Burnley Ace wrote:Best of 3?

mdd2 wrote:What an ordeal for all concerned. Not surprised at that given the previous verdict.
I suppose now we may have private prosecutions. Isn't that where presumed guilt is on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable
doubt?

Steve1956 wrote:They will get him eventually.

basil6345789 wrote:And also those who went without tickets to a venue already sold out to it's safe capacity? What were they thinking?

yTib wrote:it's sickening that folk still hold this view after all this time.

a crowd doesn't think with a single mind; it is dynamic and unpredictable.

it needs somebody competent to direct and manage such an entity.

this man failed and people died. how many decades should it take to find out why your family died at a football match?

basil6345789 wrote:Don't understand the point you're trying to make.

basil6345789 wrote:Don't understand the point you're trying to make.

basil6345789 wrote:Don't understand the point you're trying to make.

yTib wrote:it's sickening that folk still hold this view after all this time.

a crowd doesn't think with a single mind; it is dynamic and unpredictable.

it needs somebody competent to direct and manage such an entity.

this man failed and people died. how many decades should it take to find out why your family died at a football match?

elwaclaret wrote:Sometimes people do all the right things for the right reasons, but at the wrong time.

I think this verdict is a victory for rationalism over emotion. Hopefully it shows that society is finally moving away from blame culture.... not before time.

It would be nice to have a discussion where argument and reason, not gut feeling and instinct returns to the limelight.

Firthy wrote:Spot on. Blame culture has gone too far. There is no longer such a thing as an accident these days. People always want someone to blame or financial compensation.

Let's hope it has finally put an end to it. Maybe the man did make errors of judgement but you can only imagine what pressure he was under at the time, trying to make him a scapegoat is scandalous IMO.

Firthy wrote:Spot on. Blame culture has gone too far. There is no longer such a thing as an accident these days. People always want someone to blame or financial compensation.

Let's hope it has finally put an end to it. Maybe the man did make errors of judgement but you can only imagine what pressure he was under at the time, trying to make him a scapegoat is scandalous IMO.

ClaretTony wrote:The point he’s making is in regard to your idiotic, shameful, libellous and appalling suggestion of people turning up without tickets. Did you not take any note of the enquiry or inquests?

Terrier wrote:Can not help but think that if this had happened at ascot with the top hat brigade things would have been sorted many years ago!

Grumps wrote:Exactly, I wonder what other decision he could have made, other than to open the gates, imagine the outcry if fans had died outside because he refused to open the gates, he was in an difficult position, and it could have been that people died whichever decision he made.

basil6345789 wrote:The enquiry determined that the fans outside were neither drunk nor hooliganous, quite right. However, a pint does not fit into a quart pot. Your choice of adjectives is astonishing and out of order.

ClaretTony wrote:The courts determined those who died were killed unlawfully. That is not an accident.

Firthy wrote:I disagree with that decision and IMO was a tragic accident.

MRG wrote:I am pretty sure that nothing was done that day maliciously however terribly the whole thing was managed. Let their poor souls rest in peace

Terrier wrote:Tarky's,....not sure what your question has to do with this subject but for your info i'm from a mining family brought up around stoops so it all points one way but for the first time ever I will vote tory ( my grandads will turn in their grave ).

MRG wrote:I am pretty sure that nothing was done that day maliciously however terribly the whole thing was managed. Let their poor souls rest in peace

Terrier wrote:Tarky's,....not sure what your question has to do with this subject but for your info i'm from a mining family brought up around stoops so it all points one way but for the first time ever I will vote tory ( my grandads will turn in their grave ).

ClaretTony wrote:No it wasn’t, it was unlawful killing.

elwaclaret wrote:Interesting point Tony. I agree with it in principle. However, I think our judicial system and the jury could have easily thrown him under a bus and know most people would be happy. They didn’t... which suggests the evidence was not in truth even close to conviction.

It has to be a shock result and our judiciary doing their job, knowing the backlash that would result.

ClaretTony wrote:No it wasn’t, it was unlawful killing.

Claret Toni wrote:It has ben reported that 23 minutes after he gave the order to open the gates Duckinfield stated the gates had been forced.

To my mind, either he forgot what he said that short time previously, or he knew he'd erred and was trying to cover it up.

Of course that's not the only thing the South Yorkshire Police tried to cover up at Hillsborough, of course.



….weren't they the force used to oppose the striking miners, a few years previously. Above the law; surely not.

Claret Toni wrote:It has ben reported that 23 minutes after he gave the order to open the gates Duckinfield stated the gates had been forced.

To my mind, either he forgot what he said that short time previously, or he knew he'd erred and was trying to cover it up.

Of course that's not the only thing the South Yorkshire Police tried to cover up at Hillsborough, of course.



….weren't they the force used to oppose the striking miners, a few years previously. Above the law; surely not.

ClaretTony wrote:No it wasn’t, it was unlawful killing.

Grumps wrote:Is that the coroners Court verdict you are quoting?
Probably the only person who could have been convicted of unlawful killing has been found not guilty
So I guess it depends which court verdict we rely on to support the different views many have.

elwaclaret wrote:Pretty much my point.
It would have been very difficult for jury, and those running the show to find not guilty. They knew what most of us thought.... and the backlash that will now rumble on and on, they decided on the evidence as presented to them, Knowing they’d be vilified yet still having the backbone to do the right thing....

I think they deserve great credit.

ClaretTony wrote:I’d have given them more credit if they’d found him guilty. He made the mistakes, he lied about it for 27 years. Unfortunately I think it has just proved impossible to have a fair trial.

ClaretTony wrote:I’d have given them more credit if they’d found him guilty. He made the mistakes, he lied about it for 27 years. Unfortunately I think it has just proved impossible to have a fair trial.

elwaclaret wrote:So you’d be happy to be hung out to dry on public opinion, and the known facts over a jury trial on given evidence.... fair enough. The law was applied. They cannot try him for being a liar.... an asshole... or worst man in the world.

I’m amazed but I’m very happy that despite EVERYTHING they could not just throw the **** to the dogs....

ClaretTony wrote:Sadly they can’t try him for being a liar but at the end of the day his decisions were responsible for those unlawful deaths. I accept he didn’t kill anyone intentionally but he made huge, significant errors and then lied about them.

My thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives that day.