Hillsborough document release

[Jim Hardie]

One good thing the panel has done in this area is it has not only published its report but every document it used in its investigations. It has tried to be as transparent as possible. (I apologise if there are some documents unavailable for legal reasons that I dont know about). Therefore, if people think it was biased then they, in theory, have all that is required to prove it but I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

Where do people think the political will to pick a panel 'to deliver a certain verdict' came from? No-one was interested for 23 years. The establishment effectively used all of its resources to shut the families up and make then go away. That only changed, as far as I know, because Andy Burnham used the Freedom of Information Act to force evidence into the public domain. The Justice Campaign had no-one else on their side, no power, no real voice and nobody doing them any favours.

 

From my point of view, as I have said before, it would certainly have been easier to defend its impartiality if no-one had been connected with Merseyside. Another way to look at it is that, sadly, I am not sure that anybody else was even interested. Perhaps the only way any of this was ever going to come to light was in the hands of people who had a reason to care.

 

Please forgive my ignorance as I was not aware that all the documents had been published. If there were 450,000 it must run to several hundred volumes and I won't be seeking them out.

Not wanting to go round in circles but I'm sure though that a more transparently independent panel could have been appointed without difficulty.

[mikem8634]

the bold you have to give credit to the families for fighting for so long. the truth is out now and i think it's about time the bickering over who was to blame stopped, it was a disaster waiting to happen. i just hope the people who tried to cover up mistakes get punished, at least it will give the families a certain amount of closure.

i've said it before if the authorities held their hands up and said they had made mistakes then most would of accepted it and moved on. i don't hold the people on the day to account, they made decisions they thought would save lives, even though looking back more livdes could of been saved but i know i wouldn't of wanted to make the decisions on that day, the people that tried covering it up deserve everything they get

 

I think there is a lot to be said for that statement.

 

However, there is a point where mistakes become mismanagement and mismanagement becomes negligence. I do think amongst the charges brought we will see corporate manslaughter - Amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased; — and the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach.

 

I've got to say though that I hope any legal action, unless there is a damn good reason, leaves the 'on the ground' officers alone. Many of them are also victims or survivors of that awful day and must still carry it with them through lives that have never been the same.

Edited October 15, 2012 by mikem8634

[NERVY-OWL]

I think there is a lot to be said for that statement.

 

However, there is a point where mistakes become mismanagement and mismanagement becomes negligence. I do think amongst the charges brought we will see corporate manslaughter - Amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased; — and the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach.

 

well tbh thats something if happens i will never agree on. yes mistakes we're made but any decision that was made had to be done without much time to think about it and i'm sure there will be a few that have had a few sleepless nights from their decisions that day. whats more important is what was learnt from that day and that it wont happen again.

anyone that tried to cover it up though i have no sympathy, especially if it was someone that had a hand in the decisions made and just wanted to cover their backs

[mikem8634]

Please forgive my ignorance as I was not aware that all the documents had been published. If there were 450,000 it must run to several hundred volumes and I won't be seeking them out.

Not wanting to go round in circles but I'm sure though that a more transparently independent panel could have been appointed without difficulty.

 

For anyone who's interested and has A LOT of spare time the documents are here http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/browse/

 

 

History of the panel (from Wiki)

 

In the years after the disaster there was a feeling that the full facts were not in the public domain and a suspicion that some facts were deliberately covered up. The Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by Trevor Hicks, campaigned for the release of all relevant documents. After the disaster's 20th anniversary in April 2009, supported by the Culture secretary, Andy Burnham and Minister of State for Justice, Maria Eagle, the government asked the Home Office and Department of Culture, Media and Sport to investigate the best way for this information to be made public.[64]

In December 2009, Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced the formation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel with a remit to oversee "full public disclosure of relevant government and local information within the limited constraints set out in the disclosure protocol" and "consult with the Hillsborough families to ensure that the views of those most affected by the disaster are taken into account".[64] An archive of all relevant documentation would be created and a report produced within two years explaining the work of the panel and its conclusions.

 

The panel was chaired by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool. Other members were:-

Raju Bhatt, human rights lawyer

Christine Gifford, expert in the field of access to information

Katy Jones, investigative journalist

Dr Bill Kirkup, Associate Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health (United Kingdom)

Paul Leighton, former Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Professor Phil Scraton, expert in criminology

Peter Sissons, broadcaster

Sarah Tyacke, formerly keeper of National Records

[mikem8634]

well tbh thats something if happens i will never agree on. yes mistakes we're made but any decision that was made had to be done without much time to think about it and i'm sure there will be a few that have had a few sleepless nights from their decisions that day. whats more important is what was learnt from that day and that it wont happen again.

anyone that tried to cover it up though i have no sympathy, especially if it was someone that had a hand in the decisions made and just wanted to cover their backs

 

As far as I understand it corporate manslaughter can only be brought against institutions (and, therefore, only result in a fine) not individuals. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that any individual prosecutions will relate only to subsequent behaviours during the cover-up. That may well include elements of the cover-up that were begun on the day.

