Phil, your post was going well up until around the halfway point, and there was much in the first half of your post I agree with that would have got an upvote, then you started to trail off. But in particular the point about âthe Liverpool fans will never be innocentâ (for me at least) comes over as needlessly insensitive, (especially considering that they have just been declared so in court).
I was only young at the time, but I still remember watching the horrific drama unfolding on live TV, such was its impact on me at the time. I clearly remember my dad shouting out âbut why are they still letting more and more people in?! Canât they see whatâs happening?!â
The whole horrible episode could (and should) have been avoided with a touch of common sense at the gates, and above all, simple communication. The cover-up that happened from that point onwards, was just the same old disgraceful Establishment cunts doing what they do best, and trying to save their own asses from having their sins exposed to the world (at the expense of ruining the lives of others). Time and time again it is proved, that Truth and Justice are the sacrificial lambs of the Establishment, doing what ever the fuck they want, and effectively getting away with âmurderâ.
No one it seems is ever honourable and decent enough these days, to take responsibility for their own actions, and would far rather condemn others to a life of unjust turmoil and distress, all to escape facing the consequences of their own poor choices.
If theyâd have just simply told the truth, owned up to the mistakes that were made at the time of their occurrence, yes, there would have been repercussions, but far less severe than what they will now face for their callous lies (and utterly needless suffering they have caused others) and charges of âconspiracy to cover up a crimeâ that should now befall them.
Instead, they added years upon years of insult to those injuries.
Maybe lessons will be learned as a result â but somehow â I very much doubt it. 
If anyone is still thinking that Liverpool supporters bore any kind of guilt, complicity or whatever in the horrific events of that day, a read of this article by David Conn should hopefully dispel such thoughts. Thereâs an awful lot in there that could be quoted, but Iâll just pick one thing here - in response to Gayâs comments that it was those who arrived early who lost their lives. In actual fact, 30 of the 96 who died had been outside the ground at 2:52pm.
Thanks Jack where I said THE Liverpool fans I may have been better served saying the late arriving Liverpool fans. That is the issue with a minor brain fart and missing one word. And then the brain says perhaps âA number ofâ the late arriving Liverpool fans.
Iâm not going to cheapen the thread anymore I accept people disagree. My ex in laws were Scousers and we talked this through many many times before I got away from them.
Football fans of that era were a different breed to those today. The Police were to blame for it never disputed that. But even my Scouse season ticket ex Father in Law agreed that in the 80âs a percentage of the supporters of every football club were (by modern standards) lawless scum, and that percentage was higher then than it is today (thanks to the invention of Prawn Sandwiches).
The Police should have closed off Leppings Lane further up ot was that simple. They didnât. But I have not to this point read any evidence that the Police made the supporters run.
That makes me a cnut. Fair nuff
I guess this is why its such a sensitive issue and I would hope that we are adult enough to discuss it. Can some one please explain why asking this question should be taboo and end up being riduculed?
It is acknowledged now by all (including a ourt of law) that the cause of this tragedy was the a combination of the âperfect stromâ of events- from the cages themselves,locked gates, poor infrastructure, poor decisons and a failure by those accountable for safety and wellbeing of the crowd to exercise appropriate and corrcet decisions. No one disputes this now.
But the sad fact remians, had any one of these NOT occured, had the gates at front been openable, and appropriate in size, had the gates to teh side pensbeen openâŚetc etc⌠thenwe woudlbe talking of a monumental cock up by not the tragic loss of life.
However, is it not also correct to include in this 'perfect stormâthe part played by fans in rushing through as soon as the gates were opened? Why do crowds behave like this, when we all knowits dangerous, evenwithout barriers, gates and pens, someone falls and injuries occur⌠we know this, its common sense, yet we seem to feel that this had no impact on the events of that day? I am not trying to be a cunt about this or find blame where there is none, but I cannot see how crowd behaviour did not play some part in this no matter how innocently.
Its the reason we have safety controls, stewrads etc,to try and illimate risks associated with crowds, but even had all the decisons made that day been correct and by the book for H+S, there could still have been crushes because of the way crowds behave. What am I missing?
I have read this⌠and as said above, This is not some desire to blame fans, but to undesrtand how crowd behaviour by its very nature is dangerous - the article has a graphic that states âfans rush in through tunnel to already full pens 3 and 4â - now my question remains as to why crowds do this when we all know its dangerous, and can lead to injury or people in front if we are part of a bigger push - I have seen this myself thankfully without serious injury, when a bloke fell down the stairs at SMS becauseof a larger number of folk trying to get down the steps quickly and pushing him ⌠All I am asking is how could this not be considered a contributing factor, even if it might have been mitgated by appropriate and proper safety controls and decisons?
Let us NOt dispute the facts and the Inquest, and in my position I produce The Guardian as evidence as I know most trust them more than say the Fail or the two scumpapers.
