Hillsborough verdict

[mitchmouse]

Duckenfield cleared by jury. Liverpool fans won't be amused but I doubt they will be surprised...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engla...breaking&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter

 

[Mb194dc]

I'm not surprised. Although without being on the jury and hearing the entire case it's hard to know much.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Seemed unfair to prosecute one man over something that came about due to multiple failings, from the safety of the ground, to the amount of fans without tickets attending the game, and then the decisions that led to the crush. All unfortunately avoidable but a single man’s fault? You’re just looking for someone to blame instead of moving on

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Seemed unfair to prosecute one man over something that came about due to multiple failings, from the safety of the ground, to the amount of fans without tickets attending the game, and then the decisions that led to the crush. All unfortunately avoidable but a single man’s fault? You’re just looking for someone to blame instead of moving on

This is pretty much it, a massive error in judgment by a multitude of people. I don’t feel it’s right that it lays at the feet of one person. Very sad indeed no matter how you cut it.

 

[Erebus]

It does appear that there is little possibility of justice. I simply fail to understand how the senior person, the person in command on the day, the person making the decisions on the day, is not culpable for what flowed from his decisions. I know I would feel very aggrieved with the whole process if my child had died that day.

 

[TheReligion]

To find someone guilty the threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt. That means if there's any uncertainty he was solely responsible you can't find him guilty.

@Erebus

 

[SteveJ]

After the verdict, at a press conference in the Cunard building in Liverpool where relatives of the victims had been watching the proceedings via a relay, Margaret Aspinall, the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, said: “I blame a system that’s so morally wrong within this country, that’s a disgrace to this nation.”

 

[Nou_Camp99]

When you watch the horrific footage back to this day you can see there were thousands in that ground who shouldn't have been there. It's not like the other stands were empty and that one stand was overfilled. The other stands were clearly full too. The police and stewards were obviously to blame but the huge number of fans who snuck in are also to blame. Their selfishness helped cause the tragedy.

 

[TheReligion]

I appreciate the emotion but that's plain stupid. A jury of normal every day people have come to the decision. Not sure how much fairer it can be.

 

[decorativeed]

It does appear that there is little possibility of justice. I simply fail to understand how the senior person, the person in command on the day, the person making the decisions on the day, is not culpable for what flowed from his decisions. I know I would feel very aggrieved with the whole process if my child had died that day.

Exactly. The inquest found those people were unlawfully killed. Yet somehow the man in charge of it all gets off scot free. If he's not culpable, then who is?

 

[decorativeed]

When you watch the horrific footage back to this day you can see there were thousands in that ground who shouldn't have been there. It's not like the other stands were empty and that one stand was overfilled. The other stands were clearly full too. The police and stewards were obviously to blame but the huge number of fans who snuck in are also to blame. Their selfishness helped cause the tragedy.

I'm fairly sure this theory has been debunked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35473732

 

[tarzan]

It was the FA and Sheffield Wednesday who were guilty of gross negligence, they IMO should be done for manslaughter.

There was little known incidents before the big tragedy at Hillsborough but nobody acted on it.

 

[TheReligion]

Exactly. The inquest found those people were unlawfully killed. Yet somehow the man in charge of it all gets off scot free. If he's not culpable, then who is?

He's been tried three times. Should he keep getting put before the courts until a guilty verdict?

 

[SteveJ]

'A Terrible Lie'
David Conn, Guardian:

The 2016 inquest jury based its unlawful killing verdict on the clear direction of the coroner, the senior former Court of Appeal judge Sir John Goldring, that they could reach it only if they were satisfied “that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of those 96 people”.

It also demolished the toxic case made by the South Yorkshire police after the disaster: to blame the victims, those 24,000 people who had gone to Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough ground to support Liverpool and been plunged into horror at the squalid Leppings Lane end. That campaign of blame was infamously initiated by Duckenfield himself, who falsely blamed Liverpool supporters even as people were dying from the crush in “pens” 3 and 4 of the Leppings Lane terrace.

