The Hillsborough Conspiracy

I agree with some of the earlier posts. The cover up and conspiracy was disgusting. Those that initiated the cover up and enabled it were totally wrong.

However, those police, at whatever rank, that had to make the instant decisions, did so under extreme pressure and did so for what they thought were the right reasons. It turned out that wrong decisions were made and a horrendous number of lives were lost. But these decisions can't be rehearsed or trained for as the events at Hillsborough are unique. Each situation is different.

There is no excuse, but the general feeling that police, fire or ambulance personel, doctors and nurses, social workers should be sued, lose their job, or be criminally prosecuted for making honest mistakes, encourages this sort of cover up.

I know, for example, that there is no way I would sue a hospital if a close relative died through an honest mistake or an honestly incorrect decision was made, but that subsequently turned out to be the wrong one.

In the end 'victims' families are often only looking for financial benefit through compensation awards, when in many cases lessons would be learnt far more efficiently if there was not the spectre of legal action being taken.

 

What is honest or right about the police and government doctoring witness statements and lying about the actions of fans?

Your last paragraph is disgusting by the way, especially the inverted commas.

 

I think a lot of people outside Liverpool think this, you have had the balls to print it, if the gate was not opened then the deaths may have been more and then it would have been said the gate should have been opened, what I understand is that nearly all the people that died were at the front and in the ground on time. There is no way that these people can be blamed, anyone who followed Football in those days, certain groups of fans were famous for trying to get the gates opened and had no intentions of buying tickets, Man u were famous for it as well as Liverpool and Everton.

The Game should never have been there, Liverpool should have had the big Kop if it was there, the kick off should have been put back, the gate should not have been opened

I worked in Football industry for 15 years and if you think how much the football experience has changed is unbelievable, why do we all seem to like peterborough so much?

 

To be fair though this happened before a claims and ambulance chasing culture really got going. This was more about an endemic propensity for cover up and corruption that was evident in much police work of the era.

Whilst it's much better now 'Police Sources' still dissemble such as after the Stockwell shooting. We all remember how the victim was supposed to have vaulted the barrier.

 

They are one big gang who cover each other's back and justice is never truly done. Ian Tomlinson's death is another example.

What was most shocking in the Panorama programme the other night was the way that senior members of the police, past and present, still attempted to justify the way that they behaved when asked by the interviewer.

 

I think that was a symptom of what in 2007 was still a bit new phenomenon - 24/7 rolling news - and the police learning what to release and how. Today is a prime example of how lessons have been learned in that regard and rumours are not really speculated on by the police anymore.

 

Have you read anything of the report? The police have a duty of care to you. If you watched Panorama you might at least have been able to quote some facts, something missing from your post. Just think of the Hicks family, lost two daughters and you expect them to sigh and say oh well several people caused that, but never mind it was a mistake??
Justice for the 96 was about a fair inquest, and to address the sick lies told about fellow football supporters. Enjoy Wembley, but if you didnt come back would your family care - I think they would ZZ, and certainly fight to clear your name if it was said you were drunk without a ticket and caused your death and others too.
Like JB I found it disgusting that some of those interviewed still try to fob us off about how they screwed up and still blame anyone else. People caused deaths and they should be dealt with now, why should the Police get away with negligence?

 

I think you have mis-read what I have said. I have not said that doctoring witness statements is honest or right. But I have said that some decisions made by the police would have been made honestly. For example, when a Copper opened that gate, are you implying that he did so with the intention of causing a disaster? He obviously did so with the intention of reducing the pressure outside the ground. It turned out to be the wrong decision, but he did it for the right reasons.

With regard to doctoring the witness statements that is totally wrong and was done with planning, proper consideration for the consequences and diligently. That is terrible. No doubt.

There is a major difference between honestly making the mistake and dishonestly covering it up! Would we be able to recruit police, doctors, social workers if they knew that if they ever made a split second mistake, even with the best intentions, they could get criminally prosecuted for making it, would lose their jobs, their careers and their pensions.

My last paragraph you describe as disgusting. I am only stating the facts here. I incidents where a public body is at fault all the facts are often known following an inquest. This is often what the victims families say they want. "We want to know what happened, to make sure that it doesn't happen again". But they will often be hoping for the "unlawful killing" verdict, rather than the " accidental death" verdict, as the former verdict crosses the line for criminal proceedings and compensation. The facts of how the incident happened will be clear, either way, but, in reality, it is often the financial compensation that matters. But not always, of course.

I'm not saying that seeking financial compensation is wrong. It wouldn't bring a son or daughter back, so I don't feel it would help me, but others may feel that money in the bank would help. I can't speak for them, it's a personal thing.

But what is clear, is that the threat of such serious consequences for someone who has made an honest mistake will often prevent the truth coming out and the lessons being learnt.

You have also mis-interpreted what I meant, so I must take some blame for the way I have written my earlier post. But refer to my earlier answer I gave to JB.

I havn't read the report. I saw the Panorama program and I've read many articles on the subject.

The big difference here is the intent to deceive that was the case in the cover up which, in my opinion, is completely different from the mistakes made at the time.

I personally don't think that police, doctors, etc, should lose everything through making what they believe are the correct split second decisions, for the right reasons. Isn't necessarily "negligence" it is sometimes just bad luck and sometimes bad judgement. I have been in positions where I have had to make "life or death" decisions in a split second on a regular basis for about 6 years - it is a heavy responsibility and not one to take lightly in any way. But any one of those decisions could have gone wrong. It doesn't mean that I would have been negligent, or uncaring or unprofessional.

Edit:- I am afraid I dont really understand this "duty of care" bit, as if it only refers to the police. I believe we all have a "duty of care" towards our fellow human beings. Yes, the police are to blame for opening the gate, but there will also be some Liverpool fans that will be kept awake at night wondering if they should have kept pushing to get into the middle section of Leppings Lane, whilst people were being crushed at the front. There for the grace of God go I, because I know that when I used to enter a ground in the pre seating days, I also used to be part of a concerted push onto the terraces made by hundreds of fans. It used to happen every other week.

No-one is saying, not even the lies that came out from the police, said that the likes of the Hicks sisters had been drinking or were ticketless. They didn't have to clear their names. But I do think that some fans at the back have at least some responsibility. I certainly dont think that Duckenfields decision alone is 100% responsible for everything that happened. Others also contributed. Major incidents like this are rarely as black and white as people like you seem to imply.

 

Why did Panarama not mention how the liverpool fans steamed the gates in athens approx 20 years later at the champions league final?

 

Because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so.

 

Surely the BBC, paid for by the British License payer, is not worried about Political Correctness?

It did not mention how at the Cup Final that year the Liverpool fans tried to get a gate opened at wembley and could not stay off the pitch for one game out of respect for dead for one game at the final whistle or after the goals!

 

ecause it wasn't a programme about Liverpool fans. It was a programme about how evidence and the truth it told had been hidden all these years by those in authority.

 

Okay ZZ you dont understand duty of care, well I have the powers of arrest and in some areas more powers of entry than the police. You have to react reasonably so for example could it have reasonably been thought that by letting a surge of supporters in by opening the outside gate and by not pulling the gate shut on the central pen behind the goal that you would cause a disaster infact some of the people let in this way did die as they finished up at the front.
If they had been directed to the side pens , where there was plenty of spare capacity the 96 deaths would not have occured. They didnt carry out there duty of care and some say they were therefore negligent, as will be proven in time. It isnt split second decisions rehersals, training and previous incidents lead to best practise or else you would be re inventing the wheel everyday.
Also every one of the 96 was tested for alcohol even the youngest, trying to smear the fans. Your comments on the inquest are factually incorrect as the orginal one decided everybody was dead at 3.15 I think it was, meaning actions taken on the day were never presented after that time!!

 

Maybe because it has absolutely nothing to do with Hillsborough?

 

The full truth about the Police actions at Hillsborough has yet to come out. They didn't set out to kill 96 people but the idea that they made "honest mistakes" is not credible.

That South Yorks Police made a massive attempt to cover up their actions is without doubt. But ask yourself, why cover up honest mistakes? Because there was something else - relating to why a senior officer - Duckenfield - with NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE of match control was put in charge on that day. Why was this, and what circumstances led to this occurring and to the behaviour of many junior officers on the match day? That is what the cover up was attempted for.

 

Why did it mention Heysel then? Nothing to do with Hilsborough ? Same club same supporters?

 

You really dont have clue about "real life" do you?

First of all, there is no way that police can train for every eventuality. The Met at the time, for example, did their public order training at a brownfield site at Nine Elms before moving to Greenwich. Do you expect them to build a mock up of each football stadium and employ a few thousand "fans" to run through every possibility. That is just cloud-cuckoo land. Nowadays, even with the benefit of hindsight, such training isn't given. But there are other forms of crowd flow simulations by computer for major venues and transport hubs. But in the days of ms-dos, that wasn't available.

