Little boy blue. Tonight itv1 9pm

[Bentley Bullet]

WE should all base our lives on facts. We shouldn't listen to anybody unless they can back their story with facts.

I made that mistake living the first 50 years of my life thinking Pluto was the ninth planet, and the early stages of my adolescence believing that w**king made you blind.

[Syme]

In this analogy, some would have you believe that Pluto doesn't exist, because they looked through a pair of binoculars and it wasn't there. Although that could be because they're just massive w**kers.

[Bentley Bullet]

Can you back that up with facts?

[Syme]

Whilst ontology and epistemology are both fascinating fields, I'm not sure we could do them justice on here

[Bentley Bullet]

Is that a fact? And here's me thinking this thread is all about epistemology!

[Glyn_Wigley]

It's only a fact theoretically. 

[Jonathan]

After all of the fall out from Hillsborough, it still amazes me that so many Liverpool fans entered the stadium for the Champions League final in Athens without tickets. I remember the scenes there and it was frightening and alarming.

Lots of lessons had to be learned following Hillsborough. Policing, stewarding, stadium design. But I thought it was very sad to see some Liverpool fans put other fans at risk again by gaining entry without tickets.

Hillsborough was a tragic accident. Nobody wanted it to happen and many factors were at fault. Not one individual or body. Personally I don't think there's anything to be gained from further persecution. My thoughts remain with the families and loved ones of those that lost their lives.

[Syme]

In my view, the use of the word "accident" is not appropriate at all Jonathan. Arron Banks was recently criticised for using that term.

Charlotte Hennessy, who lost her dad at Hillsborough responded to Banks was that "it was a completely preventable disaster caused by gross negligence that resulted in 96 people unlawfully killed. Actually.”

I tend to agree with her.

[Jonathan]

In my view, the use of the word "accident" is not appropriate at all Jonathan. Arron Banks was recently criticised for using that term.

Charlotte Hennessy, who lost her dad at Hillsborough responded to Banks was that "it was a completely preventable disaster caused by gross negligence that resulted in 96 people unlawfully killed. Actually.”

I tend to agree with her.

Most accidents are preventable by a different set of circumstances.

Nobody wanted that to happen. Absolutely nobody. Not the people that designed the stadium pens, not the police or stewards that opened the gates and allowed the fans in, not the fans forcing entry without tickets. There were lots of mistakes and errors of judgement on the part of police, stewards and fans. It's tragic and so sad. But I take issue with any insinuation that those deaths were caused intentionally. They were not.

[Syme]

Of course nobody wanted it to happen. I think the use of the word "accident" however is somewhat loaded for some people, in the sense that accidents happen and there's not a lot that could have been done. Which in this case, we know could not be further from the truth.

I notice you've also brought up the ticketless fans, I'm genuinely interested why you feel it deserves mentioning. To take just one line from the HIP:

The panel found no evidence... to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans

[Jonathan]

Of course nobody wanted it to happen. I think the use of the word "accident" however is somewhat loaded for some people, in the sense that accidents happen and there's not a lot that could have been done. Which in this case, we know could not be further from the truth.

I notice you've also brought up the ticketless fans, I'm genuinely interested why you feel it deserves mentioning. To take just one line from the HIP:

The panel found no evidence... to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans

"The panel found no evidence of" is interesting wording. I'm not sure what documentary evidence of ticketlessness one would expect the panel to have found. Added to which I think there was a hell of a lot of pressure on that panel. Understandable really as elements of the press coverage and police cover up are inexcusable. But to suggest that the behaviour of some fans had no influence on what happened is utter nonsense. We can argue semantics forever, but I would still stand by my point that a number of factors caused that disaster including policing, stewarding, stadium design and the behaviour of some fans.

[Syme]

Of course nobody wanted it to happen. I think the use of the word "accident" however is somewhat loaded for some people, in the sense that accidents happen and there's not a lot that could have been done. Which in this case, we know could not be further from the truth.

I notice you've also brought up the ticketless fans, I'm genuinely interested why you feel it deserves mentioning. To take just one line from the HIP:

The panel found no evidence... to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans

"The panel found no evidence of" is interesting wording. I'm not sure what documentary evidence of ticketlessness one would expect the panel to have found. Added to which I think there was a hell of a lot of pressure on that panel. Understandable really as elements of the press coverage and police cover up are inexcusable. But to suggest that the behaviour of some fans had no influence on what happened is utter nonsense. We can argue semantics forever, but I would still stand by my point that a number of factors caused that disaster including policing, stewarding, stadium design and the behaviour of some fans.

It's interesting that you consider it to be nonsense. The inquest disagreed with you.

Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
The jury said no.

What evidence were you privy to that they weren't?

[Jonathan]

Mine is an impartial opinion.

Imagine the outcry if they'd have said yes. Perhaps it's a carefully worded question.

[Syme]

Clearly it's an opinion, my question is, what is it based on?

[not on facebook]

Two things on that idler.

Firstly, the crowd outside the gates formed as a result of police failures. They didn't open enough turnstiles and they didn't perform checks further away from the ground as they had in  previous years. In 1988 an informal cordon was established to control flow rates to the ground. There was 172 less officers working in 1989 than in 1988 and Duckenfield himself has said he wasn't aware of the cordons the previous year and that it should have been thought about.

Secondly, if you're going to open the gates, you need to plan for what happens next. There was a plan called the Freeman Tactic, which says close the tunnel off and direct people to the side pens. This tactic wasn't used. Duckenfield has admitted that this was the direct cause of 96 deaths.

The semi final at hillasboro before the lpool v forest was Spurs v wolves and numerous Spurs fans that were held in leppings lane came out with various crush injurys after been in exact same pen > why I place blame on FA who sleeved walked into holding the lpool v forest semi there the season after.

I was at a SWFC v CFC league cup quarter final replay at Hillsboro and all seats upstairs were sold out so had no choice to stand on leppings lane.this game was before the lpool v forest incident.

I went down that tunnel into middle pen but gates were closed and locked to pens either side ,and it was a very very very tight squeeze whilst in the tunnel and as soon as I got out to the terrace I was lifted up from the ground via the crush that was going on.i basically floated around that middle pen for over a minute as my body  went with the flow and when my feet did hit the deck ,my back was facing the pitch.
It was quite a nice experience if Iam honest as I was floating and had no problems breathing,but Chelsea fans were trying to climb over fence into the empty pens but SYP beat them back.

After a short time SYP woke up and smelt the coffee and the gates were opened into empty pen.

There was no social media back then so other fans would not have known what can go wrong with leppings lane middle terrace ,but for sure the FA and FL must have had incident reports on the two games I mentioned above .i guess it happened at more games aswell.

No matter what crowd controll flow police have outside Hillsboro ,leppings lane middle pen was a accident waiting to happen due to leppings lane been fenced off into three sections.

It's reported that the policeman on duty that day has a huge share of the blame as he called the shots ,what about the FA who kept on using Hillsboro as they must have read reports on the SWFC v CFC game and the Spurs v wolves game were fans did get taken out with various crush injurys

[Syme]

Fair points Oslo. The Spurs Wolves game was actually in 1981, which makes it worse that nothing was done over the subsequent decade.

The inquest provides some answers to infrastructure issues:

Question 8: defects in Hillsborough stadium
Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the disaster?

Jury’s answer: Yes.

Question 9: licensing and oversight of Hillsborough stadium
Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster?

Jury’s answer: Yes.

Explanation:

The safety certificate was never amended to reflect the changes at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium, therefore capacity figures were never updated
The capacity figures for the Leppings Lane terraces were incorrectly calculated when the safety certificate was first issued
The safety certificate had not been reissued since 1986
Question 10: conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC before the day of the match
Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April, 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match?

Jury’s answer: Yes.

Explanation:

The club did not approve the plans for dedicated turnstiles for each pen
The club did not agree on any contingency plans with the police
There was inadequate signage and inaccurate/misleading information on the semi-final tickets
Question 11: conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC on the day of the match


Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace?

Jury’s answer: No.

11a If “no”, was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace?

Jury’s answer: Yes

Question 12: conduct of Eastwood & Partners
Should Eastwood & Partners [the club’s consultant engineers] have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster?

Jury’s answer: Yes.

Explanation:

Eastwoods did not make their own calculations when they became consultants for SWFC, therefore the initial capacity figures and all subsequent calculations were incorrect
Eastwoods failed to recalculate capacity figures each time changes were made to the terraces
Eastwoods failed to update the safety certificate after 1986
Eastwoods failed to recognise that the removal of barrier 144 and the partial removal of barrier 136 could result in a dangerous situation in the pens

[not on facebook]

Would have Eastwood known or been given reports on the Spurs/ wolves or SWFC/ Chelsea issues of any other game ?

Like I said you have to start from the top and it's the FA who are at the top of that tree in my book as I find it impossible for them not to know anything about the two games above ,and that's for starters.

[Syme]

If, as you say bally1950, the police were aware of the dangers of Hillsborough, you'd think they'd have been extra vigilant.

Instead, they put a novice in charge and reduced resources.

[Syme]

Anything to do with this?

The South Yorkshire police chief superintendent who had experience of commanding football matches at Hillsborough was transferred 19 days before the 1989 FA Cup semi-final, shortly after officers in his division played a brutal "prank" on a probationary constable involving a gun.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/07/most-experienced-police-commander-prank-transfer-hillsborough-disaster

[Glyn_Wigley]

Anything to do with this?

The South Yorkshire police chief superintendent who had experience of commanding football matches at Hillsborough was transferred 19 days before the 1989 FA Cup semi-final, shortly after officers in his division played a brutal "prank" on a probationary constable involving a gun.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/07/most-experienced-police-commander-prank-transfer-hillsborough-disaster

I don't know about Mole, but it does raise the intriguing question of what was the impropriety of Brayford's behaviour that caused him to be transferred..?

[Syme]

The court heard that Mr Brayford was tipped off about his own transfer out of F Division, where the ground is based, by a junior of Mr Duckenfield.

The witness said he was told he was being moved because he had usurped the authority of his superior, Superintendent Roger Marshall. However, the jury heard claims that the real reason was because of inappropriate behaviour with a female colleague.

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2014-09-05/hillsborough-match-planner-was-transferred-before-disaster/

[Syme]

The Freeman Tactic would, in theory, have prevented any loss of life. Close the tunnel and the crowds go to the side pens.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course. But there was precedent for this. And Duckenfield wasn't aware of it.

And fundamentally, that's why the verdict of accidental death was overturned for one of unlawful killing.

Duckenfield had a duty of care and he failed in it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You have the same few minutes as Mr Duckenfield had.

Do we have the training that Mr Dukenfield should have had as well?

[Syme]

You have the same few minutes as Mr Duckenfield had.

Do we have the training that Mr Dukenfield should have had as well?

Which, in his defence, wasn't a great deal apparently.

[not on facebook]

Them two fcukers will allways sideswipe a question if they don't like the answer they have to give ,it's human nature .

I will answer the question from my point of view and i would have opened the gates just like duckfield > any says different is not human.

It's dam rude to answer a question with another question and a tact that clever dicks use very well.

[not on facebook]

They say you learn something new every day and bally1950 has pointed out the SYP had worries holding the lpool v forest semi final at Hillsboro but the fcuking FA and Sheffield city council blanked what the police were worried about.

Like I said some on page 3 of this thread it starts at the top with the FA and goes down the ladder .

Would love to know why SYP had issues holding the semi final at Hillsboro  ,and I have a guess that crush incidents at previous games might be the reason.

I just picture syme and Glynn holding a cabinet meeting trying to dig up whatever facts to discredit your recent facts Bally

[Glyn_Wigley]

You have the same few minutes as Mr Duckenfield had.

Do we have the training that Mr Dukenfield should have had as well?

No, just common sense will do, It has been stated that he had not been given any training and this was his first major match, nowhere in Police Training can yo quantify the disaster happening or even the likelihood of anything on that possibility, if it had been thought possible then that match and all such Premier League games would never take place. So come on just a simple answer. The problems were at the gates that had been closed br SWFC not the Police

The problems at the gate were caused by not having an outer corden to control the flow of fans towards the ground, which was customary at previous matches of this nature. Now then, tell me whose responsibility was it to have employed an outer corden?

Trying to get us to make a hypothetical decision about what we'd do about the gates after the problem has already been caused is utterly futile and irrelevant. But, just to satisfy Olso and answer the question anyway, what I would have done is thought to myself 'Oh shit, I've made a huge cock-up. How can I deny my responsibility and blame someone else? Note to self: I must remember to get the lads to 'lose' the CCTV tapes.'

[Glyn_Wigley]

You have the same few minutes as Mr Duckenfield had.

Do we have the training that Mr Dukenfield should have had as well?

Which, in his defence, wasn't a great deal apparently.

A clue would be to study the Public Order Act 1986 which was produced just three years prior to the match and such public disorder throughout the 1980@s meant change after change. Steel Strike. Miners Strike the Steel Strike and various other major Public Disorder ie. Toxteth. St Pauls in Bristol. London. Bradford And many other major areas. Every single one was different but non on comparison to Sheffield.

I've just had a look at the Act, and it is only about what constitutes public order offenses and how they are categorised I ca't see anything related to general crowd control or how it affects how the police may or may not direct the public in situations where there are no public order offenses taking place.

[Syme]

So in your hypothetical scenario Bally1950, not only do we have to imagine we're in a bit of a pickle, we also have to imagine that we're also incompetent? Quite strict criteria you're enforcing.

Let's be clear about this, Duckenfield had access to all the information he needed to ensure a safe experience for the fans. He was provided with a report detailing the crowd management of the 1988 semi-final. He didn't read it. He read the Green Guide, assumed that meant the stewards were responsible and failed to grasp that the police, which he was in charge of, had actually taken responsibility.

And Oslo, once you've finished noshing off PC Bally - you might ask him to present evidence of his claim that the police wanted to move the game. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it's the only thing you've chosen to believe yet it's the only claim that hasn't been backed up with any evidence. Strange that.

You've also evaded a point a raised previously. As a self-confessed football hooligan, do you feel any degree of culpability for creating the environment within which a tragedy such as Hillsborough could unfold?

[balbyrover]

Second part is on tonight,ITV1 9pm.