Asked what had happened by the Football Association’s chief executive, Graham Kelly, Duckenfield did not tell the truth: that he had ordered exit gates to be opened to allow a large number of people in quickly and alleviate a crush at the turnstiles. Instead, Duckenfield told Kelly that Liverpool supporters had forced a gate open.

At the new inquests, Duckenfield admitted that after exit gate C was opened and more than 2,000 people came in, his own failure to have them directed away from a tunnel, which led to the crowded central pens, caused the lethal crush. He also admitted that he had indeed lied at 3:15pm on the day, then again at a meeting of club directors at about 3:45pm, and that it had been a “terrible lie”.

Quickly relayed to the BBC at the match and broadcast to the nation at 3:40pm, his lie laid the foundation for years of victim-blaming by police that followed.

 

[PickledRed]

When you watch the horrific footage back to this day you can see there were thousands in that ground who shouldn't have been there. It's not like the other stands were empty and that one stand was overfilled. The other stands were clearly full too. The police and stewards were obviously to blame but the huge number of fans who snuck in are also to blame. Their selfishness helped cause the tragedy.

In 2019 this untruth is still being expressed.

This is horrific subject matter, but can’t folk at least give a cursory nod to the actual facts, public inquiry and experts.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I appreciate the emotion but that's plain stupid. A jury of normal every day people have come to the decision. Not sure how much fairer it can be.

After family members were unlawfully killed for just attending a football match (according to the inquest). The families have had 30 years of official denial, cover ups, government & police blaming the fans and media smears. Doesn't sound fair to me and certainly not "stupid".

Give your head a wobble. Your opinion would be different if you were in their position.

 

[Darkhorsez]

From the BBC site ....

Analysis
Judith Moritz, BBC North of England correspondent
The acquittal of David Duckenfield is the latest twist in the history of a disaster which has lasted 30 years. For all that time, the families of those who died, and the survivors of the crush, have campaigned for justice and accountability.
Mr Duckenfield did not dispute that he ordered the opening of a gate at Hillsborough to let fans in, or that he failed to close the tunnel to the terraces which were already full. In 2015 at the Hillsborough Inquests he accepted that this was the direct cause of the 96 deaths.
But an inquest is not a criminal court, and so it was for another jury to decide whether Mr Duckenfield's mistakes amounted to gross negligence manslaughter.
The crown's case was that the Chief Superintendent's failings were so extraordinary that they met that test.
But the jury accepted the defence case that the 75-year-old was a target of blame who was unfairly singled out for prosecution.
He will now be able to resume his life in retirement on the south coast. But the Hillsborough families and survivors will find the outcome hard to take… and will ask hard questions about the £65m spent on a criminal investigation which has ended with no one convicted for so many lives lost.

 

[Wooly Red]

Travesty, in so many ways. The last line from the above BBC paragraph sums it up very well. And I cannot believe there are still people on here who're blaming the fans. Shame on you all.

 

[Halds]

When you watch the horrific footage back to this day you can see there were thousands in that ground who shouldn't have been there. It's not like the other stands were empty and that one stand was overfilled. The other stands were clearly full too. The police and stewards were obviously to blame but the huge number of fans who snuck in are also to blame. Their selfishness helped cause the tragedy.

You're a victim of all the lies that have been told.. You need to educate yourself on the matter.

 

[Spaghetti Bolognese]

What happened was caused by lots of people doing things wrong, not just one. It was a terrible accident in (to this extent) unprecedented circumstances (yes; I know that part of Hillsbrough Stadium had had problems before) and everything happened so fast that the Chief was probably (all hypothetical) in a no-win situation. He had about 15 minutes whilst all of this happened, not 30 years.

It was a terrible tragedy and I don’t really understand the blame game.

 

[Halds]

It does appear that there is little possibility of justice. I simply fail to understand how the senior person, the person in command on the day, the person making the decisions on the day, is not culpable for what flowed from his decisions. I know I would feel very aggrieved with the whole process if my child had died that day.

