Hillsborough

[The Kraken]

Just speaking to one of the lads at work who's uncle was there that day.. he said he was told by his uncle that is was utter chaos outside, there were more liverpool fans than what they could cope with and many who did not have tickets.....he knew this as there were god knows how many begging to buy tickets off people outside....as for why liverpool had that end ofthe ground....the reason he was told was that liverpool fans were brought in from one way and forest fans the other....they were given said ends so they did not cross each other en masse........he said he was lucky as he got in and was down the side of the stand...but my mates uncle told him that there were simply too many liverpool fans there that day......and the police simply fecked it up royally

 

I feel we're still going round with this accusation, so I've included the relevant section from the Taylor Report that dealt with this.

 

 

 

Were Fans Without Tickets a Major Factor in the Build-Up?

 

200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area. Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.

 

201. First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.

 

202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of 10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G. However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644 passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.

[um pahars]

Just speaking to one of the lads at work who's uncle was there that day.. he said he was told by his uncle that is was utter chaos outside, there were more liverpool fans than what they could cope with and many who did not have tickets.....he knew this as there were god knows how many begging to buy tickets off people outside....as for why liverpool had that end ofthe ground....the reason he was told was that liverpool fans were brought in from one way and forest fans the other....they were given said ends so they did not cross each other en masse........he said he was lucky as he got in and was down the side of the stand...but my mates uncle told him that there were simply too many liverpool fans there that day......and the police simply fecked it up royally

 

The Taylor Report and other research would not agree with this anecdotal evidence. Taylor dismisses the notion of ticketless fans as being a major problem.

 

Additionally various methods of counting the fans at the Leppings Lane end agree that the total in the Leppings Lane end was within the capacity of the day, but the problem was that once inside the outer "concourse" then too many funnelled their way down in to the middle pens. Footage at the time showed that whilst the middle sections were over crowded, the end sections and particularly the Northe West corner section were nowhere near full.

 

If you had even been to Hillsborough before that day then you would be aware that once through the turnstiles you had a sterile outside concourse area and then faced with three or four tunnels going under the stand channelling you to one of 4 or 5 penned areas to stand.

 

 

Sorry, Kraken, didn't see your response that should be enough to put this myth to bed.

 

However, I did include the bit about my personal experience of the Leppings Lane End as having been there it is easy to see how you could have been channelled through those tunnels under then stands (like very small subways) on to a packed terrace without being aware of it. From the outside "concourse" you couldn't see the various pens so would have no idea if they were empty or full.

Edited 18 October, 2011 by um pahars

[trousers]

200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area. Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.

 

That bit highlighted in bold seems a little subjective to me. Just because the police that didn't "impress" him thought differently to those that did "impress" him does that make their account any more acurate? I guess it depends what aspect of their character he was "impressed" by

[pap]

That bit highlighted in bold seems a little subjective to me. Just because the police that didn't "impress" him thought differently to those that did "impress" him does that make their account any more acurate?

 

I think by "impress", he probably meant "weren't lying through their teeth".

 

I look forward to all of these issues being cleared up for good when the Hillsborough Independent Panel publishes the findings based on disclosed materials.

[The Kraken]

That bit highlighted in bold seems a little subjective to me. Just because the police that didn't "impress" him thought differently to those that did "impress" him does that make their account any more acurate? I guess it depends what aspect of their character he was "impressed" by

 

It doesn't read particularly well, granted. But Taylor interviewed a huge number of officers for his report, many of whom offered only an opinion of the day, not facts. He therefore had to make a judgement on how accurate he deemed their statements.

 

The HSE of course are an independent body, and that their numbers corroborate what those police officers suggested should also be taken into account.

[The Kraken]

I think by "impress", he probably meant "weren't lying through their teeth".

 

I look forward to all of these issues being cleared up for good when the Hillsborough Independent Panel publishes the findings based on disclosed materials.

 

Exactly this pap, I thoroughly agree, it alone makes the notion of releasing all information seem the only sensible course of action. Then everyone will have the means available to make their own appropriate judgement of what happened in full posession of all evidence to hand.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I never liked Scousers and used to use all the old Cliché's, some of which I reread on this thread. However after meeting and working with hundreds of them, I have made many friends for life. The country would be a fair better place if more communities were like theirs.Of course there are some idiots, but there are idiots everywhere.

 

The climate at the time meant that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Had Southampton been playing in that Semi Final and the same numbers attended the game, would our support not have taken a drink. Would some ticketless fans not have turned up and tried to get in, would people have not left it too late to get in for kick off and rushed to get in. Are people seriously trying to say that Southampton fans would have queued nicely whilst the game had started, would have all stayed sober, and behaved like good model citizens?

