David Duckienfield.

1 ticketless fan is simple physics? Capacity wasn't the issue - both side pens had space - the crowd surging towards central pen caused the crush. This almost occurred previous year and Coventry v Leeds in 87

 

Yes one fan in a crush adds to the crush. There is only a set amount of space in the area outside the turnstiles, EVERY fan there takes up some of that space. Every person who was there without a ticket contributed. Its physics, surely you understand that

 

To be honest no. Crowd outside was the issue in opening the gates but overcrowding in central pen was the cause of death - both side pens had space. The same had almost happened the previous year and also at Coventry Leeds game.

I agree about fans being architects of their own downfall but I believe fans not being sent to outer pens caused the crush.

 

It was Spurs v Wolves and fans ended up sat around the pitch perimeter such was the crush in those central pens. I went to a big game at Hillsboro and when the central pens were full, two police horses blocked the entrance tunnel and fans were guided around the sides. This didn't happen at the Liverpool game.Those vertical fences that split the end into 4 were totally unnecessary and were the root cause if the tragedy. Even hooligans only needed a fence pitchside to keep them from encroaching onto the pitch.

 

******* grow up you silly little boy. I’ve been outside leppings lane for away matches and been dispersed proportionately and properly by good policing. This was a case of someone without the skills to do the job. Manslaughter is years too late for this lovely person and what he asked serving bobbies to cover up for his ineptitude should also be put on record. I would take the shitehouses pension and every single one of his family’s assets that they’ve accrued since.

 

I can remember going to a Weds V man Utd game at Hillsborough with a mate and being in the away end - we could see central pen was full and instinctively moved to the side. Awful lay out in that end

 

But the gate was opened because of fans outside. Every fan out there took up space and so contributed to the 'need' to open the gate. They went to the central pen after and because of the gate opening.

 

Only the big old grounds had fencing and pens like Leppings lane in the 80s .. Liverpool, man Utd Everton Leeds etc..it was the old caste iron type... not the modern 80s aluminium stuff put up in all grounds then (due to the govt) which would collapse if there was a crush ...as was what happened when Leeds played us

 

Didn't I say the gates were opened because of the people outside?

 

Saw that happen loads of times at big games

 

And if one person or 100p people were in the crush outside without a ticket then physics dictates that they contributed to that decision being taken

 

Expert structural engineer John Cutlack calculated that 14,264 fans entered the ground for the west stand, west terrace or north-west terrace. The figure included fans who had entered via turnstiles, through gate C when it was opened on two occasions, or by climbing over the wall. The figure was 300 lower than the number of fans who had bought tickets for that area, suggesting a lack of organisation by the authorities inside the ground in terms of directing supporters away from the two central pens.

Further doubt was cast on officers allegations by the many hours of CCTV, film and photographic evidence shown in court. This confirmed a distinct absence of aggressive conduct , drunkenness of fans or searching for tickets. In fact, the visual evidence demonstrated the helplessness at the turnstiles and in the pens and the abject failure of the police to respond appropriately.

(Summary from www.socialistworker.co.uk 26th April 2016 and Hillsborough, The Truth by Phil Scraton)

 

There's been an inquest on it suppertyke.. with some of the greatest legal minds and physicians in the business on it. who've come to the conclusion that the authorities fkd up , then tried to cover it up.
I'll post a link to report in a bit

 

I've read the enquiry. I've also acknowledged that earlier in this thread. I also said that physics dictate that the point raised was a fact which it is

 

A fall guy for the establishment.

 

It was a murder trap waiting

my friend and I missed out on 2 tickets for the game due to the 235 huddy bus being late because of traffic. We used to stand exactly where the people died every time we went in the away end at Hillsboro. We were in our early teens, were good kids at school, good kids at home and short of a massive stroke of luck on our part may have been numbers 97 and 98. This inept twatwit may have been our murderer.

 

That's the impression I get too.

Where my sympathy completely evaporates is how he has acted in the aftermath. He has consistently lied. At first he claimed he didn't order the gate to be opened! And while we can all understand that to a certain extent, we all remember being sh*t scared as a kid, knowing we'd done summat wrong, knowing that had consequences, and not wanting to admit to it, Duckenfield was still lying 25 years later at the inquest, still refusing to answer questions, still claiming he couldn't remember.

It's not his fault he was put in that situation without the necessary experience. You can forgive a person making a mistake, even in such a tragedy like this. But right from the start he was attempting to cover his own arse. While people were actually dying. The cover up began while people were getting crushed to death. As people were trying to climb the perimeter fence to get out of that hell, his orders to the rank and file were to push them back in because the hooligans had broken through the gate.

Opening the gate is not Duckenfield's crime. It was a judgement call that he got wrong, but done so in the belief that he was alleviating a situation where people could have been hurt. Duckenfield's crime is that having quickly realised he'd made a bad decision, his efforts from that point forward were to cover up that mistake rather than help the people who were suffering due to his actions.

Hillsborough was a terrible choice for an FA Cup semi final. It wasn't safe. There should never have been fences penning us in at any football ground. There was no rhyme or reason for holding up so many coaches resulting in vast numbers of fans arriving at Leppings Lane with little chance of seeing the kick off. The officer in charge should have been someone with far more experience. They shouldn't have opened the gate. Having done so they should have directed fans to the side pens rather than allowing them down the tunnel. There should never have been pens! It was a clusterf*ck. But even at that stage the tragedy could have been averted.

From Duckenfield's position in the ground they could see what was happening. They didn't need cameras, they didn't need informing by someone else, they were overlooking it. All they had to do was instruct the police officers on the ground to open the gates in the perimeter fence and get people out. But the primary objective at that time was not crowd safety, it was to convey the lie that fans had stormed the gate. The primary objective was self preservation. At a time when something could still have been done.

F*ck David Duckenfield.

 

That stadium was not fit for purpose and as such compromised the safety of the public and those policing it

I hope that you are never in a position where you have to.make such a decision .

 

Spot on Again

 

A thoughtful post Jay, with many good points. The cover-up aspects are inexcusable, amounting as they do to dishonesty from a public servant. But the charge against D is manslaughter. The policing, of which he was in charge, was inept. But I just have a little unease in that the entire dreadful consequences look as though they may now be visited on his head. The decisions taken were bad ones, but could (should?) the awful consequences which followed have been foreseen? Did he intend harm to anyone? I am sure not. There is no doubt that he nevertheless owed a duty of care, but does his breach of that duty amount to the recklessness to the risk required to prove criminal liability? It's not enough to point to 95 deaths to answer that question - these are complex issues. It's right that they should be examined at a trial. I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision.