Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Hillsborough Inquest update

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ckn said:

When you read the CPS justification for dropping it, you can see why they did.  If they could have charged with all four original offences then it'd be a big deal, the one charge left was essentially lying on an interview to get a job and one of the witnesses partially recanted his story when challenged.

When looked at subjectively against the consequences of Hillsborough, it seems very rough justice for the victims and their families.  When looked at objectively against criminal justice rules and police/CPS charging guidelines, you can see why it's probably the right decision.

In amongst the technicalities let’s not forget 96 people went to watch a game of football and didn’t come back home 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phil said:

In amongst the technicalities let’s not forget 96 people went to watch a game of football and didn’t come back home 

That is tragic.  However, the witness testimony had changed and so the CPS could not continue.  That isn't a technicality; it is a key factor, surely.  Two witnesses are no longer reliable and one is no longer alive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

 why has there never been an inquiry in to the people who decided to put those cage like fences between the fans and the pitch? 

The reason has always been known: there was terrible soccer hooliganism at the time (I think England fans were banned from attending matches in Europe at one point, if memory serves).  The fences were erected at lots of soccer stadia as a means of keeping the fans off the pitch and thus fighting (although plenty of fighting went on in surrounding streets).  I think it was post Hillsborough that all seater stadia were introduced.  I think also there was legislation passed to make going on to a soccer pitch a criminal offence although that may not have been as a direct result of Hillsborough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil said:

In amongst the technicalities let’s not forget 96 people went to watch a game of football and didn’t come back home 

Being cautious about there still being a trial to come, if you look at the remaining defendants then there’s criminal behaviour there in the allegations. If you look at the end goal of getting justice for the victims and don’t concentrate on actual crimes then you get into vigilante “justice”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saintslass said:

The reason has always been known: there was terrible soccer hooliganism at the time (I think England fans were banned from attending matches in Europe at one point, if memory serves).  The fences were erected at lots of soccer stadia as a means of keeping the fans off the pitch and thus fighting (although plenty of fighting went on in surrounding streets).  I think it was post Hillsborough that all seater stadia were introduced.  I think also there was legislation passed to make going on to a soccer pitch a criminal offence although that may not have been as a direct result of Hillsborough.

All English clubs were.banned from European club competitions after the Heysel tragedy which involved Liverpool fans. 

Fences had been implemented after a high profile incident involving Millwall fans at Luton Town. I think maybe the legislation was passed after this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 10:17 PM, Niels said:

All English clubs were.banned from European club competitions after the Heysel tragedy which involved Liverpool fans. 

Fences had been implemented after a high profile incident involving Millwall fans at Luton Town. I think maybe the legislation was passed after this.

 

There had been previous individual club bans before Heysel after separate incidents of violence involving Leeds United fans rioting in Paris (four year ban later reduced to two years) and Manchester United’s one year ban from Europe in 1977 after violence occurred when they played St. Etienne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

There had been previous individual club bans before Heysel after separate incidents of violence involving Leeds United fans rioting in Paris (four year ban later reduced to two years) and Manchester United’s one year ban from Europe in 1977 after violence occurred when they played St. Etienne. 

There is no real comparison though to Heysel where 39 fans were killed and 600 injured.

These were 12 amd 10 years before Heysel respectively. There were no fatalities and only the teams affected were punished.

Additionally Heysel resulted in all English clubs being banned for 5 years and Liverpool.for 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Niels said:

There is no real comparison though to Heysel where 39 fans were killed and 600 injured.

These were 12 amd 10 years before Heysel respectively. There were no fatalities and only the teams affected were punished.

Additionally Heysel resulted in all English clubs being banned for 5 years and Liverpool.for 6. 

No one is comparing the two although the actual violence was probably worse and more prolonged on both previous occasions involving Leeds United and Manchester United resulting in European bans for both.

The difference at Heysel was a wall collapsed as panicking fans in a poorly segregated area fled to escape after trouble had started.

The point I would make is the wider ban for all English clubs in the wake of Heysel followed lots of examples of violence involving English club sides and the national team in the decades before.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

No one is comparing the two although the actual violence was probably worse and more prolonged on both previous occasions involving Leeds United and Manchester United resulting in European bans for both.

The difference at Heysel was a wall collapsed as panicking fans in a poorly segregated area fled to escape after trouble had started.

The point I would make is the wider ban for all English clubs in the wake of Heysel followed lots of examples of violence involving English club sides and the national team in the decades before.

 

 

 

 

Hysel wasnt an accident. 14 Liverpool supporters were convicted of involutary manslaughter. 

I had a recent correspondence with the editor of the Liverpool Echo about this and they had no wish to excuse or underplay the responsibility of Heysel. Indeed it was her that pointed out the convictions to me. 

People are very empathetic about Hillsborough and to, in effect, blame "Heysel" on a wall collapsing and state that other incidents were worse is disrespectful to those who died in my opinion. 

Edited by Niels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Heysel was hideous and not an accident.

I would suggest it is a separate thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I agree Heysel was hideous and not an accident.

I would suggest it is a separate thread.

Indeed. Some (and, for clarity, I'm not referring to anyone on this thread) like to conflate the two incidents in a "nudge nudge, wink wink" type of way to imply that the Liverpool fans were responsible for the deaths of the 96.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Niels said:

Hysel wasnt an accident. 14 Liverpool supporters were convicted of involutary manslaughter. 

I had a recent correspondence with the editor of the Liverpool Echo about this and they had no wish to excuse or underplay the responsibility of Heysel. Indeed it was her that pointed out the convictions to me. 

People are very empathetic about Hillsborough and to, in effect, blame "Heysel" on a wall collapsing and state that other incidents were worse is disrespectful to those who died in my opinion. 

I’m sorry you believe that I have disrespected the people that died at Heysel.

I think the state of the stadium at Heysel is recognised as one of the factors of the disaster as is the poor segregation of the two sets of fans in that end of the stadium.

That isn’t excusing or underplaying the role of the Liverpool fans involved, but is instead giving a fuller explanation for events that happened that night which is important.

The wider context of the other incidents that I mention giving examples of Leeds United and Manchester United is also important as it shows a cultural climate of violence generally surrounding English club in Europe at that time (there are other examples, I happened to choose them).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'm happy for thread drift as things go on but on this subject I'm going to ask that you scale it back within the hard borders of the Hillsborough tragedy and its inquest.  Posts haven't gone wrong, it's just that this subject can get very emotive and easy for misunderstandings to result in very bad feelings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duckenfield pleaded "not guilty" in court this morning.  It's getting close to the trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday