Hillsborough document release

[booperstorr]

Be under no illusion the ONLY way to achieve top promotion in the Police in the 60's and 70's was via masonry...Duckenfield and I were young D/C's stationed at CID HQ's Water Lane Sheffield 1963/64. I received a phone call from an old school pal Gerald who was an Insurance broker with offices in Cathedral Sq. ( he is now deceased)... Gerald provided private 'discounted' car and house insurance for Officers. With David I went to see him whereupon he said that we had both been 'ear-marked' for promotion but we had to join a Lodge! I recall neither of us really knew what a Lodge was!! My father (a Baptist lay-preacher) told me to forget it citing my uncle from Hull who had joined the mason ranks but left quickly when he realized the implications of the sect. David on the other hand was very interested. David and I always to seemed to be the 2 officers dealing with shoplifters at a well-known car accessory shop in the city and we became friendly with the owner who was a Mason. This man now tells the tale how he arranged for David to sit next to the Derbyshire Chief Constable at the Chatsworth Horse Trials shortly before David applied for promotion to Sergeant with that Force!! The shop-owner and Chief Constable both being Masons. David was offered the position as Sergeant but turned it down when his wife saw the poor housing accommodation offered. The shop-owner was not pleased.!!! I repeat no-one knew David better than I but as I started chasing criminals round the City and making a name for myself as a good 'thief-taker' David started his climb to the top with us both acquiring nick-names - mine was 'Booper' ...David was 'Clean Hands David' which speaks for itself!!! The Mason issue in S/Yorks Police at that time was so blatant - causing constant canteen criticism of officers securing ranks they were not worthy of. I repeat that I knew virtually all the senior officers involved at Hillsborough and as I've said in both my books it would be completely naive not to think the sect had no bearing on actions following the disaster. I have no axe to grind with David but I bewail the 'excellent' Officers around at my time who did not get promotion because they were not on 'the square'. In my opinion there was only one good copper of the time who was a Mason and that was John Nesbitt ( of Arthur Scargill arrest fame). The Duckenfields, Moles, Dentons, Bettisons Waynes were not in the same league. I finish by referring to a small, but significant exchange of replies at the Hillsborough inquest where ex Ch Insp Frank Brayford ( whom I knew) explained how when he first met Duckenfield he was offed the masonic handshake but when he indicated that he was not a Mason Duckenfields reply was "Well you should be" !!! That spoke bundles to me.... BREAKING NEWS:- Is that the Oxford Dictionary are considering including two new additions to the English language in their next edition...1) " A DUCKENFIELD" (noun) ' a deliberate lie or falsehood promulgated to deceive or mislead' .... 2) "TO DO A DUCKENFIELD" (adjective) 'a person securing promotion or standing in society by immoral or dubious means'

[Alan Ladd]

It will be very interesting to see how Bettison fares when he is put on the stand. As I stated elsewhere it is one thing to "freeze", to be indecisive, ill prepared or incompetent, these, it seems to me, were the initial reactions of Dukinfield. His situation deteriorates when he fails to admit his failings and seeks to lay the blame elsewhere.

 

If, as seems to be the allegation, Bettison and others conspired to alter evidence later this is far more serious.

 

The one aspect that seems to me to be missing is evidence from a single person who, without a ticket, gained entry to the ground after the kick off, and seeing a crowd before him, pushed. It is obvious such people exist, why is there no effort to bring them before this tribunal?

[Eater Sundae]

It will be very interesting to see how Bettison fares when he is put on the stand. As I stated elsewhere it is one thing to "freeze", to be indecisive, ill prepared or incompetent, these, it seems to me, were the initial reactions of Dukinfield. His situation deteriorates when he fails to admit his failings and seeks to lay the blame elsewhere.

 

If, as seems to be the allegation, Bettison and others conspired to alter evidence later this is far more serious.

 

The one aspect that seems to me to be missing is evidence from a single person who, without a ticket, gained entry to the ground after the kick off, and seeing a crowd before him, pushed. It is obvious such people exist, why is there no effort to bring them before this tribunal?

 

BIB 1. I agree. Some people fail through inability when put to the test.

BIB 2. I agree, it would be much more serious.

BIB 3. If that is the case, then it makes this current enquiry just as flawed as the previous ones, only from a different viewpoint. Unless an enquiry (for want of a better word) goes in with an open mind and is prepared to investigate all aspects of the event, it is worthless and is just there to achieve a specific outcome.

[JFKvsNixon]

The one aspect that seems to me to be missing is evidence from a single person who, without a ticket, gained entry to the ground after the kick off, and seeing a crowd before him, pushed. It is obvious such people exist, why is there no effort to bring them before this tribunal?

 

This happened at every big match where tickets are sold out. So when you consider that this sort of behaviour was entirely predictable, procedures should have been in place to manage these situations.

 

It was criminally wrong that any sort of organisation should so surprised by a predictable situation that they completely lose control of that situation.

