Given the extent of the way the truth was covered up in order to protect the reputation of those who should have protected the innocent, it doesn't surprise me that certain people on here and elsewhere have held, even to the last, that boozed up fans were to blame.
An hour before the announcement in the HOC, a very good friend of mine was still stating he believed it was the fans that were to blame. His view was prejudiced by an "anti scouser, they are all scalliwags" feeling that a lot of Londoners have about Liverpool supporters. The vile MacKenzie was tapping into this view when he put the story out in The Sun.
Please can we now accept the truth was that the fans were blameless.
My point is that logically they should. Where safety is genuinely compromised there of course shouldn't be changes - but illogical prejudiced rules should be looked at. For me it is no good saying the Liverpool fans had no blame, but then acting as if all football fans are scum. Terracing for top teams is another- because all football fans know that ticketed managed terracing is perfectly safe - ok maybe some clubs wouldn't want to introduce it, but it shouldn't be outlawed through legal means.
You're right - I'm no lover of Liverpool but was capable of using my own brain and not believing the police/press, who have proven time and time again they can't be trusted.
Well done covered end for putting up the text of the commons statement. Perhaps some of the people on here might like to read what has been stated, and reflect on there ill judged comments and have the bravery to admit they were incorrect. As others have posted this affects all fans, but the families of the deceased, and the guilty offender. Be interesting to see what the sun says tommorow eh!......
41 could potentially have been saved - 41 of a range of ages, not only did they die that day, but so did the children they were never able to have, the grandchildren never born. To me that is a massively sobering fact and is why the release of the papers was so important. It was avoidable and those involved were culpable.
Personally I think this justice movement must acknowledge that the Liverpool fans at that point in time (1980s) had a habit of going to many games without tickets or getting forged tickets, sneaking in however they could, this sounds harsh but it's is very true and despite how they try and sweep it under the carpet just isn't right, that said the Police that day was totally inadequate and although there was crushing outside, well, by opening the exit gate magnified it by 100s, they all headed for the tunnel at once and not showed to the wings (outside pens), this was another problem.
Liverpool fans were allocated 2,000 tickets for the lowers tier, from what I saw there were about 6-7 k trying to get in.
Piggy, here is a quote from the report
The evidence shows "conclusively" that Liverpool fans "neither caused nor contributed to the deaths"
I think you may want to re-evaluate your opinions on this one as they are not based on the evidence that came out today.
Personally I think this justice movement must acknowledge that the Liverpool fans at that point in time (1980s) had a habit of going to many games without tickets or getting forged tickets, sneaking in however they could, this sounds harsh but it's is very true and despite how they try and sweep it under the carpet just isn't right, that said the Police that day was totally inadequate and although there was crushing outside, well, by opening the exit gate magnified it by 100s, they all headed for the tunnel at once and not showed to the wings (outside pens), this was another problem.
Liverpool fans were allocated 2,000 tickets for the lowers tier, from what I saw there were about 6-7 k trying to get in.
The F.A may have to look at themselves too, Why did they choose a semi final at Hillsborough in no safety certificate was issues, or was this 'common practice' in the 80's? only the F.A would know this answer.
The way I see it, it was a chain of events that led to it happening, not just one thing.
Whatever the outcome, 96 innocent lives were lost that day and this needs closing so everyone can get on with their lives.
I think it is difficult and immotive subject for Sheff Wednesday fans. They are football fans like the rest of us, but their club - or more precisely - those who were in charge of it at the time played a big part in this tragedy. You can understand an element of denial, especially when you see fans of other clubs, including ours taking similar ill-informed viewpoints.
The most sickening part of the report, and it's a horrfic read, is that 41 could have, and should have been saved on that day, and yet the emergency services let them down so badly
I see McKenzie's now trying to wriggle saying he was given wrong info. I always thought honorable journalists checked their sources first. The man's a total mug.