I really don't get it.. He was in charge. He has admitted, that he ordered the gates opened

And he admitted that he lied about it for 26 years, which resulted in people believing the blame for all his incompetence was on the fans.. I'm not sure this man, as stupid as he is, should be judged for his incompetence that day, as you are not responsible beyond your ability. But he sure should be judged for his lies and the cover up for all those years.

 

[mitchmouse]

Seemed unfair to prosecute one man over something that came about due to multiple failings, from the safety of the ground, to the amount of fans without tickets attending the game, and then the decisions that led to the crush. All unfortunately avoidable but a single man’s fault? You’re just looking for someone to blame instead of moving on

how do people who lost relatives move on? some of the decisions which led to the crush wher made by the police, Duckenfield was the senior officer and he admitted making mistakes at the inquest

 

[mitchmouse]

To find someone guilty the threshold is beyond all reasonable doubt. That means if there's any uncertainty he was solely responsible you can't find him guilty.

@Erebus

he doesn't have to be SOLEY resposnible to be guilty

 

[mitchmouse]

Just because you have been singled out for blame (and others made mistakes, it's true), doesn't sound like much of a defence to me or a reason to be acquitted. Everyone who knows me, knows I have no love for any Liverpool team, but I stand with those Liverpool fans and relatives who once again have been denied justice and any chance of closure. It's a shame that they couldn't haul Kelvin McKenzie and The Sun into court too

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

I was listening to a piece on the BBC about the specific threshold you have to meet to get a conviction for the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and it sounded so high as to be ridiculous. I looked up a piece on the CPS website about GNM and it summarises the threshold like so:

a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased;

b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased;

c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; and

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime;

We can summarise the law shortly. The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21. They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission (see Adomako [2005] 1 Cr App Rep at 369). The elements of GNM were set out by the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

According to the BBC's Clive Coleman, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, this 'so bad in all circumstances' element of the negligence apparently goes beyond being serious or even very serious, and must hit a rather nebulous level of being more or less a once-in-a-lifetime gratuitously terrible level of negligence to qualify for GNM. As far as I understand no member of the police has ever been found guilty of it so I wonder who has advised the Hillsborough families that they were in the running to get near this unprecedented level in Duckenfield's case.

In spite of the sympathy I feel for the lives taken and ruined by this horrendous event it did feel wrong to me to be talking of closure if Duckenfield had been convicted. It's clear there were failings from a range of individuals and institutions from before, during and in the aftermath of the disaster so to hang the whole sorry affair on one man, who for sure had a level of responsibility in the matter, didn't sit well with me. The families have every right to seek justice and I'm sure I couldn't say any of this to their faces but it would have seemed the wrong conviction for the right reasons if he'd gone down while many other guilty parties remain free.

It was the FA and Sheffield Wednesday who were guilty of gross negligence, they IMO should be done for manslaughter.

There was little known incidents before the big tragedy at Hillsborough but nobody acted on it.

Yeah many others along with Duckfield bear responsibility. I'd personally like McKenzie and The Sun to be brought to book for the filth they printed in the days after but it seems like it was Duckenfield or bust.

 

[Penna]

It does appear that there is little possibility of justice. I simply fail to understand how the senior person, the person in command on the day, the person making the decisions on the day, is not culpable for what flowed from his decisions. I know I would feel very aggrieved with the whole process if my child had died that day.

I know he's not been found guilty, but there's no doubt that his decisions have ruined his life for the last 30 years. He's an old man now, he's also paid a price - although of course nothing like the price the innocent victims and their families paid.

 

[blue blue]

The enquiry into the cover up is yet to happen and Duckenfield can still face a serious punishment if he is found to have taken part. From what I've seen the cover up was organised from a high level and his chances don't look good. Maybe there will be some sort of justice from this route.
I used to go to matches in the 70's and 80's and crowd culture in the stadiums was so different in those days. Sometimes leaving a stadium I would get a bit squashed and literally get carried along by the crowd with my feet off the ground. I have vivid memories of certain night matches at Stamford Bridge and being part of huge mass of humanity and every body watching out for each other and not pushing. If somebody did start to get a bit excited the bloke next to him would tell him to pipe down and stop pushing. Those situations weren't unusual and the crowd was aware of the collective responsibility to stay on your feet and behave yourself. It felt a bit scary but everybody felt the same and didn't push forward and we all looked out for each other. The crowd would move forward almost as one unit and only at the pace the exit allowed. I have also been held in after games and everybody accepted it was pointless pushing. If the momentum of the crowd stopped you didn't push.
I wasn't at Hillsborough but everybody has seen the footage of the Leppings Lane end round about the time of the kick off and hundreds of people were still pushing in from tunnel. They may have been trying to get out of the horrors occurring in the tunnel but somewhere at the back of that crowd there had to be overexcited people pushing forward. Regardless of the fact that the person in front them wasn't moving. Regardless of the collective spirit required to look out for your fellow fan and regardless of the potential for serious injury or death.
Yes the Police were at fault for opening the gate behind and letting a huge crowd rush forward, but they didn't physically push the fans down that tunnel. They opened the gate in the belief they were preventing a squash outside the ground. It turned out to be neither a safe or responsible thing to do. We will never know if injury would have occurred outside the ground if the Police hadn't opened the gate. Each and every member of that crowd had a responsibility to behave in a safe and responsible manner and I cannot imagine how such a disaster could have happened without some of the fans pushing the people in front of them.
I know this will come across as a very harsh view, and especially on this day, but just maybe we need to take a step back and think about the realities of what happened and how crowd behaviour usually was in those days.

What would be proper justice for the 96? One man blamed for everything? One man taking the blame for all the mistakes made on that terrible day. There was a collective responsibility that day and I feel the previous enquiry failed to recognise this. Maybe yesterdays jury got it right.

 

[B20]

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime;

We can summarise the law shortly. The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21. They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission (see Adomako [2005] 1 Cr App Rep at 369). The elements of GNM were set out by the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

According to the BBC's Clive Coleman, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, this 'so bad in all circumstances' element of the negligence apparently goes beyond being serious or even very serious, and must hit a rather nebulous level of being more or less a once-in-a-lifetime gratuitously terrible level of negligence to qualify for GNM. As far as I understand no member of the police has ever been found guilty of it so I wonder who has advised the Hillsborough families that they were in the running to get near this unprecedented level in Duckenfield's case.

I suppose what might qualify would be captain Francesco Schettino, who caused the sinking of the Costa Concordia by arrogantly turning off the alerts and departing from the computerised route to show off his navigating skills to his girlfriend, then abandoned ship while people were dying. Arrogance and cowardice caused his negligence.

Whilst I suppose in Duckenfield's case, his negligence is perhaps more a case of gross incompetence. As abhorrent (and imo criminal) his subsequent lies about it were, his dishonesty was not a factor in the negligence that caused the deaths.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

I suppose what might qualify would be captain Francesco Schettino, who caused the sinking of the Costa Concordia by arrogantly turning off the alerts and departing from the computerised route to show off his navigating skills to his girlfriend, then abandoned ship while people were dying. Arrogance and cowardice caused his negligence.

Whilst I suppose in Duckenfield's case, his negligence is perhaps more a case of gross incompetence. As abhorrent (and imo criminal) his subsequent lies about it were, his dishonesty was not a factor in the negligence that caused the deaths.

Yeah others such as that Schettino idiot and a few of the cases I briefly looked into on the CPS website had instances where that threshold could have been met, but what seems to put police officers out of reach in cases of GNM is the fact that they are always working as a cog in a larger machine and so even when we're talking about the commander on the day it is so difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the level required in a criminal court that it was one man, Duckenfield, and one man alone who was grossly negligent to the extent that his conduct passes that super high threshold for GNM.

