Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

[Bullet]

both sides need to accept their failings in the tragedy and stop trying to get universal agreement that it was completely somebody else's fault

Agreed

Some of the fans were perfect, some were total tossers, most were a bit of both

Same for the police

It wasn't wholly down to one group or individual

 

[Park Lane James]

Is it just a coincidence that it's happened to Liverpool twice?

Hillsborough, Athens, Istanbul - they've made a name for themselves with regards to showing up at ground without tickets and trying to force their way in.

 

[Park Lane James]

My take on events:

Background

Hillsborough was regularly used for FA Cup semi-finals along with the likes of Villa Park, Elland Road, Highbury, White Hart Lane etc due to its large capacity. The two main 'ends' for the respective supporters were the Kop and the Leppings Lane end. The latter being the far smaller of the two - yet usually the team with the larger away support would be housed in this part of the ground, which really doesn't make any sense to me! So for example, for our tie with Wolves in 1981 - the Spurs contingent were in the Leppings Lane and Wolves were in the Kop. To get a sense of perspective...

Leppings Lane end:



Kop:



As we can see, the Kop is by the larger of the two (all standing). The Leppings Lane had a combination of seating in the upper tier (and to the side a standing area) and terracing in the lower tier. Now as most of you will probably know, back in 1981 there was overcrowding in our game against Wolves. This led to a number of our fans climbing the fences at the front of the Leppings Lane in order to get our of the swelling terrace. I believe this was in the first two pens (of which the Leppings Lane lower had four). The club made an official complaint to the FA after the tie, of which the FA dismissed and did nothing about. The seeds were sewn and the incident in 1989 was inevitable, whether it would have been to Liverpool fans or those of another club. Turnstile operators were corrupt and many grounds were over 'capacity' for the big games. Had someone died in the '81 incident, then something might have been done earlier to make grounds (and the way in which they were run) safer.

1989

As Sheffield has alluded to - many Liverpool fans arrived at the ground minutes before the game or just after kick-off as they were busy drinking in local pubs beforehand. But which time, the two central pens (two and three) were already at capacity. Due to the sheer amount of people outside the turnstiles, a bottleneck occurred and there was pressure on police to resolves the situation by allowing the fans in before someone was seriously injured outside. The order came through to open the side gate and allow the Liverpool fans through the central tunnel (I believe this was the only way of entering the lower tier). The two other pens and the upper tier terracing were both well below capacity yet because of the demand for something to be done - the South Yorkshire police force did not guide the supporters to these areas of the Leppings Lane, which proved to be fatal. The rest is history, as those arriving late from outside were now eager to watch the action - to the detriment of their fellow supporters in front of them.

The disaster happened due to a combination of poor crowd control, communication, poor stadium design and regulation of ticket allocation. There was meant to be a number of Liverpool fans turn up to the game ticketless, but obviously this happened a lot at the time. The 1980's weren't exactly a bright point for football supporters! Both sides need to accept the blame in what was an unmitigated disaster which should never be seen at a British football ground ever again. As I have alluded in my post above, Liverpool fans are by no means angels - and have previous with regards to showing up at big games without a ticket and trying to get into the ground. And this was after Hillsborough, when 96 of their very own supporters were killed! Only then can we moved forward and catch up with the likes of the Germans both on and off the field.

I hope this has provided some useful information, and I'm more than willing to discuss it further.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Hallelujah! The words of common sense.....

A sudden influx of fans at the Leppings Lane end, arriving late, caused the problem in the first place. It built up quickly. If they hadn't done it, it wouldn't have happened. Its that simple. Many had been drinking. Thats a fact. Its not a crime, but it was ridiculous to leave it so late to leave the boozer. How many were ticketless... I don't know. Drink was said not to play a big part??? How is that made out?

I posted it on the last page:

Was Drunkenness a Major Factor in the Crisis at the Turnstiles?

196. Of those who arrived at 2.30 pm or after, very many had been drinking at public houses or had brought drink from home or an off-licence. I am satisfied on the evidence, however, that the great majority were not drunk nor even the worse for drink. The police witnesses varied on this. Some described a high proportion as drunk, as "lager-louts" or even as "animals". Others described a generally normal crowd with an unco-operative minority who had drunk too much. In my view some officers, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the drunken element in the crowd. There certainly was such an element. There were youngsters influenced by drink and bravado pushing impatiently at the rear of the crowd thereby exacerbating the crush. But the more convincing police witnesses, including especially Detective Superintendent McKay and Chief Inspector Creaser as well as a number of responsible civilian witnesses, were in my view right in describing this element as a minority. Those witnesses attributed the crush to the sheer numbers of fans all anxious to gain entry. There was no criticism of the crowd by any of the witnesses in the period up to 2.30 pm or even 2.35 pm. What happened then was not a sudden deterioration in the mood or sobriety of those assembled there. No doubt those coming behind would have had more to drink and would have included the unruly minority. But the crisis developed because this very large crowd became packed into a confined turnstile area and its very density hampered its passage through the turnstiles.

197. Superintendent Marshall and other officers criticised the crowd as unco-operative because police exhortations to stop pushing and to ease back were not heeded. How could they be? In that crush most people had no control over their movements at all. Two incidents involving police horses illustrate the point. One horse was found afterwards to have cigarette burns on its rump. Clearly that was the despicable work of a hooligan whether in drink or not. However, there were also eyewitness accounts of a horse being physically lifted off its feet by the crowd. That occurred, as the police accepted, without malice or intent but as an involuntary consequence of crowd pressure which those by the horse's flanks could not resist any more than the horse itself

I mean, it is all there in the report. Everything you said has been debunked time and time again. They weren't there late and they weren't ticketless. As for why the build up happened in the turnstile area, it was pure mismanagement. They finally dealt with the problem by blocking off anymore people coming into the area but far too late to solve the situation that was described above.

Neither of us were there but this report took hundreds of witness statements and interviewed numerous people who were there on the day. It is the best we have to go on and it is quite clear that the fans had little to do with it and any club would have suffered the same fate on the same day with the same circumstances.

You are right about Duckenfield but the fact it was his first game is no sort of excuse. No more than it would be for, lets say, a train driver on his first day. He still had a duty of care to those people. And it wasn't just the opening of the gates, it was allowing the build up in the area near the turnstiles (dealt with but too late), the opening of the gates and not then directing fans into the much emptier pens at the sides (Taylor calls the failure to give the order on this a 'blunder of the first magnitude'. As Taylor points out, all Duckenfield had in his mind was the potential for trouble. And when it came to (a highly flawed IMO) trial and all the evidence was put before a jury, at some of them agreed that he was guilty of manslaughter. I would say in just about any other profession, he would have served time for it.

The bottom line is, if it was so obviously the fans who were mainly at fault, why would you lie about everything from the off? If you have little to hide, why do it? The first thing he told Graham Kelly was that the fans forced the gates! He was sweating like John Leslie because he knew he was in serious trouble.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I would be inclined to believe the word of people I know well than a report fashioned by an authority.

Just my take. I would have trouble with faith in a report on anything like this, given the potential for unrest no matter what it said.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

I would be inclined to believe the word of people I know well than a report fashioned by an authority.

Well look at it this way: the report was based on, and contains, anecdotes from tons of people just like the ones you would know but also police officers etc. So if you would tend to believe them, then why not hundreds of people just like them who were eyewitnesses in the same way? All the reasoning for his conclusions is also laid out, so it is difficult to see how he would have been somehow motivated by the potential for unrest.

I still think the evidence leans somewhat in the other direction. A lot of evidence was not put before him which would have meant an even more damning verdict for the police. And the government certainly wouldn't have wanted such an outcome.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Because at that volume things can be interpreted as the author would prefer.