Edited March 24, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[rossyrooney]

This happened at every big match where tickets are sold out. So when you consider that this sort of behaviour was entirely predictable, procedures should have been in place to manage these situations.

 

It was criminally wrong that any sort of organisation should so surprised by a predictable situation that they completely lose control of that situation.

 

 

I find it difficult to find fault with any of that statement and I would add that I am bewildered by the fact that officers weren't stationed at each end of Leppings Lane to check tickets and manage the flow of fans, a practice that was prevelant at that time.

One thing has become clear is that most people have preempted the verdict and after all this time nothing will change their minds.

[actionman]

The innocent ones' crushed were the ones that arrived in plenty of time. Ok a gate was opened but if the rest of the fans outside leppings lane hadn't been so preoccupied with shoving as much ale down their neck then all arriving.at last minute then things might ve been different. Also surely the turnstiles had a "crowd counter" on them to measure the numbersm

[Alan Ladd]

This happened at every big match where tickets are sold out. So when you consider that this sort of behaviour was entirely predictable, procedures should have been in place to manage these situations.

 

It was criminally wrong that any sort of organisation should so surprised by a predictable situation that they completely lose control of that situation.

 

Your argument seems to be that human beings are no better than sheep, that they should be controlled, herded and managed. Surely we have a duty of care to one another as individuals not just as corporate entities?

 

Without in any way defending persons in authority at the time, surely the people who arrived late, who by their actions prompted those gates to be opened, and who rushed forward and pushed are culpable?

 

Notwithstanding organizational failures, if persons arriving had no tickets, and no intention of purchasing knowing it to be a sellout but were intent on illegally entering the ground and as a result others died that is surely manslaughter?

 

As of yet I have not heard this argued or refuted by the army of Barristers at the enquiry. Why?

[JFKvsNixon]

Your argument seems to be that human beings are no better than sheep, that they should be controlled, herded and managed. Surely we have a duty of care to one another as individuals not just as corporate entities?

 

Without in any way defending persons in authority at the time, surely the people who arrived late, who by their actions prompted those gates to be opened, and who rushed forward and pushed are culpable?

 

Notwithstanding organizational failures, if persons arriving had no tickets, and no intention of purchasing knowing it to be a sellout but were intent on illegally entering the ground and as a result others died that is surely manslaughter?

 

As of yet I have not heard this argued or refuted by the army of Barristers at the enquiry. Why?

 

Im a crowd situation you cannot expect everybody to behave rationally, there has to be an element of crowd control. There also has to be a prearranged plan to take care to changing situations. In my opinion it's criminally negligent to believe that you can "wing it" when things go wrong.

 

Sunday was the 22nd anniversary of 4 of my friends dying when something entirely predictable happened when they were out canoeing, the owner of the company that was hosting the event was convicted of corporate manslaughter.

 

In the context of the situation the fans never turned up late, they turned up at the time that they normally turn up, and there wasn't an abnormal amount of ticketless fans trying to push their way in. So maybe that's why they're not issues?

[alchresearch]

Your argument seems to be that human beings are no better than sheep, that they should be controlled, herded and managed.

 

Sadly I think that's the case.

 

I remember seeing a TV programme about the actions of people in the event of an emergency like an aircraft crash (IIRC the programme was about the fire on the BA jet at Manchester Airport). I'm sure the actions of some of the people made the death rate as high as it was.

[booperstorr]

Alan Ladd has brought up the position of Bettison in the Hillsboro case and where he might stand in a 'cover-up' enquiry. Some 2 years ago I was asked by our local MP John Mann to assist tracing an ex-Detective I had worked with on the S.Yorks Force. I did find him and you may recall John Mann asking the IPCC to investigate a report that Mann had received relative to basically a 'cover-up' in respect of Bettisons father...I must be careful here because the IPCC returned a decision of no case to answer...Briefly it was alleged that in 1987/8 ? Mr Bettison (senior) tried to sell some platinum wire to Johnson Mathey ( reputable Sheffield dealers in precious metals) It is much more easier to sell diamonds and gold than platinum wire !!! and the firm were suspicious.(Mr Bettison (senior) at the time apparently worked at BSC Rotherham!!) Two Detectives went to Johnson Mathey to investigate and recorded the complaint in their pocket books.(One pocket book still available today) Johnson Mathey were of the opinion that their information would be 'swept under the carpet' due to the son of Mr.Bettison (senior) being a Ch. Insp at Sheffield Police HQ's...apparently nothing did become of the investigation and John Mann asked why - even though it was some years after the event... We are told the IPCC investigated and then dismissed the allegation ( this was widely broadcast on Yorks TV and in local newspapers) I simply quote this to suggest that ex Ch. Constable Bettison is no stranger to allegations of malpractice. A brief 'aside' here is that when I met John Mann (MP) some 2 years ago... he said he had read my first book so I asked him who was the paedophile Home Secretary I mentioned in the book but dare not name - Mann replied "Oh you mean Leon Brittain - everyone at Westminster knew he was messing about with little kids"... Aren't our politicians and policemen wonderful???!