[*_ash_*]

Not necessarily. It was a combination of unruly fans[...]

Sorry to keep repeating myself but do you have any evidence for this? I could say that tsunamis are caused by opening Pringle containers but it is meaningless if I can't back it up.

 

Please don't take this as a personal attack its just that when we hear people claiming there were unruly fans it seems like the last remnants (all the rest having been soundly discredited) of the vile Sun lies are still being circulated and that causes pain. I don't mean to lump you in with the Sun but accusations require evidence in order to be credible.

 

I've been to a few semi-finals, and hundreds of football matches around that time, and since. There was almost always a certain amount of unruly behaviour at some point in big matches (and often smaller ones). I can't ever recall seeing what is in photo C294.

 

I consider the content, unusual. I have never seen that before or since. It looks worse in C295, and we're only talking minutes before chaos that is explained in the removed police evidence, [in their removed words] when none of them seemed to know what was going on, due to lack of radios and the 'open-mic' system clogged with lots talking at the same time.

 

This ISN'T suggesting that unruly behaviour was the cause mike, before you claim that that is what I am saying - I'm just answering what you bolded. Unruly means 'not conforming to rule' - and C294/295 and 299 suggest 'not conforming to rule' - Fans backed this and my knowledge up in court, comparing these pictures to other Hillsborough scenarios.

[mikem8634]

I've been to a few semi-finals, and hundreds of football matches around that time, and since. There was almost always a certain amount of unruly behaviour at some point in big matches (and often smaller ones). I can't ever recall seeing what is in photo C294.

 

I consider the content, unusual. I have never seen that before or since. It looks worse in C295, and we're only talking minutes before chaos that is explained in the removed police evidence, [in their removed words] when none of them seemed to know what was going on, due to lack of radios and the 'open-mic' system clogged with lots talking at the same time.

 

This ISN'T suggesting that unruly behaviour was the cause mike, before you claim that that is what I am saying - I'm just answering what you bolded. Unruly means 'not conforming to rule' - and C294/295 and 299 suggest 'not conforming to rule' - Fans backed this and my knowledge up in court, comparing these pictures to other Hillsborough scenarios.

 

I'll get back to you as soon as I've had a look.

 

Had a look now. The photos show, correct me if I'm wrong, what appears to be fans climbing over a wall to get access into the ground. The times on the photographs (14.54, 14.55, 14.57) correspond to the following evidence taken from pg. 96 of the Hillsborough Independent Report and based on the West Midlands Police interview with Superintendent Murray for report to the DPP, 25 June 1990 and the recollection of PC Brown, 19 April 1989 -

 

 

Consequences of opening the gates

PC Smith recalled looking through a glass window in Gate A at approximately 2.50pm and noticing numerous fans crushed and in great distress. Sergeant Wright claimed that he requested Club stewards to open the gate to relieve the pressure but the stewards refused.

 

Near Gate B Inspector John Bennett was on a turnstile roof assisting distressed fans over the wall and into the stadium to escape the crush outside. A number of these fans had lost shoes and clothing. Stewards also refused to open Gate B. Eventually a steward unlocked and opened the gate for approximately one minute. This relieved the crush.

 

 

So, what appears to be 'unruly fans' actually seems to be a group of fans escaping possible injury and death with the assistance of the police. Even if I'm wrong about the specific group of fans, and the ones being helped over the wall by the police are not the ones in the photos, they are all doing the same thing at the same time - avoiding a crush that should have, could have and had been many times before, avoided by employing established crowd filtering and directing techniques.

 

PS I'm not denying that in any Liverpool crowd, massive as it is, there will be SOME unruly fans. That is the case with every crowd. It is just that it is not a significant factor in what happened that day and that can be backed up with evidence. My point, as ever, is if you (as in everyone) have a doubt or a question you might find what you need by reading the report http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

Edited October 15, 2012 by mikem8634
Had a look now

[NERVY-OWL]

As far as I understand it corporate manslaughter can only be brought against institutions (and, therefore, only result in a fine) not individuals. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that any individual prosecutions will relate only to subsequent behaviours during the cover-up. That may well include elements of the cover-up that were begun on the day.

 

ah right, that is ok then. as i say anything regarding the cover up i fully understand and they should be punished however the courts deem fit. if it's likely to be fines against SYP etc rather than individuals that got critical decisions wrong then thats also understandable.

in regards to the fans behaviour i still believe they played a part in certain decisions being made that day but it's debatable if the behaviour was any worse than any other semi final game so the authorities should shoulder the majority of the blame.

in the end it was a tragic accident and if one good thing did come out of the disaster it was the removal of those fences which were only put up due to hooliganism at the time, which as far as i'm aware liverpool fans played a large part in those days.

[mikem8634]

in regards to the fans behaviour i still believe they played a part in certain decisions being made that day but it's debatable if the behaviour was any worse than any other semi final game so the authorities should shoulder the majority of the blame.

 

in the end it was a tragic accident and if one good thing did come out of the disaster it was the removal of those fences which were only put up due to hooliganism at the time, which as far as i'm aware liverpool fans played a large part in those days.

 

You make some worthwhile points and some of your approach is reasonable but still fall into denigrating Liverpool fans without evidence or reason. If I consistently told everyone that you dressed as Genghis Khan every night and ran about the fields eating foxes you would, quite rightly, expect me to prove it or shut up.

 

Firstly, of course they played a part in decisions made, they were there and needed managing as every crowd does at every football match. If you have a reason for singling them out with comments like this please provide evidence.

 

Secondly, the introduction of fences to football stadia was a reaction to hooliganism and violence from many many clubs. Why single out Liverpool fans? It is precisely this kind of attitude that led the senior management of SYP to preoccupy themselves with hooligans and the suppression of violence and not realise they were dealing with a disaster and tragedy until it was far too late. (I've got a sneaky feeling I can see where somebody may take this next).

 

I cannot believe I am still having to say this after 23 years. As I posted above - PS I'm not denying that in any Liverpool crowd, massive as it is, there will be SOME unruly fans. That is the case with every crowd. It is just that it is not a significant factor in what happened that day and that can be backed up with evidence. My point, as ever, is if you (as in everyone) have a doubt or a question you might find what you need by reading the report http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

Edited October 15, 2012 by mikem8634

[*_ash_*]

I'll get back to you as soon as I've had a look.

 

Had a look now. The photos show, correct me if I'm wrong, what appears to be fans climbing over a wall to get access into the ground.

 

Yep, they're the ones.

 

Consequences of opening the gates

PC Smith recalled looking through a glass window in Gate A at approximately 2.50pm and noticing numerous fans crushed and in great distress. Sergeant Wright claimed that he requested Club stewards to open the gate to relieve the pressure but the stewards refused.

 

Near Gate B Inspector John Bennett was on a turnstile roof assisting distressed fans over the wall and into the stadium to escape the crush outside. A number of these fans had lost shoes and clothing. Stewards also refused to open Gate B. Eventually a steward unlocked and opened the gate for approximately one minute. This relieved the crush.

 

Yep, I've read it. We know the consequences now. Let's be clear, the times of these photographs and when it was first realised that this was an extremely serious situation - was 8 mins. It took me longer than that just to read your post. I wonder how many people would have opened those gate? - at that time.

 

(the 8 mins is based on the time of the photos and the times and reports in the evidence which removes officers comments about the total confusion on the radios and lack of knowing what to do - mainly placed around the 1500 and 1504 mark)

 

PS I'm not denying that in any Liverpool crowd, massive as it is, there will be SOME unruly fans. That is the case with every crowd. It is just that it is not a significant factor in what happened that day and that can be backed up with evidence.

 

And I've not said that the fans were the cause of the disaster (just so you know my viewpoint) - I posted earlier and have done before (this being the most recent undeleted one).

My reasoning and interest in this is because of people like the earlier posters (much of which has now gone) is because I don't think that people understand information - look at the Hull City fans link a couple of pages back. I don't like to see Sheffield's police and medical staff -as a WHOLE- being called murderers and grubby ******* *******'s as we have seen - and continue to see.

 

So, what appears to be 'unruly fans' actually seems to be a group of fans escaping possible injury and death with the assistance of the police.

 

Perhaps that's how it appeared to the people who weren't directly at this position, and who had no radio contact with bobbys. I don't know. As I said, this was a very short time-span, and football at the time was a different spectator sport than it is today (of course, much of which was to do with this).

 

-

 

Who were the fans that appeared to have meant there to be so few police around that area? - that's in the evidence.

 

The original notes say that (though this was BEFORE any danger started to appear) - that 'it seemed that there was only myself and PC2980 Wright left'

 

Reason stated, in the sentence before - 'during this build up [1430] the number of officers in our serial were steadily depleted by officers escorting prisoners to the detention area' (Huckstep page 14)

 

Were there more prisoners than usual? Less bobbys than usual? If you have found those figures (I know the number of police assigned to LL, so no need to show that one), then I'd love to read that - as you know if you've been reading the downloads, there is a LOT to get through. Even if there were more than usual, they still HAVEN'T caused the disaster, but to suggest that these details aren't contributory to the whole series of events, I find slightly perplexing.

 

Too few police then. Would it have made a difference to the whole outcome? Don't know. Nobody does.

 

-

 

Like I posted earlier about penning in fans.

 

You can look at the crowd from 81' Wolves V Spurs (find on youtube, no video evidence links in report to my knowledge) - many people injured in what looked like a 'roleplay' for 89 (if you excuse the ungraciousness of the term)- with one difference -

 

see page 58

 

,and see picture C326A (coroner referencing) (edit to add - page 351 in above link)

 

,then compare to '81.

 

Basic physics.

 

It was also backed up in Inquiry into Hills Disaster Lord Justice Taylor day 22 pages 6-10, linked earlier.

Edited October 16, 2012 by *_ash_*
added another link for clarity