 

The police are there to protect us, and look after the publics safety, even if some of the public are misbehaving ( as a minority of all supporters did and still do). They failed in their duty and I find it highly offensive that people look to blame the Liverpool fans, and the establishment looked to cover it up. The 96 who lost their lives that day, were just supporters, just like the 32,000 turning up at SMS tonight, and we should all back their friends and families search for the truth.

[Thedelldays]

I feel we're still going round with this accusation, so I've included the relevant section from the Taylor Report that dealt with this.Were Fans Without Tickets a Major Factor in the Build-Up?200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area. Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.201. First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of 10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G. However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644 passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.

well, that is all well and good. Just passing on what a mate at work who had family there and who knew of people who were killed...I have no idea but will take his word for it over some reportgovernment reports are not always accurate are they, as previous (take yer pick) can show

[The Kraken]

well, that is all well and good. Just passing on what a mate at work who had family there and who knew of people who were killed...I have no idea but will take his word for it over some reportgovernment reports are not always accurate are they, as previous (take yer pick) can show

 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But, rather than rely on one third hand report as you are happier to do, I think I'd probably consider it more prudent to rely upon an official report that had access to all evidence, including:

 

Witness evidence from police officers at the game.

Witness evidence from surviving fans in the stands and around the ground.

Television evidence and CCTV footage.

Witness evidence from stewards and emergency services personnel at the ground.

Separate reports (including projections of crowd numbers from all video footage) from a separate HSE investigation.

Crowd numbers from Hillsborough own computerised turnstiles records.

 

To each their own I guess, but I'd probably be more confident that the methods I support might be more accurate than yours.

[pap]

I never liked Scousers and used to use all the old Cliché's, some of which I reread on this thread. However after meeting and working with hundreds of them, I have made many friends for life. The country would be a fair better place if more communities were like theirs.Of course there are some idiots, but there are idiots everywhere.

 

The climate at the time meant that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Had Southampton been playing in that Semi Final and the same numbers attended the game, would our support not have taken a drink. Would some ticketless fans not have turned up and tried to get in, would people have not left it too late to get in for kick off and rushed to get in. Are people seriously trying to say that Southampton fans would have queued nicely whilst the game had started, would have all stayed sober, and behaved like good model citizens?

 

The police are there to protect us, and look after the publics safety, even if some of the public are misbehaving ( as a minority of all supporters did and still do). They failed in their duty and I find it highly offensive that people look to blame the Liverpool fans, and the establishment looked to cover it up. The 96 who lost their lives that day, were just supporters, just like the 32,000 turning up at SMS tonight, and we should all back their friends and families search for the truth.

 

Thank you, Lord D. Excellent post. Those families have been through hell.

 

I watched the entire debate last night. Even the stuff that is out in the open now is some harrowing sh*t, and I think the filth and lies smeared on Liverpool supporters is a big contributor to people's uninformed attitudes on the city and its inhabitants. When the authorities invent stories about supporters urinating and stealing from the dead, how could it not?

 

This could have happened to any team. It is Liverpool's bad luck that it was them. It's a national disgrace that they were not only blamed for it, but accused of committing morally heinous offences in the national press just to save a few coppers'/politicians' careers.

 

What has been particularly unpleasant about the Saints Web debate has been people using their prejudice to try and disprove hard-won truths that are already on the public record.

[The Kraken]

What has been particularly unpleasant about the Saints Web debate has been people using their prejudice to try and disprove hard-won truths that are already on the public record.

 

Pap, I'd suggest what is even more worrying has been the flat-out refusal by some to believe the findings of a thorough investigation and report into the disaster, in favour of scurrilous and blatantly incorrect newspaper allegations made nearer the time, just to seemingly continue a laboured point and entrenched viewpoint.

 

Seeing some of the completely ignorant accusations made in this thread such as "If thousands of fans had not turned up ticketless trying to force their way in then this whole disaster would have been averted" and "the gates were rushed by a large number of fans", it's just incredible how entrenched these opinions are with the baseless newspaper allegations at the time (yet thoroughly disappointing that the posters that chose to make those remarks haven't retracted them since being made aware of just how wrong they are).

 

I've said it before, but my biggest hope from all of this is that, finally, the truth of the whole day will out. That in my eyes will constitute justice for the 96.

[um pahars]

Pap, I'd suggest what is even more worrying has been the flat-out refusal by some to believe the findings of a thorough investigation and report into the disaster, in favour of scurrilous and blatantly incorrect newspaper allegations made nearer the time, just to seemingly continue a laboured point and entrenched viewpoint.

