fans were fighting. The only ambulance that got into the ground was only there because the driver ignored the policeman and drove in before the otheres were stopped.

[Stuboo]

On the Sun - I notice that their profound apology is not top of the points, or particularly prominent amongst them. Maybe I'm being picky because it's a Murdoch rag.

I was a bit surprised by this too.

Clearly, The Sun has no option but to unreservedly apologise as it has. Given that, if I were them, I would have done it in such a way that their sincerity and their realisation of the enormity of the offence caused could not possibly be questioned and that no one could say "that's not good enough". By having it as a list of points, and not even the main one, they haven't done that and will inevitably receive more criticism.

It's not only that though, it's the fact they printed the article in the first place and they have had 23 years to apologise. They only apologised now because to not do so would mean serious trouble for their newspaper. The apology was dragged out of them, not sincere IMO.

[Norfolk Royal]

There's no doubting it was a perfect storm of events. Road works on M62 meaning lots of fans turning up later than expected causing more of a crush outside, inexperienced policeman in overall charge, gate opened that pretty much channelled supporters into the middle pens of the stands etc. The only thing thats irritating me slightly is they keep saying 'emergency services' not doing their jobs. Thats not fair on the ambulance service, they were stopped from going into the ground to help people because the police told them the fans were fighting. The only ambulance that got into the ground was only there because the driver ignored the policeman and drove in before the otheres were stopped.

That's true, but on the other hand the ambulance service was also involved in the subsequent cover up.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Anyone seen the front page of the Sun today? I haven't, just interested.

People should boycott this useless, bigoted newspaper. Lies have been spouting out of this newspaper for years.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Anyone seen the front page of the Sun today? I haven't, just interested.

People should boycott this useless, bigoted newspaper. Lies have been spouting out of this newspaper for years.

Lies have been spouting out of every paper for years. Get over it.

Not as many as The Sun have made up.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

If you believe that then you are truly, truly deluded.

Well it's a Murdoch paper, so we should all be subject to some sort of false facts.

[Royalist]

Yep every paper lies. Mostly about some Z lister sleeping with another Z lister. To print lies about the deaths of 96 and the actions Liverpool fans that day is very extreme to say the least.

[Ian Royal]

In any case, whatever happens in terms of safety:

seating>standing

If the report is correct (and we have no reason to doubt it) it was ineffectual policing and crown control that led to the issues - it must be easier to control a seated crowd than a standing one. I'm not saying that the FSF's proposed seating or whatever is *unsafe* I'm just saying that seating is safer.

I'd like to be able to stand at football, but I don't see this changing anything.

Seating is only safer if people sit in it. Not if, as currently, many continue to stand in it.

On the Sun - I notice that their profound apology is not top of the points, or particularly prominent amongst them. Maybe I'm being picky because it's a Murdoch rag.

I was a bit surprised by this too.

Clearly, The Sun has no option but to unreservedly apologise as it has. Given that, if I were them, I would have done it in such a way that their sincerity and their realisation of the enormity of the offence caused could not possibly be questioned and that no one could say "that's not good enough". By having it as a list of points, and not even the main one, they haven't done that and will inevitably receive more criticism.

That said, I don't think anything that is done going forward will ever by sufficient for the campaigners say they are fully satisfied no matter how many are convicted and whether or not the inquest verdict is changed.

To be honest, there is nothing that they can do that makes up for what they did.

There was precisely zero evidence for their claims and to publish it in the manner they did, even the most basic of journalistic and editorial integrity and competence would require a hint of evidence, rather than a dodgy phone call from a dodgy copper on the sly.

The only reason they haven't had the arse sued off them for liable as far as I can see is because they didn't actually accuse anyone specifically.

PS, you won't here me say this often, but Cameron did a great job with his speech in Parliament. Good on him.

[No Fixed Abode]

The Sun reported many facts which weren't true - however, a lot of it was facts they were told by the police and authorities which weren't true. If a police officer told me a story as a journo, I'd probably believe them over a set of football fans all sticking up for one another.

[Ian Royal]

The Sun reported many facts which weren't true - however, a lot of it was facts they were told by the police and authorities which weren't true. If a police officer told me a story as a journo, I'd probably believe them over a set of football fans all sticking up for one another.

Basic Journalism involves fact checking. And when you are dealing with something so horrendus and emotive, you do not put it on the front page in bold without some actual evidence. If you do, you are either knowingly part of the cover up, hopelessly incompetant, or just plain uninterested in whether its true or not.

By the way, NONE of those facts from the Sun were true. There was no shred of evidence of it at all. No one has ever complained of being pissed on. There is no footage or pictures of anyone being pissed on. No one saw anyone getting pissed on. The only pictures involving the upper stand show them hauling people who'd climbed over the heads of the packed crowd up and into safety.

[philM]

The Sun reported many facts which weren't true - however, a lot of it was facts they were told by the police and authorities which weren't true. If a police officer told me a story as a journo, I'd probably believe them over a set of football fans all sticking up for one another.

It was Tory MP Sir Irvine Patnick who fed a lot of the lies to the Sun via the news agency.

There is a whole section in the report about his involvement. He has so far refused to comment on the report.

[Royalist]

The scary thing is The Sun didn't just make these rumours up out of thin air but from a Sheffield based media source...who was told this garbage by police so you can see why The Sun thought back then it was true


"All the allegations in the stories we filed were made unsolicited, by ranking officers in the South Yorkshire force to three different experienced senior journalists who are partners in this agency. All four officers involved had been on duty at Hillsborough,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/se ... sfeed=true

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying this is exclusive of Liverpool fans. It's people in general. If it didn't happen at Hillsborough it could well have happened elsewhere. So, at least some good has come out of this and people's attitude and understanding of others has certainly improved at football matches in the current era.

to restate a point made earlier, a crowd will act like a crowd, which is why a lot of effort is put into crowd management - to make sure situations such as crushes don't develop.

While it's blindingly obvious that the crush was caused by the number of supporters, that's a country mile away from saying they were responsible for the crush, even partly. When it comes to apportioning blame, you have to ask who did things they shouldn't have done, and who didn't do things they should have done? Unless there's evidence of fans storming the gates (which there isn't) or fans using brute force to try and force the people ahead of them down the tunnel (which there isn't) or a large number of ticketless fans causing the end to overfill (which there isn't) maybe you could add your opinion to what you think fans did wrong, without the naive response that they should just have all queued politely down the street.

Don't forget, after all, that the middle sections were already dangerous overfilled even before the gate got opened. People might well have died even if there had been those polite queues outside.

[Norfolk Royal]

The scary thing is The Sun didn't just make these rumours up out of thin air but from a Sheffield based media source...who was told this garbage by police so you can see why The Sun thought back then it was true


"All the allegations in the stories we filed were made unsolicited, by ranking officers in the South Yorkshire force to three different experienced senior journalists who are partners in this agency. All four officers involved had been on duty at Hillsborough,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/se ... sfeed=true

Although the news agency concerned are, even now, being disingenuous about their part in it. In their apology they say they reported the comments from the police officers as 'allegations.'

In fact, since they made their statement, their original story has been posted by The Guardian which shows they reported it as fact, not allegation.

[Jerry St Clair]

How come it didn't happen to any of those clubs then? All took thousands upon thousands of fans to terraced matches for decades, including games at Hillsborough.

Sheer good fortune? Or did they just have fewer people turning up l8 to rush the gates? Is it nothing more than sheer coincidence that it was Liverpool fans who were involved in the two worst crowd disasters in the 80s?

Are all questions people ask.

It nearly happened in 1981 at Tottenham v Wolves - at Hillsborough. The difference was the police opened perimeter fencing gates to alleviate the crushing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtzHVe2mEN0

Phil Scraton's book also lists a catalogue of "near misses" at a hugely diverse range of grounds and with different groups of supports.