If he steers one way the Liverpool victim gene goes into overboil and there is huge civil unrest (at a time in the countrys history that was hardly rosey)

If he steers it towards the authorities it can be swept away

If he gives the police a kicking they lose authority over the populace

It was a cauldron, a social political mess. Hence I would find it very difficult to accept its conclusions as "pure and true"

However, my friends, who were there at the time and saw things with their own eyes - whom I trust - their world carries much more weight for me.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Because at that volume things can be interpreted as the author would prefer.

If he steers one way the Liverpool victim gene goes into overboil and there is huge civil unrest (at a time in the countrys history that was hardly rosey)

If he steers it towards the authorities it can be swept away

If he gives the police a kicking they lose authority over the populace

It was a cauldron, a social political mess. Hence I would find it very difficult to accept its conclusions as "pure and true"

However, my friends, who were there at the time and saw things with their own eyes - whom I trust - their world carries much more weight for me.

Well, as I said, all his conclusions are backed up and it isn't like they don't make sense. If you can see where they don't, then lets hear about it? It is also telling that people who tend to talk it down or paint another picture, often also tend to have an axe to grind with Liverpool fans or people in some way. Hardly a reliable source of information IMO.

At the end of the day, Taylor was neutral. The jury in Duckenfield's trial were neutral. That is good enough for me.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

How do you know he was neutral? That he wasnt pressured or persuaded in some way?

 

[Park Lane James]

How do you know he was neutral? That he wasnt pressured or persuaded in some way?

This.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Im not saying he wasnt, by the way, just that we cant know for sure that he WAS.

And also, that many accounts for an event can certainly lead for interpretation on the authors part.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

How do you know he was neutral? That he wasnt pressured or persuaded in some way?

Well, he might well have been persuaded. I don't see the issue with that. Judges are usually put in charge of these inquiries for these reasons. They are well versed in weighing up the evidence. When he said no witnesses reported any disorder or drunkeness in the turnstile area before 2.35pm, that is quite strong evidence and you can see why it formed part of his conclusion. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing to suggest his conclusions are based on his own bias. If he was wrong then it needs to be said why.

And we assume he was neutral, unless there is any evidence he was got at or the reasoning for his conclusions is flawed. And I don't think there is any evidence of that. The report was/is widely praised. The final report too, which doesn't focus on the disaster itself (only the interim report does that) but the state of football in general, is excellent and much ignored. Especially by the football authorities. He went far deeper in critcising the attitude of the club directors/owners to supporters, amongst other things. It is a must read for people interested in the state of the game in the past and today.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

I would be inclined to believe the word of people I know well than a report fashioned by an authority.

Just my take. I would have trouble with faith in a report on anything like this, given the potential for unrest no matter what it said.

Thank you. You explained far more succinctly than I could.

I am certainly inclined to believe people I know - very well - who actually were there, who saw with their own eyes. Some saw the build up. One was there, on the pitch, and right up close and personal (fireman). In your face.... quite literally. Some saw the aftermath (medical staff in the Royal Hallamshire Hospital). Also, lets say, the midnight lamp was well and truly burning in a certain civil engineering company that evening, too.

Reports, like statistics, can be made to say anything, and conclude anything. I used to do a monthly performance report for a whole nationwide organisation, and lets say 'colour' and 'tone' could alter the truth. Usually done for 'political' purpose. And done it most certainly was. Also, 'little boys tell lies', but so too do big boys sometimes. Lets see, does everyone believe what the Murdochs have said in the NOTW phone hacking scandal? See.....

Were late arriving fans interviewed (and there most certainly were. Fans were leaving pubs, with at least a fair walk to the ground, up until near-kickoff. If you choose to ignore that, its up to you)? I very much doubt it, and if they were interviewed, would they have held their hands up and said they had stayed in the pub untill late? Of course they wouldn't.