There were no police to direct the fans as it was an exit gate about to be opened. But there was a big void space of about 6,000 sq ft. which means possible relief from the crush outside. It would have been reasonable to expect that the crowd would seek the emptier areas to stand in, rather than the packed central area. There are many "crowd-flow" studies that show that, in the majority of cases, that is what happens, the crowd balances itself out. In all the matches I have been to see, I have personally never seen a gate closed to prevent entry to a section of terracing. It has always relied on the common sense of the crowd.

When the circumstances arose at Leppings Lane, it was a unique situation and snap decisions had to be made. One of which was - Is it better to open exit gate (with clear space behind it) opened to relieve the pressure outside or should we do nothing? When that fateful (the honest mistake, I refer to) decision was made to open the gate each football fan that went through had a decision to make as the central section fillled up - "It's packed in the central pen, so do we just keep pushing to get in, or do we go round to the side pens that are always less full?" It would also have been a snap decision for them as the game was about to start or had started and they wouldn't want to miss it. Do the fans say to themselves - "Well the police aren't here to tell us where to go so we can go anywhere we like, and sod the consequences?"

Remember the pressure at the front was caused by fans pushing at the back. Unless, you are suggesting that a couple of coachloads of police were brought in to add their weight at the back as well!

All I am saying is that the situation was not so black and white. The police got things wrong in the planning and most certainly got a lot wrong in the cover-up. But not all the fans behaved impeccably. That doesn't mean that I am blaming those at the front, such as the Hicks girls.

That being the case, it worries me that the current campaign is to completely exonerate those unamed fans that helped to cause that pressure and crush. To blame the authorities, 100%, implies that football fans should take no responsibility for their own actions. This is what I mean by "duty of care". In my view we all have the same duty of care to our fellow football fans, whether we are wearing a police uniform or not. For me, it is not good enough for a football fan to say, "well the police let me in, therefore I can be reckless, without any need to worry about the consequences".

Then we come to the retribution that you are clammering for. In my view, those that altered or falsified statements, took part in, or knew of the cover-up should be prosecuted or severely dealt with. I have no doubt about that.

But I cannot agree that those police that made those "honest mistakes" regarding the gate or other operational matters on the day, should be hung drawn and quartered on the basis that they made the wrong instant judgement call. You obviously disagree. You seem to think that Police should never make mistakes - and if they do, they should lose everything. You have probably never made a wrong judgement at work, probably always drove your car impeccably, never caused another driver to brake or swerve, etc, etc - and you have probably never pushed anyone to get into a concert or football game. You certainly have the power of 100% hindsight as you have strong opinions on how football grounds should be policed and struggle to understand why it wasn't done that way at Hillsborough. I'm not sure what job you are in, but I suggest that, unless you are at the very highest echelons of running everrything, your talents are being wasted. We need you.

I dont fully understnd some of your points, but it is my understanding that alcohol is routinely tested for at post mortems, along with other chemicals. That doesn't seem unusual to me. And nothing I have said regarding any inquest is affected by the 3.15pm cut-off. Gates being opened, etc happened way before 3.15. It is my understanding that the 3.15 relevance is in regard to the emergency response, ambulance, medical care, etc. What are you on about?

Yes, regarding the whole business, future enquiries, etc. You will probably get all the results you want. It is now dangerous to say publically anything like I've said on here. Implying that any Liverpool fans may have been at fault, is a total no, no. I very much doubt that any politician, certainly as weak as Cameron, will ever stand up and read out a report that says anything other that the police were 100% to blame for everything.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I thought the general impression is that many junior officers (ie PCs) saved a lot of lives that day and saw some pretty horrific things which have no doubt affected them since? Or do you mean middle ranking ones who ordered statements to be altered?

 

Oops, yes the decent officers should not be tarred with a brush meant for the guilty. What I was referring to was that Duckenfield was a very unpopular officer within the SYPD.

 

Heysel was four years before and the footage was used to give a background as to why fences were put up and police were so strict and the problems that English football had with violence. It also showed other scenes of hooliganism involving other clubs such as Millwall and Man Utd.

The Champions League final which occurred almost 20 years later and probably involved people who were either not born or very young in 1989 bore no impact whatsoever on what happened at Hillsborough 20 years before.

 

So are you implying that some Officers didn't follow orders because they came from an unpopular boss, or that he was put in charge with the intention he'd mess it up so he could be got rid of? What point are you trying to make?

 

Well Hillsborough had no impact in Athens as Liverpool fans still turned up without real tickets and caused problems at the gates to gain entry?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6686867.stm

 

And what exactly has that got to do with what happened at Hillsborough, the policing of football fans at that time and the cover up which followed?

Inclusion of an incident which occurred a generation later would be completely irrelevant and pointless.