I see McKenzie's now trying to wriggle saying he was given wrong info. I always thought honorable journalists checked their sources first. The man's a total mug.
"Arnold, who wrote the story, has explained to a BBC programme how it came about, saying he was "aghast" when he saw that it would be headlined "The Truth".
He said his story had been written in a "fair and balanced way" because he understood that the claims - which were later shown to be totally unfounded - were no more than "allegations".
He said it was the editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, who wrote the headline. "I was about to leave the newsroom when I saw him drawing up the front page," said Arnold.
"When I saw the headline, 'The Truth,' I was aghast, because that wasn't what I'd written. I'd never used the words the truth... I still believe [I wrote it] in a balanced and fair way.
"So I said to Kelvin MacKenzie, 'You can't say that'. And he said 'Why not?' and I said, 'because we don't know that it's the truth. This is a version of 'the truth'."
Arnold, who left The Sun in 1990 to join the Daily Mirror, continued: "He brushed it aside and said, 'Oh don't worry. I'm going to make it clear that this is what some people are saying'.
"And I walked away thinking, well I'm not happy with the situation. But the fact is reporters don't argue with an editor. And, in particular, you don't argue with an editor like Kelvin MacKenzie."
Personally I think this justice movement must acknowledge that the Liverpool fans at that point in time (1980s) had a habit of going to many games without tickets or getting forged tickets, sneaking in however they could, this sounds harsh but it's is very true and despite how they try and sweep it under the carpet just isn't right, that said the Police that day was totally inadequate and although there was crushing outside, well, by opening the exit gate magnified it by 100s, they all headed for the tunnel at once and not showed to the wings (outside pens), this was another problem.
Liverpool fans were allocated 2,000 tickets for the lowers tier, from what I saw there were about 6-7 k trying to get in.
Piggy, here is a quote from the report
The evidence shows "conclusively" that Liverpool fans "neither caused nor contributed to the deaths"
I think you may want to re-evaluate your opinions on this one as they are not based on the evidence that came out today.
Where did I say the blame lies solely with them? re read it, but I cannot see how this can be so ignorantly ignored, maybe because it was them that bared the ultimate consequence that people just skim over this, how is it more fans that got inside can be ignored, okay controlled by the stupid police and by opening the gate they shouldn't of and for that reason they should be held accountable but did the police really know how many fans were outside trying to get inside the stadium without tickets?, probably not (another failure by syp) but I'd hazard I guess it was way more then the 2k they were allocated, therefore some of the blame had to be with those that travelled to the game without a ticket.
Has anyone heard any Lpool fans openly saying they went to Hillboro' without a ticket hoping to get in like in 88' - no me neither, wonder why?
But like I say, the police was woefully inadequate especially Dukenfield and a chain of events contributed to the events that followed.
I'm in no way wanting to deflect the blame onto Liverpool fans but I do feel that this part that never seems to get told should be told too if everyone eants to 'come clean'.
Personally I think this justice movement must acknowledge that the Liverpool fans at that point in time (1980s) had a habit of going to many games without tickets or getting forged tickets, sneaking in however they could, this sounds harsh but it's is very true and despite how they try and sweep it under the carpet just isn't right, that said the Police that day was totally inadequate and although there was crushing outside, well, by opening the exit gate magnified it by 100s, they all headed for the tunnel at once and not showed to the wings (outside pens), this was another problem.
Liverpool fans were allocated 2,000 tickets for the lowers tier, from what I saw there were about 6-7 k trying to get in.
Piggy, here is a quote from the report
The evidence shows "conclusively" that Liverpool fans "neither caused nor contributed to the deaths"
I think you may want to re-evaluate your opinions on this one as they are not based on the evidence that came out today.
Where did I say the blame lies solely with them? re read it, but I cannot see how this can be so ignorantly ignored, maybe because it was them that bared the ultimate consequence that people just skim over this, how is it more fans that got inside can be ignored, okay controlled by the stupid police and by opening the gate they shouldn't of and for that reason they should be held accountable but did the police really know how many fans were outside trying to get inside the stadium without tickets?, probably not (another failure by syp) but I'd hazard I guess it was way more then the 2k they were allocated, therefore some of the blame had to be with those that travelled to the game without a ticket.
Has anyone heard any Lpool fans openly saying they went to Hillboro' without a ticket hoping to get in like in 88' - no me neither, wonder why?
But like I say, the police was woefully inadequate especially Dukenfield and a chain of events contributed to the events that followed.
I'm in no way wanting to deflect the blame onto Liverpool fans but I do feel that this part that never seems to get told should be told too if everyone eants to 'come clean'.
But the fact you are continuing to question their role in events when his report clearly states they had nothing to do with it. Even saying they were a little bit involved is wrong.
The most sickening part of the report, and it's a horrfic read, is that 41 could have, and should have been saved on that day, and yet the emergency services let them down so badly
For operation pig, the opening lines of the report are: "The disclosed documents show that multiple factors were responsible for the deaths of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough tragedy and that the fans were not the cause of the disaster"
FOD. TBF to Boris Johnson he was commenting on the facts that were presented as the truth. Had he known the extent of the police lies, then of course he wouldn't have said that.
The most sickening part of the report, and it's a horrfic read, is that 41 could have, and should have been saved on that day, and yet the emergency services let them down so badly
For operation pig, the opening lines of the report are: "The disclosed documents show that multiple factors were responsible for the deaths of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough tragedy and that the fans were not the cause of the disaster"
FOD. TBF to Boris Johnson he was commenting on the facts that were presented as the truth. Had he known the extent of the police lies, then of course he wouldn't have said that.
FOD. TBF to Boris Johnson he was commenting on the facts that were presented as the truth. Had he known the extent of the police lies, then of course he wouldn't have said that.
Boris Johnson was talking rubbish and can't be excused as you state. The Taylor report was in existance well before this date.
FOD. TBF to Boris Johnson he was commenting on the facts that were presented as the truth. Had he known the extent of the police lies, then of course he wouldn't have said that.
Same as McKenzie then? Both are liars.
Disagree. Arnold The Sun journalist, said it was what he had been told by The Sheffield News Agency. McKenzie sensationalised it on purpose, against Arnold's wishes according to Arnold. McKenzie presented it as a fact.
Ive spoken to my Dad about the whole thing today. He doesn't talk about it often as it upsets him a great deal - and even today he was still upset, angry and very emotional about the whole thing.
He was working on the Players Entrance that day - as he did for many many years. As the drama was unfolding he was party to numerous conversations on a police radio - as a Policeman was posted on the door that day. Dads responsibilities mostly were restricted to issuing complimentary tickets to players friends and family on Semi Final days.
Some of the things he heard included a communication from a mounted policeman "I'm in trouble - the horses feet havent touched the ground in 5 minutes", and the horse had also been victim to numerous cigarettes being stubbed out on it in an attempt to force it to move out of the way.
There were up to 100 fans still milling around the Players Entrance trying to get tickets off the players 30 minutes before kick off - My Dad can't remember which player it was - who came outside with 4 stewards vests and tried to smuggle 4 supporters in to the ground through the Players Entrance - this was reported to the Club Secretary...
The whole day wreaked of havoc. Unconscious fans were being brought past him at the door on all manner of makeshift stretchers to ambulances that just werent there - time wasted for people literally taking their last breaths - and they were then taken back down the tunnel to the pitch only to be sent back to more ambulances that weren't there.
Police in those days prepared themselves for trouble - they assumed (usually quite rightly) that trouble would be the only problem that would arise. They were woefully unprepared for what unfolded - I don't blame anyone for what happened - there was no way Duckinfield could have known what was to happen when he gave the order.