Equally, with the old bill, would you get the truth, when careers are at stake? Especially senior officers. I would guess some footsoldier coppers got post traumatic stress disorder. Disgracefully, at the time, the police in attendance could claim for financial compensation because of the situation they had to deal with. Firemen did not, or the other emergency services!!! I believe that never changed. Unbelievable! It was part of all of their jobs to - maybe - deal with a disaster situation.

Undoubtedly the police were not blameless, but I believe their guilt lies in circumstances after the initial problem started. Decisions taken in the heat of the moment may have been wrong, but whether they were criminal is another issue. It all started because of some fans. As mentioned.

What really makes makes me uneasy about the whole thing is whether the ground should have been used in the first place. There was the 1981 fiasco with Spurs vs Wolves. Lessons should have been learnt then. Hillsborough must have had a safety certificate, new work was done, I understand (prior to the disaster), but the big issue was to whether a new safety certicate had been issued? I am told not, but I am not certain about this. So was the new works inspected? This opens up a whole new ball park IMHO. Was this ever investigated? If there was a coverup, was it here? If the ground had been used when it should not have been (FA Cup semi finals are a nice little earner to the club holding the event, remember), should heads have rolled in SWFC? Or the FA for not checking?

SWFC in 1989, from Wikipedia:

Richards was a director of companies involved in engineering, telecommunications and water and waste treatment, several of which entered administrative receivership or were dissolved.[2] He became a director of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. in October 1989 and chairman five months later,[2] following the departure of the long-serving Bert McGee.

So Bert McGhee left in October 1989, or was it 5 months after that? Dave Richards joined. The "long serving chairman" left at a very timely point.....

After the disaster happened, I believe that damage limitation exercises went into meltdown, in numerous quarters. To avoid incrimination/involvement/responsibility. How much were certain secret organisations involved? I have my own feelings about that. Dukinfield settled down to retirement at Dore golf club. Make your own conclusions.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Im not saying he wasnt, by the way, just that we cant know for sure that he WAS

Yes but this is getting into 'if my auntie had gonad*s' territory. Yes, we can't know for absolutely certain but this is no reason to discount the report as it was presented.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

When he said no witnesses reported any disorder or drunkeness in the turnstile area before 2.35pm, that is quite strong evidence and you can see why it formed part of his conclusion.

Did he interview everyone there? Were all of his witnesses credible? Do we know his witness pool was appropriate?

Its not "If my auntie had gonad*s..." stuff. Its simply not buying into someones conclusions because they wrapped it up in a really long report.

In SheffieldSpurs view I would have no trouble appreciating MY FRIENDS views of the situation, people I was close to who were there over someone who conducted a review some time after the event.

Thats all I am saying. Seems a little naive to me to blindly follow a report.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

Well, he might well have been persuaded. I don't see the issue with that. Judges are usually put in charge of these inquiries for these reasons. They are well versed in weighing up the evidence. When he said no witnesses reported any disorder or drunkeness in the turnstile area before 2.35pm, that is quite strong evidence and you can see why it formed part of his conclusion. That is what I mean when I say there is nothing to suggest his conclusions are based on his own bias. If he was wrong then it needs to be said why.

And we assume he was neutral, unless there is any evidence he was got at or the reasoning for his conclusions is flawed. And I don't think there is any evidence of that. The report was/is widely praised. The final report too, which doesn't focus on the disaster itself (only the interim report does that) but the state of football in general, is excellent and much ignored. Especially by the football authorities. He went far deeper in critcising the attitude of the club directors/owners to supporters, amongst other things. It is a must read for people interested in the state of the game in the past and today.

Spot on! I doubt that there was a problem before 2.35PM. My witnesses saw fans departing pubs up to 2.50PM, some with full pint glasses in eash hand. IIRC the real problem started around kickoff, or just past it. This would tie in perfectly with the timings I have been given.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Did he interview everyone there? Were all of his witnesses credible? Do we know his witness pool was appropriate?

Its not "If my auntie had gonad*s..." stuff. Its simply not buying into someones conclusions because they wrapped it up in a really long report.

In SheffieldSpurs view I would have no trouble appreciating MY FRIENDS views of the situation, people I was close to who were there over someone who conducted a review some time after the event.

Thats all I am saying. Seems a little naive to me to blindly follow a report.

I don't say blindly follow it. I say read it and tell us where it is flawed. If it isn't, and better people than me have gone through it over the years and found nothing, then I think it has to be accepted as the best guide we have to what happened. It is the same with a trial. Anecdotes of your friends are hardly the be all and end all. Of course, you're not going to call out your friends as liars, or maybe mistaken but that doesn't mean you can't consider evidence beyond what they say.

 

[Park Lane James]

What really makes makes me uneasy about the whole thing is whether the ground should have been used in the first place. There was the 1981 fiasco with Spurs vs Wolves. Lessons should have been learnt then. Hillsborough must have had a safety certificate, new work was done, I understand (prior to the disaster), but the big issue was to whether a new safety certicate had been issued? I am told not, but I am not certain about this. So was the new works inspected? This opens up a whole new ball park IMHO. Was this ever investigated? If there was a coverup, was it here? If the ground had been used when it should not have been (FA Cup semi finals are a nice little earner to the club holding the event, remember), should heads have rolled in SWFC? Or the FA for not checking?

I believe that the capacity of the pens in the lower tier were reduced in order to aid safety, yet this is obviously pointless if you let in thousands more rather than ensuring that they are guided into parts of the ground that are not up to capacity. From the outset, it was a disaster waiting to happen (as I have said in my post above) - before Nottingham Forest and Liverpool fans even made the trip to the ground. I can't believe that the Liverpool fans were allocated the smaller end of the ground, rather than the Kop. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Consider it by all means, you give the impression though that it is the absolute truth, which is where I disagree

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Spot on! I doubt that there was a problem before 2.35PM. My witnesses saw fans departing pubs up to 2.50PM, some with full pint glasses in eash hand. IIRC the real problem started around kickoff, or just past it. This would tie in perfectly with the timings I have been given.

Mate, read what was said in the context:

196. Of those who arrived at 2.30 pm or after, very many had been drinking at public houses or had brought drink from home or an off-licence. I am satisfied on the evidence, however, that the great majority were not drunk nor even the worse for drink. The police witnesses varied on this. Some described a high proportion as drunk, as "lager-louts" or even as "animals". Others described a generally normal crowd with an unco-operative minority who had drunk too much. In my view some officers, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the drunken element in the crowd. There certainly was such an element. There were youngsters influenced by drink and bravado pushing impatiently at the rear of the crowd thereby exacerbating the crush. But the more convincing police witnesses, including especially Detective Superintendent McKay and Chief Inspector Creaser as well as a number of responsible civilian witnesses, were in my view right in describing this element as a minority. Those witnesses attributed the crush to the sheer numbers of fans all anxious to gain entry. There was no criticism of the crowd by any of the witnesses in the period up to 2.30 pm or even 2.35 pm. What happened then was not a sudden deterioration in the mood or sobriety of those assembled there No doubt those coming behind would have had more to drink and would have included the unruly minority. But the crisis developed because this very large crowd became packed into a confined turnstile area and its very density hampered its passage through the turnstiles

and further:

191. Between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm the crowd waiting for the turnstiles swelled to over 5,000 and became unmanageable

192. Whether those who arrived between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm were "late" was much debated. The ticket simply requested its holder "to take up [his] position 15 minutes before kick-off. That may have been intended to persuade those with stand tickets to take their seats, but it would not be unreasonable for a standing spectator to arrive at the turnstiles between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm.

See the point? Those arriving just before kick off would have made very little difference to a situation that was already getting out of control. See the comments on the police horse being lifted off its feet. There are no witnesses, even senior police, who say the crowd was disorderly or drunk at that point.