Pleased that he’s been cleared.
This saga was destined to keep rumbling on since is was “decided” that Liverpool fans played no part in the disaster.
So from day one the case was built on the foundations of a lie.
Apparently their is going to be another enquiry for the aftermath of the horrific events of that day, which I presume will involve all the emergency services, and SWFC among others
I think if you have followed this tragedy like I have for three decades you'll find that Duckenfield started telling lies the moment the tragedy unfolded before his very eyes .
Duckenfield may not be a criminal but he failed in his duty and he's a proven liar .
I've got the upmost sympathy for the people that lost their lives and their families, but no sympathy for the fans outside without tickets and like someone has mentioned Liverpool fans have conveniently forgotten bout the 39 Italian fans that lost their lives when Liverpool fans rioted inside a football ground.
It was a tragedy. I have nothing but sympathy for the families of the victims. Unfortunately it is impossible to speak and be honest about Hillsborough. It has been come some emotionally loaded on the side of the Liverpool fans that everyone expressing a viewpoint that deviates from the narrative is met with hostility.
Shopkeepers and residents who live in Hillsborough have a different version of events in many cases regarding the behaviour of some Liverpool fans on that day. Sadly their opinions have been ignored. No one deserved to die and the football authorities, police are responsible but some Liverpool fans aggravated the situation with their behaviour.
Well put IBS
The 96 who lost there lives were indeed innocent.
The people in charge made a host of terrible decisions.
The decisions were taken because of the shear numbers of fans trying to get in for the kick off outside the ground.
The responsibility for what happened has been clear since the publication of the Taylor Report. South Yorkshire Police also accepted responsibility when they admitted liability and paid damages to the inured and to the families of the dead.
The trial was not about responsibility. There is no doubt that Duckenfield’s decision to open the gates without controlling the consequential rush of supporters into the pens directly behind them resulted in the deaths. The trial was about whether Duckenfield was grossly negligent when he made his decision.
Sadly, the families would probably have been left with a sense of injustice by any outcome. What sort of sentence could the court have imposed upon a 75 year old who made a mistake 30 years ago and who has had to live with the knowledge of that and through three trials and two inquests? His suffering is no doubt dwarfed by that of the affected families, but would have carried weight with the court.