I draw to your attention:
âThe jury of six women and three men answered 14 questions relating to the events in Sheffield of 15 April 1989, including one concerning the behaviour of supporters.â
"
1 | 2.50pm
Pens 3 and 4 on the lower terrace are full
2 | 2.52pm
Police order gate C to be opened to alleviate the crush outside the ground
3 | 2.59pm
Fans pour in, causing severe crushing in pens 3 and 4
4 | 3pm
Match kicks off. Five minutes later, a crush barrier inside pen 3 gives way"
Now I will not dispute the verdict nor the facts.
However.
- The Jury asked 14 questions. Those shouting me down, do you know WHAT those were? They were the terms of reference for the Verdict of course.
- The fans did NOT contribute to the deaths
But am I not entitled to ask one BLOODY obvious question that was not in the terms of reference?
What caused more than 2,000 fans to be in Leppings Lane outside the stadium 8 minutes before kick off?
What was the processing speed/capacity of the Turnstiles? Sorry, the VERDICT states blame on SWFC and Ommissions but does not give any detailsor list any points. How strange, considering other of the 14 questions received supplementary comments.
Why were the Fans Late?
Had their transport been delayed? Was there adequate coach parking? were the football special late? were they told to arrive late to avoid crowds in the City?
What was the impact of the road closures? Was the lateness caused by problems in walking to the ground or by people having to park further away than expected.
OR was the late arrivals crush due to people turning up late from the Pub - AS HAPPENS EVERY WEEK AT SMS?
The Terms of Reference of the Inquest did not answer these questions in the material I have been able to read online or have heard on TV - (actually TV is just the blame game now and rightly so)
But did British Rail contribute? Or did a SMALL percentage of the total attendace act like boorish 1980âs stereotypical football fans and turn up late ASSUMING they could get in on time?
Iâm still a cnut, send the Cops to Jail and ANYONE involved in the cover up, and I ainât starting any crusade which is why IMHO I have that opinion about some of the fans
PLEASE show me those missing answers.
Thousands were late because of an accident on the motorway. In addition, after the previous seasons semi final LFC had asked to have the other end of the ground as that was the direction most LFC fans would be coming from but SYOB said no.
On top of that, the plan, that had always been used for big games, had been abandoned when Duckenworth took charge. This had a direct result of the crowd build up at the Lepping Lane end and the fatal mistake of opening the gate that led directly into the already full pens. The weight of the crowd behind would have created a surge pushing those near the gate through it. Duckenworth admitted he froze and then simply paniced.
All of this has been known for 27 years.
ââThe weight of the crowd behind would have created a surge pushing those near the gate through itââ
Yep⌠no doubt âŚbut my question is why do people behave in this way as to create the crush at the gate to start with? Surely when you see a crowd thatthatis going no where because the way blocked you dont add yourself to the crowd, I would stay back and well out of it knowing this is not a great place to be⌠it was not a stampede, trying to escape a fire or something, but people going to a game. This is what i dont understand and does not make sense, because its not a rational thing to do⌠As such I cant see how this âcrushing at the gateâ - was not a factor?
This is very emotive and controvercial, but had there NOT been a huge cover up but a full and proper disclosure of the truth and failings of the police and safety procedures on the day, would there be more desire to see how crowd safety could be improved as a result of typical crowd behaviour?
Its as if no one is allowed to criticise crowd behaviour in case its seen as blaming fansâŚ
If youâve been to SWFC youâll know that the Leppings Lane end is a funnel. Once in you donât get out. If the same plan that had been used the season before had been employed it wouldnât have happened as it was designed to stop the mass build up in that funnel.
I cant tell if Phil is a âclueless cuntâ as I was put off by the random use of Capital Letters throughout his Post.
So, in the Inquest, why was there no mention that the FA themselves should also shoulder some blame?
Anyone who has been to a game at that end of the ground would agree with you that road is a nightmare. Yet it was allowed to stage big games. (How many big games did the ground stage before the fateful semi?)
Somebody took note of the traffic issues because games are now delayed if there have been problems. Serious question - who at the ground that day did NOT request that the match was delayed.
Was the Live TV coverage a factor? a fear of delaying the TV? did a Producer put pressure for an on time kick off? or was it a part of the assumptions that caused the chain of disasterous events.
Finally. in the video of the fans rushing into the ground, were the looks on their faces that of people scared by the crush outside (caused by the Police) or were many of them sporting large grins or smiles or chanting and happy to have gained admission?
Ultimately, all anyone wanted was the truth. Because only when you understand all that went wrong can some good come from such a tragedy, in that we learn from those mistakes made and minimise the risk of it happening again.
Unfortunately, the legacy of the attempted cover up and lies spread in both media and by Government, has made it very difficult to ask the difficult questions, without being lumped in with those that wanted to spread lies and disinformation at the very start. For me, this sadly makes understanding the whole truth much more difficult. It is vital that the dispicable attempts to lie by those in power are treated as a seperate issue from understanding what contruibuted to the tragedy.
This problem is made worse because many dont seem to be able to differentiate between who is accountable and therefore âto blameâ versus those who had responsibility. To me its an imporatnt disctinction, because having responsibilty, does NOT necessarily mean you are to blame.
Lets be absolutely clear. Those in charge of safety and security failed. It was their failure to do their duty for which they are accountable, that is to blame for the tragedy.
However, I think what Phil and to some extent Bearsy are saying is that we as individuals are also repsonsible for our own actions. We can behave in a way that minimises risk to ourselves and others, or we can not. If we chose to behave in ways that increase risk, then surely that becomes a contributing factor in any subsequent problem. e/g, the case of the older man falling over at SMS, I could choose to stay in my seat and wait until there are less folks trying to get down the steps or I could just go for it. Am I to blame for him falling? No. Stewards and others should have controlled the numbers, as they are there for our safety.
But did my actions contribute to the chances of this happening? Yes. Why does its sees so unpaletable and even taboo to suggest the crowd at the game, impatient outside causing a crush, were not also contributing to the risk?
It is clear that the police failed to control the flow of fans into that bottleneck. But are we not also responsible for our selves and our own actions as difficult as that might be to accept and deal with? Its an horrendous situation for anyone to find themselves in as none of those fans were doing anything intentionally to cause problems, but the actions of crowds does add to the risks.
If asking this question, or sharing this perspective makes me a cunt, so be it. I just feel that if we do not ask these questions, can we we really say weare learning all we can about crowd behaviour and therefore how to ensure the risks of such tragedies are minimised?
Sir Bernard InghamâŚstill refusing to apologise for writing an aggresive letter to a relative in 1996 and describing Liverpool fans as tanked-up yobs.
And heâs still sir Bernard?
His family must be really proud.
What did your grandad do?
Oh, he lied a lot for money - and went out of his way to inflict misery and heartache on parents who had buried their children.
What a fucking disgraceful human being.
Sigh.
Can those people that are STILL blaming fans please tell me why they are so desperate to do so?
I know youâre only âasking questionsâ, but seriously, do you think youâre going to get any fucking answers here that havenât had more time spent on them elsewhere?
Iâd guess that youâve all said similar stuff before the results of the inquest came out, feel pretty shitty about it, and are now looking for some mitigating factors to make you feel less shitty.
Thereâs no fucking need, lads. You were duped by a collective of cunts, comprising of governments, corrupt coppers and media interests. That is a pretty powerful combination, so powerful that it took 27 years to unravel.
Thereâs no shame in being duped, but there is considerable shame in continuing to blame the blameless just to make yourselves feel better.
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Nope, not it all Pap. Its nothing to do with blaming fans or blame, but all to do with the complete picture. You suggesting we were âdupedâ or looking for mitigating factorsâ is pretty low mate, and I dont feel shitty about anything⌠Still no one has answered a very simple questionâŚ
It was the job of the inquest to answer the question. They had access to a great deal more information than we did, and had the necessary time to peruse it. They concluded:-
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?
Juryâs answer: No
I appreciate that this is a summary, but a more extended answer is out there waiting for you, if you want to hear it. If the methodology and conclusions of the longest inquest in British history havenât yet convinced you, I fail to see what anyone can say here to make you change your mind.
Originally posted by @pap
It was the job of the inquest to answer the question. They had access to a great deal more information than we did, and had the necessary time to peruse it. They concluded:-
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?
Juryâs answer: No
I appreciate that this is a summary, but a more extended answer is out there waiting for you, if you want to hear it. If the methodology and conclusions of the longest inquest in British history havenât yet convinced you, I fail to see what anyone can say here to make you change your mind.
Luckily I didnât comment before the inquest result
I also FULLY accept the Juryâs Decision. I am not on TSW and so I am not looking to impose the nagging questions in my brain on everyone else.
The inquest happened because of cover ups and ommissions over the past 27 years. This Inquest was given specific terms of reference and judgement has been passed.
Now OUTSIDE this instance. Would YOU say that lessons learnt from the Terms of Reference should be taken on board and learnt from? Obviously yes.
Would you then say that Lessons learnt that were OUTSIDE the terms of reference ignored? No. In fact there have been protocols where games anre now delayed for traffic issues etc.
Outside the terms of reference how about âDid Millwall and Leeds or other teams fans who copied their behaviour contribute to the deaths?â Duh yes of COURSE they did.
Why? because THE BEHAVIOUR OF FANS led to the building of Fences around grounds. Which due to the flawed design and safety concepts ultimately trapped so many.
On this point,surely this is a discussion forum, where opinion is presented - the fact that folk are asking others to comment or provide a POV is in my mind at least out of respect for others opinion. There are Plenty of other issues on here where folk are openly questioning legal decisons, government policy, official stance, you yourself pap engage in such discussion.
So why is it that in this case, the official judgemnets, can not be commented on? Are the sensitivities over the initial lies and misinformation influencing opinion on this?