Its wrong that things have been covered up to cover the backs of the Police - but IMHO it still doesn't absolve everyone else of blame. Anyone who thought it was fun to be involved in hooliganism in those days is as responsible as the Police, the Liverpool fans and whoever else - because without you idiots fences in grounds would never have been necessary. We were all treated like animals because a large number of fans in those days were animals.
Dad finished the season in his duties on the Players Entrance that season after working in the role for 28 years. He saw more dead people that day than he had ever seen in his life - and that included kids the same age as me who had turned up to watch a football match. Like I did - all over the country.
He was interviewed by the Police - his statement may well be one of those released today. The Policeman who interviewed him told him his statement was irrelevant because he wasn't in sight of the Leppings Lane End. Todays news makes me wonder if it was irrelavant because he criticised the lack of ambulances outside the South Stand.
2.5.53 Taken together, these features of the post mortem reports not only confirm Dr West’s conclusion that some individuals died later than 3.15pm, but more significantly they imply that there remains considerable doubt concerning the assumption that once maximum compression had occurred in the central pens the outcome was predetermined for all who died, and that no new factor could have intervened in the chain of causation of death.
2.5.54 This was a key part of the Coroner’s reasoning leading to his determination of the 3.15pm cut-off, and his decision not to systematically consider evidence post 3.15 at the generic inquest. In reviewing this decision Lord Justice Stuart-Smith defended the Coroner’s approach: It should be noted that the Coroner did not say that all those who died did so before 3.15, or that the medical evidence was to this effect … Nor did he say that all those who became unconscious subsequently died. The evidence was that it was only those people whose chests were in a state of permanent fixation as a result of the crush for four to six minutes, so that they could not breathe at all for that time, whose condition was irreversible.26
2.5.55 The evidence that in some people respiration and circulation continued for a significant period, from the release of compression until they died, clearly challenges the assumption that their condition was irreversible. Some in this condition survived after treatment in an intensive care unit, while some died at the ground. It is likely that what happened to them during that period played a major part in determining the outcome.
2.5.56 This point was clearly illustrated by Dr James Burns, a forensic pathologist who reviewed a single post mortem report at the request of a bereaved family: ... in the case of a person removed from the enclosure at, say, 3.10pm and who was unconscious, but not brain dead, and was then placed in a position other than the correct ‘recovery’ position, or who, having been placed in the correct position, such a position was not maintained, a feared consequence, an inadequate airway, may well have produced a prolonged state of unconsciousness, with death eventually occurring at a much later time than 3.15pm.
2.5.57 Dr Burns and Dr West had access only to a few post mortem reports of those who died at Hillsborough. A systematic review of all disclosed reports shows that 28 clearly had no signs of venous compression and that traumatic asphyxia, at least in its ‘classic’ form, was not an appropriate description of the cause of death.
2.5.58 There is also evidence in 31 cases that circulation and respiration continued for a period of time, sufficient in 16 for cerebral oedema to progress to its fullest extent. This renders untenable the notion, first voiced by the Coroner before any post mortems had been carried out, of a single, unvarying cause and pattern of death.
2.5.59 Further, it challenges the Coroner’s conclusion that nothing that happened after release from the pens could affect survival. On the one hand, basic first aid aimed at clearing and maintaining an airway might have kept people alive long enough for them to be treated in hospital, as in the case of those people admitted to hospital who subsequently developed cerebral oedema, all but one of whom survived.
2.5.60 On the other hand, placing an unconscious person flat on their back, as is known to have happened in some cases, potentially would lead to further asphyxia from obstruction of the airway. Unless promptly relieved this would most likely prove fatal, without leaving any further post mortem signs in addition to those already expected from asphyxia due to restriction of breathing by chest compression.
Comments
An hour before the announcement in the HOC, a very good friend of mine was still stating he believed it was the fans that were to blame. His view was prejudiced by an "anti scouser, they are all scalliwags" feeling that a lot of Londoners have about Liverpool supporters. The vile MacKenzie was tapping into this view when he put the story out in The Sun.
Please can we now accept the truth was that the fans were blameless.
You're right - I'm no lover of Liverpool but was capable of using my own brain and not believing the police/press, who have proven time and time again they can't be trusted.
Perhaps some of the people on here might like to read what has been stated, and reflect on there ill judged comments and have the bravery to admit they were incorrect.
As others have posted this affects all fans, but the families of the deceased, and the guilty offender.
Be interesting to see what the sun says tommorow eh!......
It's scary how much people trust the media and police force.
There appears to be no EVIDENCE whatsoever, to suggest Liverpool fans did anything wrong.
It could have been us from what I can glean.
RIP the 96 & I think with the evidence now seen, we must surely all agree.
The evidence shows "conclusively" that Liverpool fans "neither caused nor contributed to the deaths"
I think you may want to re-evaluate your opinions on this one as they are not based on the evidence that came out today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/07/hillsborough-disaster-sun
"Arnold, who wrote the story, has explained to a BBC programme how it came about, saying he was "aghast" when he saw that it would be headlined "The Truth".
He said his story had been written in a "fair and balanced way" because he understood that the claims - which were later shown to be totally unfounded - were no more than "allegations".
He said it was the editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, who wrote the headline. "I was about to leave the newsroom when I saw him drawing up the front page," said Arnold.
"When I saw the headline, 'The Truth,' I was aghast, because that wasn't what I'd written. I'd never used the words the truth... I still believe [I wrote it] in a balanced and fair way.
"So I said to Kelvin MacKenzie, 'You can't say that'. And he said 'Why not?' and I said, 'because we don't know that it's the truth. This is a version of 'the truth'."
Arnold, who left The Sun in 1990 to join the Daily Mirror, continued: "He brushed it aside and said, 'Oh don't worry. I'm going to make it clear that this is what some people are saying'.
"And I walked away thinking, well I'm not happy with the situation. But the fact is reporters don't argue with an editor. And, in particular, you don't argue with an editor like Kelvin MacKenzie."
Has anyone heard any Lpool fans openly saying they went to Hillboro' without a ticket hoping to get in like in 88' - no me neither, wonder why?
But like I say, the police was woefully inadequate especially Dukenfield and a chain of events contributed to the events that followed.
I'm in no way wanting to deflect the blame onto Liverpool fans but I do feel that this part that never seems to get told should be told too if everyone eants to 'come clean'.
For operation pig, the opening lines of the report are:
"The disclosed documents show that multiple factors were responsible for the deaths of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough tragedy and that the fans were not the cause of the disaster"
I still maintain though that had the ticket-less fans not been there, there wouldn't have been a problem........
He was working on the Players Entrance that day - as he did for many many years. As the drama was unfolding he was party to numerous conversations on a police radio - as a Policeman was posted on the door that day. Dads responsibilities mostly were restricted to issuing complimentary tickets to players friends and family on Semi Final days.
Some of the things he heard included a communication from a mounted policeman "I'm in trouble - the horses feet havent touched the ground in 5 minutes", and the horse had also been victim to numerous cigarettes being stubbed out on it in an attempt to force it to move out of the way.
There were up to 100 fans still milling around the Players Entrance trying to get tickets off the players 30 minutes before kick off - My Dad can't remember which player it was - who came outside with 4 stewards vests and tried to smuggle 4 supporters in to the ground through the Players Entrance - this was reported to the Club Secretary...
The whole day wreaked of havoc. Unconscious fans were being brought past him at the door on all manner of makeshift stretchers to ambulances that just werent there - time wasted for people literally taking their last breaths - and they were then taken back down the tunnel to the pitch only to be sent back to more ambulances that weren't there.
Police in those days prepared themselves for trouble - they assumed (usually quite rightly) that trouble would be the only problem that would arise. They were woefully unprepared for what unfolded - I don't blame anyone for what happened - there was no way Duckinfield could have known what was to happen when he gave the order.