 

To be honest, I feel that the police that were involved in the cover up should be dealt with and nothing else. Any mistakes made at the game, in the planning, or the aftermath in terms of the medical treatment, etc, is, a generation later, completely irrelevant and pointless. The victims families know what happened now, lets move on.

 

It is the blame culture we live in, are you saying that Liverpool Fans are 100% innocent what happened at Hillsborough?

A lot of mistakes went on that day, if you read my earlier post, I THINK, that the game should not have been there, if it was there, Liverpool should have been given the Kop, The kick off should have been delayed, the gate should not have been opened. The problem was that Liverpool fans had a rep for trying to get gates opened so they get in without tickets and for free, after what happened that day they would not even stay off the pitch at wembley, tried to get a gate opened at wembely and 20 years later they were causing similar problems but thank god no one got seriously injured.

If someones stabs someone do you blame the police for not doing a stop and search or the shop keeper for selling the knife?

When I have followed England people, fans (scousers included) try and force gates open, they know what they are doing, I think they did it at the FA Cup QF at the Vic in 1986.

A lot of people are to blame but dont think the fans are 100% innocent, the poor people that died were the ones who got there on time and had tickets.

 

Okay if you havent read the report then you cant help that your comments are mainly factually incorrect, nor that you dont understand procedural demands were not adhered to - for example Hillsborough was operating without a safety certificate. Read the report, until then you can have a smile on your face as ignorance is bliss.

 

You have now realised you're point was nonsensical and as a result have completely changed the subject and started talking about completely different subjects to the original argument of how an incident occurring 20 years later has any baring on Hillsborough and why it should be involved in a documentary entiled ''Hillsborough: How they Buried the Truth''. If the documentary had been entitled ''Incidents involving Liverpool fans'' maybe you would have a point.

When did I say or even imply that Liverpool fans are 100% innocent? Stop with the straw man arguments and trying to argue against points which I haven't even discussed. It makes you look incredibly simple and lacking in any sort of focus or concentration span.

 

A bit of me want to drop this and a bit of me wants to carry it on, I have got better things to get on with on a Friday night to be honest. I wondered how long it would take you make personal insults. MY FEELINGS are that the documentary gave a very one sided view, by the end of it you would have thought the Liverpool fans poo did not smell. I have not defended the the cover up in any way what happened, some replies to the thread have gone off the main point, when does that not happen?, if you don't like it when the thread does go off track why do you reply to them?

I THINK that some poor members of the emergency services are going to be hung out to dry who made decisions that day, that may have been the wrong ones, but were made for the right reasons and have dug a bigger and bigger hole since.

Just out of interest, you have pointed out the problems, what would like the outcome to be?

 

What ARE you on about?

I take the time to post at length to explain my position. All you do is ignore what i said apart from saying that I'm "factually incorrect" - without even telling me where. I didn't even mention 'safety certificate' or that procedures WERE followed. What on earth are you on about?

This report you have read that apparantly gives you the right to dismiss anyone else's opinion, if they havn't read it - is not the definitive and whole truth, as there are still further investigations being carried out, as we speak. So get off your high horse and get back to reality instead of your taking idealistic view.

 

Looks like we'll finally have an answer on the culpability of Duckerfield (as well as other questions) tomorrow:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36128693

 

I think there are just too many variables to mean it can be pinned on one bloke. But we'll obviously find out what the jury, who have heard loads of evidence over 2 years, have decided tomorrow. Has anything new actually come out?

 

Unlawful killing say the jury. Police mainly responsible, other criticism for the local licensing body, SWFC, the stadium engineers and the ambulance service. The one group who hold no responsibility at all are the Liverpool fans apparently.

At least it can never happen again given the advances in stadium design and emergency response in the last 27 years.

I can't personally see much purpose in dragging this back through the criminal courts now with Duckenfield as the fall guy. I would much rather they went after the people who orchestrated the cover up, right up to Westminster and Thatcher's government.

 

The fact that Kelvin MacKenzie is still a columnist at the Sun is disgraceful.

 

I'm surprised that the FA were not partly held culpable.

Although it's obvious that the police have taken the majority of the blame I can't help thinking that policing the event was extremely difficult and ultimately someone had to make a decision or series of decisions, that either way could have led to a serious incident outside.

Despite the initial explanation that it was caused by drunken fans and the fact that the fans have been officially exonerated, along with Godfather's statement about fans bunging a turnstile operator a fiver to get in to Wembley, I would have thought that any ticketless fans inside and immediately outside prior to the gates getting opened should also bear some of the burden of blame even though it would be impossible now to single any individuals out.

 

So, the non-ticket holders who forced their way in are not being held responsible? Despite them causing the crush?