Duckenfield’s negligence extended far beyond a single bad decision to open the gate.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Hillsborough Disaster - Some Questions
- Thread starter whhistle
- Start date
- Status
Duckenfield’s negligence extended far beyond a single bad decision to open the gate.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It is odd the OP has not returned.
underbank
Established Member
The people/person making that "tragic misjudgement" were in positions of power - that's the difference. They made mistakes, and like with any job, they are answerable for their mistakes, with the ultimate sanctions of the law if appropriate. They happily accepted their promotions and the pay, respect, etc that came with it. So they have to bear the responsibilities and consequences too.
There will be huge numbers of people who made their personal decision not to seek promotions and such powerful positions, perhaps they were more realistic about their personal attributes and abilities! Quite simply, if you don't want to bear the consequences of powerful positions, then don't take such positions on in the first place - it's very high risk when you become responsible for huge numbers of other people.
The other pertinent point is that those in positions of power sought to cover up their mistakes by blaming others - that's indefensible - they only did it to save their own skins and retain their positions. If they'd held up their hands and admitted their mistakes, yes, they may have faced legal charges (unlikely) or been disciplined by their employers (more likely but still not certain) - it was their conspiracy and cover up that has caused untold suffering for decades later.
SteveP29
Member
Same here, I'm at work and can't post what I would want to, I'd not get any work done at all today
Had to watch again the Bradford fire for a Health & Safety tutorial at work. Being in a room of non football fans and having started my football purgatory (NUFC) in the early 80's, I was able to tell them that stewards at football grounds in those days were there to stop people getting onto the pitch and nothing else. When the fire began to take hold, the steward didn't know what to do and still actively held people back from escaping through the access gates
As for Thatcher and her poisoned dwarf Colin Moynihan and their id card scheme for football fans, don't get me started.
NUFC had an incident at White Hart Lane in 1987 https://www.themag.co.uk/2017/07/mu...1-february-1987-tottenham-v-newcastle-united/
Video: https://www.themag.co.uk/2016/04/newcastle-came-close-hillsborough-video-newcastle-united-tottenham/
DarloRich
Veteran Member
One of many at the time. At Hillsborough the luck ran out.
That is where the away fans are usually accommodated so it would explain the segregation inside the stadium.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
thought so - thanks.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That'd explain why I couldn't get to the home end, but wouldn't explain why it is apparently partitioned into very small blocks with no access between those either.
Possibly to accommodate differing amounts of away fans. For example; If Manchester United are playing Liverpool, all the away section will be allocated to the away fans. If they are playing Bournemouth on a mid-week night, the away fans might only take up half the away section. This allows the home fans to use the unused part of the away section. It happens at Newcastle United as well.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
plus some copmetetions stipulate the % of seats given ot the away fans. That % may be higher than the nominal away end. I think the FA insist 10% of capacity be given to the away fans. That is why at some grounds ( like oT and Sid James) you end up with these arrangements. It means all away fans are segregated in one area but that the area can be used by home fans on a normal day.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's a good point. Elsewhere you see moveable barriers, or barriers by placing tarpaulins over a few columns of seats, but I guess there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
That isnt, quite, the same thing. That is mainly to create a "cordon sanitaire" between the two sets of fans.
SteveP29
Member
Its more the infrastructure on the concourses behind the 'terracing' I've never been next to the away section at SJP, but did see a system in place at the KC in Hull, where there are sets of metal gates in banks of 2 (creating a 'dead zone') that can be closed or opened to create a secure area for away fans and in differing sizes dependent on the number of fans that are expected to be in attendance (That the concourses are far too narrow there is besides the point and is for another time in another discussion)
The thing I don't understand about it was why were the police even involved in stewarding at the ground? That should have been done by the club and any police presence have been purely for actual crime issues. It comes across very much that the club (and probably others) were being cheapskates and using the publicly funded police as their own private security.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
that is an incorrect assessment of the situation at the time. The police were not involved in stewarding. Do you have any knowledge of football at the time or earlier in the 80's? If not it is hard to understand the environment. You didn't see an army of stewards at games like you do today although they were there. If anything the clubs have gone more "cheapskate" by dispensing with a regular police presence.
it is also worth noting the "cheapskate" clubs pay the police to be there.
Last edited:
Football clubs have to pay for policing for their games. It would be much more expensive to replace all the stewards with police officers.
There were stewards at Hillsborough.
If the police weren't stewarding, why did they get blamed? Of course they were stewarding (at least in combination with the club stewards), they ordered the fateful gate be opened!
To answer your question, no I don't have experience of football in the 80's. In fact the first and last game I've ever watched, even on TV, was Heysell. Kinda put me off
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I think there may be a semantic misunderstanding. The activities of the police are not those of a steward as known in the football sense.
The police are there to ensure public order is maintained. The club are responsible for safety inside the ground. The police outside it. If disorder is breaking out, the police take primacy regardless. The police match commander and club safety officer sit next to each other in the control room and work together although these days the club safety officer is in overall control.
It is fair to say this arrangement has improved since Hillsborough.
There is plenty of information on policing football here: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-order/policing-football/
Maybe its my understanding of the word stewarding. To me, deciding and telling groups of people where to go is stewarding.
I agree that clubs have stepped up their game since then. I just don't get why the police are so involved in football matches when they aren't in other comparable large events such as large concerts or festivals. (there will be police at these events, but they are not involved in the on-the-spot crowd management to the same level). For example I went to Glastonbury a few years after Hillsborough. IIRC I saw a couple of police in the event all weekend and a few directing traffic outside (there will have been more on the other routes into/out of the site)
The fact that the link you provided (which i informative, thanks) has a specific section for football but not for any comparable events is telling.
I agree that clubs have stepped up their game since then. I just don't get why the police are so involved in football matches when they aren't in other comparable large events such as large concerts or festivals. (there will be police at these events, but they are not involved in the on-the-spot crowd management to the same level). For example I went to Glastonbury a few years after Hillsborough. IIRC I saw a couple of police in the event all weekend and a few directing traffic outside (there will have been more on the other routes into/out of the site)
The fact that the link you provided (which i informative, thanks) has a specific section for football but not for any comparable events is telling.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because of (to a fair extent historic) behaviour issues specific to football crowds.
But you aren't allowed to blame the fans
DarloRich
Veteran Member
well I have been going to football for 30+ years and never been arrested or caused any bother........................
because there is a history of problems AND there are vast numbers going to the match every weekend. How many go to Glastonbury? 100K? That's 3 and a bit Premier League games. Once a year. That is a small drop in the ocean of people going to football every weekend.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But you aren't allowed to blame the fans
I think that is overly flippant and shows a complete misunderstanding of this case and the reasons and methods of football policing. I suggest you do some reading.
So despite all the evidence you would still like to blame the fans for Hillsborough? I really would be interested to know. A mate of mine died there and several others are still severely traumatised by what they saw. But yeah, maybe The S*n was right.But you aren't allowed to blame the fans
But you aren't allowed to blame the fans
You’re not allowed to blame the fans at Hillsborough for their own demise, because that is both factually incorrect according to the inquest and a disgusting slur on the deceased.
What is reasonable is looking at why, in 1989 fans were kept in pens and behind fences, and why football matches needed to be policed extensively. It’s also good to be able to distinguish between how people act collectively in a crowd (clue: they pretty much all act in the same way) and how people act as individuals. The police bear responsibility for failing to anticipate and manage the crowds, and for the grossly negligent decision to open the gates, funnelling expectant fans into a place where they had no means of escape.
The corruption and rot of Hillsborough was far reaching and a stain on policing.
How bizarre that the first and last game you watched was at Heysell and you decided to stick your oar in about Hillsborough.
Upvote function needed.
It sounds like the block I have been in watching Liverpool play Man U. I think it is more to do with how they fitted the section in to the stadium than it being a pen in the old style. If you really had to get out you could. Anfield has a small block in the Kop end where you can't get to the rest of the Kop without going up and down stairs. Not a bad spot to be honest.
Iskra
Established Member
They only pay for policing inside the stadium.
What is the relevance? If people only talked about things they have direct experience of, then history would be a bit limited...
- Status