Its wrong that things have been covered up to cover the backs of the Police - but IMHO it still doesn't absolve everyone else of blame. Anyone who thought it was fun to be involved in hooliganism in those days is as responsible as the Police, the Liverpool fans and whoever else - because without you idiots fences in grounds would never have been necessary. We were all treated like animals because a large number of fans in those days were animals.
Dad finished the season in his duties on the Players Entrance that season after working in the role for 28 years. He saw more dead people that day than he had ever seen in his life - and that included kids the same age as me who had turned up to watch a football match. Like I did - all over the country.
He was interviewed by the Police - his statement may well be one of those released today. The Policeman who interviewed him told him his statement was irrelevant because he wasn't in sight of the Leppings Lane End. Todays news makes me wonder if it was irrelavant because he criticised the lack of ambulances outside the South Stand.
Sorry - bit of a ramble...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Owlstalk.
here's the part of the report from page 166
2.5.53 Taken together, these features of the post mortem reports not only confirm Dr West’s
conclusion that some individuals died later than 3.15pm, but more significantly they imply
that there remains considerable doubt concerning the assumption that once maximum
compression had occurred in the central pens the outcome was predetermined for all who
died, and that no new factor could have intervened in the chain of causation of death.
2.5.54 This was a key part of the Coroner’s reasoning leading to his determination of the
3.15pm cut-off, and his decision not to systematically consider evidence post 3.15 at the
generic inquest. In reviewing this decision Lord Justice Stuart-Smith defended the Coroner’s
approach:
It should be noted that the Coroner did not say that all those who died did so before
3.15, or that the medical evidence was to this effect … Nor did he say that all those
who became unconscious subsequently died. The evidence was that it was only
those people whose chests were in a state of permanent fixation as a result of the
crush for four to six minutes, so that they could not breathe at all for that time, whose
condition was irreversible.26
2.5.55 The evidence that in some people respiration and circulation continued for a
significant period, from the release of compression until they died, clearly challenges the
assumption that their condition was irreversible. Some in this condition survived after
treatment in an intensive care unit, while some died at the ground. It is likely that what
happened to them during that period played a major part in determining the outcome.
2.5.56 This point was clearly illustrated by Dr James Burns, a forensic pathologist who
reviewed a single post mortem report at the request of a bereaved family:
... in the case of a person removed from the enclosure at, say, 3.10pm and who was
unconscious, but not brain dead, and was then placed in a position other than the
correct ‘recovery’ position, or who, having been placed in the correct position, such
a position was not maintained, a feared consequence, an inadequate airway, may
well have produced a prolonged state of unconsciousness, with death eventually
occurring at a much later time than 3.15pm.
2.5.57 Dr Burns and Dr West had access only to a few post mortem reports of those who
died at Hillsborough. A systematic review of all disclosed reports shows that 28 clearly had
no signs of venous compression and that traumatic asphyxia, at least in its ‘classic’ form,
was not an appropriate description of the cause of death.
2.5.58 There is also evidence in 31 cases that circulation and respiration continued for
a period of time, sufficient in 16 for cerebral oedema to progress to its fullest extent. This
renders untenable the notion, first voiced by the Coroner before any post mortems had been carried out, of a single, unvarying cause and pattern of death.
2.5.59 Further, it challenges the Coroner’s conclusion that nothing that happened after
release from the pens could affect survival. On the one hand, basic first aid aimed at
clearing and maintaining an airway might have kept people alive long enough for them to be treated in hospital, as in the case of those people admitted to hospital who subsequently developed cerebral oedema, all but one of whom survived.
2.5.60 On the other hand, placing an unconscious person flat on their back, as is known to
have happened in some cases, potentially would lead to further asphyxia from obstruction
of the airway. Unless promptly relieved this would most likely prove fatal, without leaving
any further post mortem signs in addition to those already expected from asphyxia due to
restriction of breathing by chest compression.