For that reason I think the families have a point that the justice system is faulty in that there doesn't seem to be a suitable offence to bring against authority figures such as the police that can be made to stick in a criminal court. If they have any energy left whatsoever their fight should now arguably be towards reform of the system so that people in power who are responsible for the next dire public tragedy can face justice in a system that is properly equipped to hold them to account. I would respectfully say one man's scalp is a lesser legacy for the 96 than giving the next set of wronged people a better chance to seek justice, though again I doubt I have the spine to say to Margaret Aspinall's face the whys and wherefores of the situation.

As you say probably the most disgusting facet of Duckenfield's conduct is the lie that emerged at inquest about the Liverpool fans forcing the gate when he'd actually ordered it to be opened. That's disgraceful and as you argue potentially criminal in its own right but it has no bearing on his negligence on the day.

 

[TGK]

I'd urge everyone to watch the recent CH4 drama 'The Accident'.

It's chilling. The legal system is broken.

It's basically a case of....where multiple people are guilty then no one is.

It's just wrong.

 

[Darth Revan]

i'm quite sure liverpool fc said to refrain from commentary that could prejudice any future legal proceedings

 

[TheReligion]

I was listening to a piece on the BBC about the specific threshold you have to meet to get a conviction for the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and it sounded so high as to be ridiculous. I looked up a piece on the CPS website about GNM and it summarises the threshold like so:

a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased;

b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased;

c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; and

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime;

We can summarise the law shortly. The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21. They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission (see Adomako [2005] 1 Cr App Rep at 369). The elements of GNM were set out by the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

According to the BBC's Clive Coleman, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, this 'so bad in all circumstances' element of the negligence apparently goes beyond being serious or even very serious, and must hit a rather nebulous level of being more or less a once-in-a-lifetime gratuitously terrible level of negligence to qualify for GNM. As far as I understand no member of the police has ever been found guilty of it so I wonder who has advised the Hillsborough families that they were in the running to get near this unprecedented level in Duckenfield's case.

In spite of the sympathy I feel for the lives taken and ruined by this horrendous event it did feel wrong to me to be talking of closure if Duckenfield had been convicted. It's clear there were failings from a range of individuals and institutions from before, during and in the aftermath of the disaster so to hang the whole sorry affair on one man, who for sure had a level of responsibility in the matter, didn't sit well with me. The families have every right to seek justice and I'm sure I couldn't say any of this to their faces but it would have seemed the wrong conviction for the right reasons if he'd gone down while many other guilty parties remain free.



Yeah many others along with Duckfield bear responsibility. I'd personally like McKenzie and The Sun to be brought to book for the filth they printed in the days after but it seems like it was Duckenfield or bust.

Great post.

 

[TheReligion]

After family members were unlawfully killed for just attending a football match (according to the inquest). The families have had 30 years of official denial, cover ups, government & police blaming the fans and media smears. Doesn't sound fair to me and certainly not "stupid".

Give your head a wobble. Your opinion would be different if you were in their position.

Having been in their position in my own personal life with regards to losing a loved one and a case of GNM being put before the courts.

The families are speaking with their emotions rather than using logic. One family member was asked yesterday and ranted that it would be different if 96 police officers had died - irrelevant and silly to say. Another mentioned she just wanted her son back.

It seems many want, and are searching for something they will never get. I'm not sure anything will provide the closure they want. It's very sad.

 

[pacifictheme]

Listening to a bit on the radio last night and today and it was just really upsetting to listen to. What those families have been through is absolutely awful and hearing them talk was heartbreaking. YAWN really is the perfect song for liverpool and its a shame its not sung by more football fans really. What happened to them could have happened to any group of fans.

Still want them to fall apart and not win the league obviously.

 

[pacifictheme]

I suppose what might qualify would be captain Francesco Schettino, who caused the sinking of the Costa Concordia by arrogantly turning off the alerts and departing from the computerised route to show off his navigating skills to his girlfriend, then abandoned ship while people were dying. Arrogance and cowardice caused his negligence.

