Author Topic: Hillsborough  (Read 1194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Hillsborough
« on: April 15, 2019, 12:27:AM »
Thoughts with the families and everybody affected today. 30 years and still seems like yesterday 😢

JFT96

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2019, 07:54:PM »
Thoughts with the families and everybody affected today. 30 years and still seems like yesterday 😢

JFT96

Thoughts echoed!

15th of April seems marred by tragedy.

Titanic
Hillsborough
Notre Dame

 :(
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2020, 04:28:PM »
Again, thoughts with the families and everybody affected today.

JFT96

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2020, 05:45:PM »
My thoughts for those who died and my respectful condolences to their families.

Petey, I see you have an interest in this.  I have some distant interest in it and I wonder about one or two things.  I remember when it happened, and I have also lived in Liverpool.

Since this is a miscarriage of justice forum, do you think the recent acquittal of David Duckenfield is a miscarriage of justice?  Or would you accept that this was a complex tragedy with multiple causes and that, from a justice point-of-view, it may not be fair to make one man criminally-responsible to the extent the prosecution alleged?

Also, and this is a sensitive topic and I will try to be delicate: To what extent do you think crowd dynamics played a role in the tragedy?  Was crowd behaviour a contributory cause of the tragedy, or do you regard it as merely an underlying factor, or not relevant at all?

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2022, 10:28:PM »
Just watched Anne on ITV. Incredibly powerful and emotional. I found it difficult to watch at times, considering the incredibly hurtful treatment so many people received. Highly recommend watching if people are interested.

JFT97

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2022, 10:32:PM »
My thoughts for those who died and my respectful condolences to their families.

Petey, I see you have an interest in this.  I have some distant interest in it and I wonder about one or two things.  I remember when it happened, and I have also lived in Liverpool.

Since this is a miscarriage of justice forum, do you think the recent acquittal of David Duckenfield is a miscarriage of justice?  Or would you accept that this was a complex tragedy with multiple causes and that, from a justice point-of-view, it may not be fair to make one man criminally-responsible to the extent the prosecution alleged?

Also, and this is a sensitive topic and I will try to be delicate: To what extent do you think crowd dynamics played a role in the tragedy?  Was crowd behaviour a contributory cause of the tragedy, or do you regard it as merely an underlying factor, or not relevant at all?

Sorry, I must have missed this post.

From a legal point of view, no I do not think it was a miscarriage of justice.

Duckenfield was found culpable for 96 deaths (now 97) in the coroners court in 2016. However that required a balance of probability (51%). There is no way he would have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt (c.99%+) in a criminal court.

JFT97

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2022, 02:19:AM »
My thoughts for those who died and my respectful condolences to their families.

Petey, I see you have an interest in this.  I have some distant interest in it and I wonder about one or two things.  I remember when it happened, and I have also lived in Liverpool.

Since this is a miscarriage of justice forum, do you think the recent acquittal of David Duckenfield is a miscarriage of justice?  Or would you accept that this was a complex tragedy with multiple causes and that, from a justice point-of-view, it may not be fair to make one man criminally-responsible to the extent the prosecution alleged?

Also, and this is a sensitive topic and I will try to be delicate: To what extent do you think crowd dynamics played a role in the tragedy?  Was crowd behaviour a contributory cause of the tragedy, or do you regard it as merely an underlying factor, or not relevant at all?

I’m researching Hillsborough from a critical victimology and social harm perspective for my thesis which you are very welcome to read when I publish.

There were numerous factors at play which contributed to the disaster.

- Inexperienced match commander
- reduced policing numbers from 1988
- reduced budget from 1988
- roadworks approaching Sheffield which delayed Liverpool fan arrivals
- no filtering system to slow the approach to the turnstiles like in 1988
- no filtering system to prevent access into pen 3 once it was already full, as there was in 1988.
- complete refusal to delay kick off when it was clear that all fans would not get into the ground in time for kick off
- guidance on tickets to be seated for 14.45 and no planning for if the majority of fans waited til this time to access the ground
- Duckenfield opening the exit gate then ‘freezing’ as events unfolded
- Crucially Duckenfield lying from the start that Liverpool fans had forced the gate. With Heysel fresh in their minds, it was totally erroneously viewed as holiganism. This meant that 44 (FORTY FOUR) ambulances waited outside the ground when they could have entered to save lives. Only 2 made it onto the pitch.
- Police officers inside the ground being told that it was a pitch invasion caused by hooligans, so instead of helping fans escape the crush and allowing them to receive urgent medical treatment, they actually hindered or prevented their escape. 

There are numerous other factors that had an impact too, but that’s a summary of some of the key ones.

My research shows crowd behaviour played a negligible role.

JFT97
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 02:21:AM by petey »

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2022, 03:39:PM »
Sorry, I must have missed this post.

From a legal point of view, no I do not think it was a miscarriage of justice.

Duckenfield was found culpable for 96 deaths (now 97) in the coroners court in 2016. However that required a balance of probability (51%). There is no way he would have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt (c.99%+) in a criminal court.

JFT97

Petey,

Thank you for your replies.

I'm not sure I would accept that the 'balance of probabilities' civil standard always implies a >50% threshold.  I would imagine a lot of professional lawyers, and judges, think it does, but I'm sceptical.  Apart from anything else, it's innumerate to express it as '51%', though that seems to be the common way of putting it, but I am also sceptical about the practicality and justice of such a low standard.

The balance of probabilities test is typically expressed more formally as:

"On the balance of probabilities, Fact X is more likely than not to be the case."

This seems like a tautological statement: it could be read as saying the same thing twice.  This may explain why it is simply read as a statement that if something is more likely than not to happen, then the burden is met, which in turn implies that a notional 50.0001-49.9999 split is enough for the claimant to meet the burden of proof (or, indeed, the opposite for the defendant to see the claim fail); or, in coronial proceedings, it is enough for an inquest jury to select a particular verdict. 

I think you could read the statement in two parts, which has the effect of ratcheting the evidential burden upwards or downwards, depending on what is to be decided.  'On the balance of probabilities' implies a simple, naive reckoning between one account and the other, but in order for something to be 'more likely than not', you can't ignore the strength of the probabilities in the opposite 'less likely' argument. 

To explain with an example: let's say a point of fact that needs to be decided in a civil case is whether Person A unlawfully killed Person B.  Let's say that it's decided that Person A is 51% likely to have killed Person B.  Is it just to conclude according to a civil standard that Person A therefore probably killed Person B?  Or, given the seriousness of what is alleged, shouldn't we give weight to Person A's arguments and insist on a great preponderance of evidence before holding Person A liable, albeit that this high probability will still be lower than the criminal standard?

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2022, 04:33:PM »
Petey,

Again, thanks for your reply.  I would welcome the opportunity to read your thesis when it is published.

By interpreting the tragedy in victimological terms, you seem to be implying that what was, essentially, a large-scale accident should be considered through the paradigm of criminology: i.e. it was gross negligence manslaughter, thus criminal, not just an accident.  I assume this reflects the verdict of the jury in the second inquest of 2016, but only one person involved in this has ever been convicted in the criminal courts: the club secretary for a technical health & safety offence.  He was fined. 

You admit that the case against David Duckenfield may not have met the criminal standard of proof.  Where does this leave us, if we accept what I presume is your thesis, that this was a mass crime scene?  How could the criminal justice and coronial systems be reformed to address 'social harms' where criminal proceedings leave questions of fact and culpability unresolved?  Is there room for non-adversarial processes within the criminal justice system to acknowledge wider harm and give voice to condemnatory feelings and the anguish, grief and trauma of families and survivors, while acknowledging the lack of proofs necessary to establish individual accountability?

My research shows crowd behaviour played a negligible role.

JFT97

I am sceptical about that, and I suppose this is relevant to 'critical victimology' because I'm guessing your approach to the tragedy is to ask whether flaws in the handling of the incident and the apportionment of blame and responsibility reflected attitudes to Liverpool supporters - and football supporters generally - as a class. 

I comment purely as a layman and I wasn't there, let me re-emphasise that, and I don't in any way intend to cast aspersions on people who died.  How terrible to be informed of your son or daughter's death at a simple football match.  My heart goes out to the victims, those who survived, and to the families and loved ones.  I have been to football and rugby matches myself.  My preference is rugby union, but I was also at Leeds United matches during that era, so have a broad understanding of it.  Unfortunately, I do think that the behaviour of the Liverpool supporters as a possible factor in the tragedy has been intentionally whitewashed, partly due to the behaviour of the Fleet Street press in the immediate aftermath.  They slandered and criminalised Liverpool supporters without restraint, which meant it became difficult for intelligent journalists to ask proper questions about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters and whether this may have been a causative factor. 

I personally find it difficult to believe that the behaviour of the crowd would not have had an effect, especially if there were elements in the crowd intent on causing trouble.  It absolutely must have been a factor, really.  It's practically axiomatic. The real question is whether supporter behaviour was a causative factor or just one among a number of factors in the background that contributed to the larger picture.

I accept that the Taylor Report addressed the 'supporter behaviour' problem anyway, just without spelling it out.  The problem there, though, is that Lord Justice Taylor went over-board in his safety recommendations and tamed and gentrified football culture.

I also raise 'crowd dynamics' as a separate thing to crowd behaviour.  There may be factors in the physical environment and the architectural design and layout of the stadium (including things related to factors you highlight above) that will have contributed to the crowd movement and dispersal.

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2022, 07:44:PM »
Petey,

Again, thanks for your reply.  I would welcome the opportunity to read your thesis when it is published.

By interpreting the tragedy in victimological terms, you seem to be implying that what was, essentially, a large-scale accident should be considered through the paradigm of criminology: i.e. it was gross negligence manslaughter, thus criminal, not just an accident.  I assume this reflects the verdict of the jury in the second inquest of 2016, but only one person involved in this has ever been convicted in the criminal courts: the club secretary for a technical health & safety offence.  He was fined. 