 

Seeing some of the completely ignorant accusations made in this thread such as "If thousands of fans had not turned up ticketless trying to force their way in then this whole disaster would have been averted" and "the gates were rushed by a large number of fans", it's just incredible how entrenched these opinions are with the baseless newspaper allegations at the time (yet thoroughly disappointing that the posters that chose to make those remarks haven't retracted them since being made aware of just how wrong they are).

 

I've said it before, but my biggest hope from all of this is that, finally, the truth of the whole day will out. That in my eyes will constitute justice for the 96.

 

Ignorant, argumentative or just ill informed?

 

I'll let others be the judge of that, but I would say this is a prime example that if you throw enough mud then some of it will still be sticking 20+ years later.

 

The only real positive of this thread is that it has shown that the debate & motion was indeed required and the promise of full disclosure of all documents might go some way to educating and enlightening the more ignorant out there.

[Thedelldays]

Ignorant, argumentative or just ill informed?

 

I'll let others be the judge of that, but I would say this is a prime example that if you throw enough mud then some of it will still be sticking 20+ years later.

 

The only real positive of this thread is that it has shown that the debate & motion was indeed required and the promise of full disclosure of all documents might go some way to educating and enlightening the more ignorant out there.

ignorant..? ill educated..

 

so will this be the first government enquiry that is 100% accurate then..?

 

 

I guess ALL of us will NEVER know why and what actually happened that day...

[The Kraken]

I guess ALL of us will NEVER know why and what actually happened that day...

 

Considering the whole idea of the justice movement has been to ensure that all evidence related to the day is released (to which the Government have now agreed) then one would assume that the complete opposite would be the case.

 

And you try to deny being ignorant or ill informed? Jesus...

Edited 18 October, 2011 by The Kraken

[Frank's cousin]

Totally at odds with what Lord Justice Taylor said regarding the Hillsborough disaster and as much as I like you Frank, I think he is somewhat more qualified and better briefed than you on the subject.

 

Totally at odds with what I was saying and the meaning of it and as much as I like you UP, I think you have totally misinterepreted the post once again.... ;-)

 

When referring to the 'culture and behaviour of the fans at the time' - 'time' as you may well really know referred to the era and not the day. I point that Alps understood, but you in this case failed to, was that I was asking a simple question: Namely that IMHO, the LEGACY of football hooliganism from the 70s and 80s was a culture in which fans were treated like animals, the cages at grounds, the police often managing crowds with a fear of something kicking off etc.... I was posing the idea that although the police actions on that day were obviously seriously flawed, the underlying culture at the time was also a big factor.

 

Go back to the 50s and before etc and there were huge standing crowds, no cages and the crowds tehmselves self managed - no trouble etc. Post late 60s 70s and 80s, such crowds were always going to be considered a threat by the police, we had cages, etc.

 

So if we want to be really honest, then all fans who have been involved in so called 'aggro' in the past,as difficult as it might be need to consider a sense of collective responsibility - Afterall, had it not been for the behavioural shift in the 70s and 80s, there would have been no cages and the police would have been more relaxed and less inclined to such major errors. As harsh as it may seem, for me this is a factor in the tragedy that fans conveniently forget when its easier just to consider the police as culpable, or as the Sun did, blame current fans on the day.

[Foxstone]

Totally at odds with what I was saying and the meaning of it and as much as I like you UP, I think you have totally misinterepreted the post once again.... ;-)

 

When referring to the 'culture and behaviour of the fans at the time' - 'time' as you may well really know referred to the era and not the day. I point that Alps understood, but you in this case failed to, was that I was asking a simple question: Namely that IMHO, the LEGACY of football hooliganism from the 70s and 80s was a culture in which fans were treated like animals, the cages at grounds, the police often managing crowds with a fear of something kicking off etc.... I was posing the idea that although the police actions on that day were obviously seriously flawed, the underlying culture at the time was also a big factor.

 

Go back to the 50s and before etc and there were huge standing crowds, no cages and the crowds tehmselves self managed - no trouble etc. Post late 60s 70s and 80s, such crowds were always going to be considered a threat by the police, we had cages, etc.

 

So if we want to be really honest, then all fans who have been involved in so called 'aggro' in the past,as difficult as it might be need to consider a sense of collective responsibility - Afterall, had it not been for the behavioural shift in the 70s and 80s, there would have been no cages and the police would have been more relaxed and less inclined to such major errors. As harsh as it may seem, for me this is a factor in the tragedy that fans conveniently forget when its easier just to consider the police as culpable, or as the Sun did, blame current fans on the day.

 

A point I also raised, and perhaps added to that at the time is that the British government and to a large degree, the British people were wholeheartedly sick of football violence over a number of years.

The culture at that time was one of containing potential violence between fans and not any particular regard for the matchday enjoyment or indeed the health and safety of football fans in general.

It was a mark of the time that sadly culminated in the 1989 Hilsborough tragedy.

[The Kraken]

As harsh as it may seem' date=' for me this is a factor in the tragedy that fans conveniently forget when its easier just to consider the police as culpable, or as the Sun did, blame current fans on the day.[/quote']

 

FC, I would hope that no-one is trying to airbrush the factor of the fans' involvement in culpability of the day; I'm certainly not. As the Taylor Report showed, the state of the stadium and the actions of fans that day (and it would be obviously be very unfair to blame them all, but as Taylor suggested "a significant minority") "exacerbated the situation" i.e. they made a very bad situation even worse. However, Taylor laid the responsibility of the disaster squarely at the feet of the police; the stadium and fans' actions were secondary in causing the scale of the disaster to escalate further.

[um pahars]

Totally at odds with what I was saying and the meaning of it and as much as I like you UP' date=' I think you have totally misinterepreted the post once again.... ;-) [/quote']

 

Farnk, i was replying to this quote:

 

meant they had to make those decisions that led to the tragedy.

 

Why did it mean they have to make those decisions?

 

The Taylor report was very critical of the deicsions and actions of the Police on the day and was actually quite forceful that many of the key decisions take on the day were wrong.

 

As Kraken says neither I, nor the Taylor report, dismiss the role supporters played on the day, nor the way previous behaviour impacted on all aspects of football and on that fateful day. Taylor makes reference to this throughout his report, but he does not deviate away from his findings that the main cause of the tragedy was the failings of the Police on the day.

 

So I repeat, why did it mean they had to take those decisions?

[Frank's cousin]

 

So I repeat, why did it mean they had to take those decisions?

 

Fair point as this wording does lead to some ambiguity - It would better and more accurate in what I was trying to convey if you remove 'had' for teh sentence. In effect, the police took decisions that day that were wrong - but a contributing factor to why they took those decisions, must have been the underlying culture at the time (era) based on the legacy of the 70s and 80s hooli activity coupled with the other legacy of the cages - The reacted based on fear of potential problems... its not an excuse, because other have pointed out, they should have been well trained and had effective experienced leadership that could deal appropriately with crowds, football crowds etc.

 

But, I guess the over riding point i was trying to make was that this tragedy required several things to go wrong - any one of which, had it not happened could have prevented it:

 

eg for this to happen:

 

1. Crowd arrived late determined to get in and not miss the start (in part due to traffice problems) - no late arrival, potentially no problem

2. Police did not delay kick off - was media putting pressure on this to avoid problems with time slot?

3. Stadium more modern with better methods of controlled entry (old turnstiles criticised etc in various reports)

4. Fans accepting that it would take time and not pushing - putting pressure on those pressed at the - meaning no need to open the exit gate...

5. Pens 2 and 3 controlled entry to max capacity? reports suggest that it should have been restricted to 1600 on HSE grounds, yet more tickets sold (2200) apparently + plus estimates that 3000+ squeezed in

6. No fencing or cages - fans simply able to expand onto the pitch - fencing and cages a direct result of the legacy i was talking about

 

This may be a very simplistic view, but its easy to see that hasd any one of the above not happened/been in place, in all likelihood we would not have had this tragedy which is what makes it so sad... and why even though the official report tends to blame the police decisions on the day, I think that it fails to adequately recognise that it was only part of a tragic series of events.

 

Naturally I am in full agreement that the the families of the victims deserve a full and honest access to all material to ensure thay have the truth. I suspect that due to the seriousness of the tragedy and the role the police played that day, that in panic at the potential consequences there has been a 'bluring' of several statements that we see in the Taylor report as 'those he considered better r more effective witnesses etc' - this is naturally wrong and shoudl never have happened, but I do believe that all football fans need to acknowledge that as a result of the 70s and 80s football culture, we created an environment in which this situation was always possible (cages and police response based on fear, rather than respect and appropriate crowd management) and as such those involved in such behaviour need to accept part of the responsibilty.

 

Given the cultural climate that saw fans as hoolis and a nuisense to be 'dealt with severely' - there has to be an acknowledgement that the fan behaviour on the day was not 'ideal' and also a factor.... sadly, the victims are the innocent fans who arrived on time got into their stands and waited excitedly for the game, which is another reason why the SUN headlines at the time were so distateful.

 

Hope that clears up teh point I was trying to make and acknowledge that teh precise wording may have caused some confusion... but hey Alps got it first time! ;-)

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Only just read this thread, mightily impressed with the informed and reasoned response of some very dogged posters in challenging the lazy wilful ignorance of others.