Whilst I suppose in Duckenfield's case, his negligence is perhaps more a case of gross incompetence. As abhorrent (and imo criminal) his subsequent lies about it were, his dishonesty was not a factor in the negligence that caused the deaths.

Is there a reason he wasn't convicted of perverting the course of justice?

 

[montpelier]

The Plod managed to fail to prevent 2 crushes. The gate got opened because of the one happening outside.

This made the situation inside markedly worse obviously.

Looking at it in 2 parts helped me a lot with what I thought was and wasn't relevant with a sense of proportion I think.

Fans were put into cages to watch football because we were all violent hooligans. This was the prevailing view of the Plod and football authorities.

Some of the Liverpool perspective is a justification of how they want to be perceived I think- but you need to split that entirely from how the families feel they have been treated though because that is how they have been treated. Bent inquests, decades of evasion, evidence being rewritten, some lies and a lot of people not really caring.

 

[montpelier]

I'm left thinking Duckenfield is rather fortunate to get off but there is just about enough there to make his defence work if you feel he's being made into a bit of a scapegoat.

Tempany book is a good read if you want to be shocked and appalled by some of the background and details. It gets all a bit class war at times, but if you can work around that, I would highly recommend.

 

[Mb194dc]

They spent £65m on this case.

You've got to think this should have all been dealt with in the early 90s. After the Taylor report.

Why not put Duckenfield and others on trial then?

No idea why they started everything again 10 years ago?

Hard to see how justice has been served for the victims or Duckenfield dragging it out over 30 years.

Total shambles really.

 

[The Brown Bull]

I was listening to a piece on the BBC about the specific threshold you have to meet to get a conviction for the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and it sounded so high as to be ridiculous. I looked up a piece on the CPS website about GNM and it summarises the threshold like so:

a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased;

b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased;

c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; and

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime;

We can summarise the law shortly. The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21. They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission (see Adomako [2005] 1 Cr App Rep at 369). The elements of GNM were set out by the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

According to the BBC's Clive Coleman, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, this 'so bad in all circumstances' element of the negligence apparently goes beyond being serious or even very serious, and must hit a rather nebulous level of being more or less a once-in-a-lifetime gratuitously terrible level of negligence to qualify for GNM. As far as I understand no member of the police has ever been found guilty of it so I wonder who has advised the Hillsborough families that they were in the running to get near this unprecedented level in Duckenfield's case.

In spite of the sympathy I feel for the lives taken and ruined by this horrendous event it did feel wrong to me to be talking of closure if Duckenfield had been convicted. It's clear there were failings from a range of individuals and institutions from before, during and in the aftermath of the disaster so to hang the whole sorry affair on one man, who for sure had a level of responsibility in the matter, didn't sit well with me. The families have every right to seek justice and I'm sure I couldn't say any of this to their faces but it would have seemed the wrong conviction for the right reasons if he'd gone down while many other guilty parties remain free.



Yeah many others along with Duckfield bear responsibility. I'd personally like McKenzie and The Sun to be brought to book for the filth they printed in the days after but it seems like it was Duckenfield or bust.

Well said. The FA were getting away with incompetence for years prior to Hillsborough. Leppings Lane was unsafe for such a crowd, ie a crowd expected to attend a big game like a Cup semi final. We had too semis there in the 70s and it was just good luck that nothing similar happened.
My sympathy is with the families who lost loved ones.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

They spent £65m on this case.

You've got to think this should have all been dealt with in the early 90s. After the Taylor report.

Why not put Duckenfield and others on trial then?

No idea why they started everything again 10 years ago?

Hard to see how justice has been served for the victims or Duckenfield dragging it out over 30 years.

Total shambles really.

Because it's the police, that's why.

Trying to get them charged is nigh on impossible. They are so well protected.

A lawyer for some of the families of the 96 was on BBC yesterday and said that the answers lie very much with South Yorkshire police. Who's going to go after them.
It's not Line Of Duty,chasing down a couple of corrupt cops. this went right to the top