You admit that the case against David Duckenfield may not have met the criminal standard of proof.  Where does this leave us, if we accept what I presume is your thesis, that this was a mass crime scene?  How could the criminal justice and coronial systems be reformed to address 'social harms' where criminal proceedings leave questions of fact and culpability unresolved?  Is there room for non-adversarial processes within the criminal justice system to acknowledge wider harm and give voice to condemnatory feelings and the anguish, grief and trauma of families and survivors, while acknowledging the lack of proofs necessary to establish individual accountability?

I am sceptical about that, and I suppose this is relevant to 'critical victimology' because I'm guessing your approach to the tragedy is to ask whether flaws in the handling of the incident and the apportionment of blame and responsibility reflected attitudes to Liverpool supporters - and football supporters generally - as a class. 

I comment purely as a layman and I wasn't there, let me re-emphasise that, and I don't in any way intend to cast aspersions on people who died.  How terrible to be informed of your son or daughter's death at a simple football match.  My heart goes out to the victims, those who survived, and to the families and loved ones.  I have been to football and rugby matches myself.  My preference is rugby union, but I was also at Leeds United matches during that era, so have a broad understanding of it.  Unfortunately, I do think that the behaviour of the Liverpool supporters as a possible factor in the tragedy has been intentionally whitewashed, partly due to the behaviour of the Fleet Street press in the immediate aftermath.  They slandered and criminalised Liverpool supporters without restraint, which meant it became difficult for intelligent journalists to ask proper questions about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters and whether this may have been a causative factor. 

I personally find it difficult to believe that the behaviour of the crowd would not have had an effect, especially if there were elements in the crowd intent on causing trouble.  It absolutely must have been a factor, really.  It's practically axiomatic. The real question is whether supporter behaviour was a causative factor or just one among a number of factors in the background that contributed to the larger picture.

I accept that the Taylor Report addressed the 'supporter behaviour' problem anyway, just without spelling it out.  The problem there, though, is that Lord Justice Taylor went over-board in his safety recommendations and tamed and gentrified football culture.

I also raise 'crowd dynamics' as a separate thing to crowd behaviour.  There may be factors in the physical environment and the architectural design and layout of the stadium (including things related to factors you highlight above) that will have contributed to the crowd movement and dispersal.

There are so many factors at play within the Hillsborough disaster and still over32 years later, much still remains hidden.

The Taylor report immediately caused problems as he issued an interim report which largely blamed police failures. Then a final report which dealt with general recommendations for football ground safety. This meant  that the strong conclusions in the interim report of the main reason for the disaster being failure of police control, became somewhat overlooked,

Just how close a link there was to Hillsborough and Orgreave has never been definitively proven but the evidence shows strong similarities and many SYP officers were present at both.

I have a balancing act depending on my audience, given that I’m a Liverpool supporter, have attended the memorials at Anfield virtually every year and am fortunate to personally know key figures involved like Bishop James Jones and Phil Scraton. I have also covered Hillsborough as an undergraduate law student, as a lawyer and now as an academic scholar. Therefore I need to be careful which hat I am wearing when answering questions, be that from an academic, personal or LFC supporter point of view.

The Hillsborough stadium was not fit to host an FA Cup semi final and did not have a safety certificate. There has been previous injuries and a death at Hillsborough prior to 1989. (1914 and 1934) as well as numerous complaints of feeling unsafe and experiencing crushing following the 88 semi final.

Hillsborough hosted 5 semi finals in the 80s and not a single one passed off without major safety issues including crushing coming to light.

Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself with the ground layout, the capacities in different sections or even the 7 turnstiles through which Liverpool supporters had to be filtered.

Duckenfield was completely unaware of the Freeman tactic of closing the tunnel when central pens were full.

My thesis is looking into justice and accountability mainly through the social harm lens. I’m not looking at this from a criminal law perspective although I will cover the factual matters.

I’m currently midway through my third year part time of my PhD so I have another 3-4 years left still.

90%+ of my research is probably not currently widely known in the public domain

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2022, 12:20:AM »
Interesting, thanks.

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2022, 02:21:AM »
Interesting, thanks.

No worries.

I’ve written c. 70,000 words so far as a Hillsborough overview detailing everything that has happened before, during and after the disaster.

But the key task now is setting out my clear methodology and the social constructionist approach I will take to answer my research questions. That’s where the hard work starts as I’m now completely out of my intellectual comfort zone!

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2022, 02:32:AM »
No worries.

I’ve written c. 70,000 words so far as a Hillsborough overview detailing everything that has happened before, during and after the disaster.

But the key task now is setting out my clear methodology and the social constructionist approach I will take to answer my research questions. That’s where the hard work starts as I’m now completely out of my intellectual comfort zone!

I believe you will be successful and I look forward to addressing you as Dr. Petey!

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2022, 02:49:AM »
I believe you will be successful and I look forward to addressing you as Dr. Petey!

Why thank you 👍. Few years to go and plenty of hard work to complete yet tho

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Hillsborough
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2022, 10:23:AM »
I thought you knew all there was to know !