Duckenfield FFS

It does seem a waste of public money first and foremost. The whole investigation / enquiries etc have doubtless racked up a colossal cost for all concerned. They could have chucked the scousers a couple of million each at the outset and still be ahead of the game now.

But I do question the legitimacy of the particular charges. Has he been hard done by for the cover up - no, something should be done about that no doubt. But that doesn't seem to be the basis for the charges. Has he been hard done by for making a bad decision (or several of hem) - maybe. The decisions that needed making in that melee were somewhat without precedent. The ground did not comply with H&S requirements it seems (and the H&S officer is also under prosecution I believe) - was that Duckenfield's fault? If he had elected to call the game off or delay kick off he would probably have been abused as a result. He couldn't win whatever he did. 20-20 hindsight is a wondrous thing

Indeed hindsight is a wondrous thing. But let it not distract from the obvious.
Why is a Chief Super put in charge? Why not a Sgt or Inspector?

For the simple reason, a man in his position can use the authority of his rank.
He has a duty to preserve life and property.
It's well within his powers to delay, postpone or call of the whole thing on grounds of safety.
He did not act in any such way.
He took the easy way out by ducking (pardon the pun) his responsibility and then on realising his error proceeded to abdicate responsibility by feigning ignorance, lying and covering up the errors.

We follow footy, we expect referees to call off games for reasons of safety. I think MA will tell you, in lower games during rain and lightning we should not proceed. If we do and the unthinkable happens, who carries the can? We.

The same with the police, wtf have a Chief Super there for? For the very same reasons. To ensure the safety of everyone. And while no one wants to be put in a difficult situation, when it occurs, he above all must place safety before any other consideration.

And if he failed, he should raise his hand, admit his mistake and carry the can. Not engage in decades of feigning ignorance and from what seems apparent, lying and covering up.

He has to carry the can. Others too but that may be a mitigating factor not an excuse.

My then-girlfriend's stepdad RIP, who I think I've mentioned before, a Forest fan who had a ticket into the Leppings Lane End and therefore an eyewitness, went to his grave still believing that there were 5,000 or more equally culpable of manslaughter (and but for a split second decision based on a feeling that 'something wasn't right', it might have been HIS manslaughter). I have no view because I wasn't there but he raged about it for the rest of his life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

It does seem a waste of public money first and foremost. The whole investigation / enquiries
etc have doubtless racked up a colossal cost for all concerned. They could have chucked the scousers a couple of million each at the outset and still be ahead of the game now.

But I do question the legitimacy of the particular charges. Has he been hard done by for the cover up - no, something should be done about that no doubt. But that doesn't seem to be the basis for the charges. Has he been hard done by for making a bad decision (or several of hem) - maybe. The decisions that needed making in that melee were somewhat without precedent. The ground did not comply with H&S requirements it seems (and the H&S officer is also under prosecution I believe) - was that Duckenfield's fault? If he had elected to call the game off or delay kick off he would probably have been abused as a result. He couldn't win whatever he did. 20-20 hindsight is a wondrous thing

---

Geoff A waste of public money They could have chucked the Scousers a couple of million each I hope the sinic in me doesn't mean you think this enquiry was about money Duckenfield has you say was a man out of his depth on the day inexperienced in large crowd control His he guilty of manslaughter can't make my mind up on that one What I do know he seems a very unscrupulous individual who has squirmed and lies for years ( already proven in the tribunal ) He was one of the four high ranking officers plus a solicitor who alter 116 police officers statement No it doesn't mean he's guilty of manslaughter but any decent person would have no sympathy for him if he does go down

I don't doubt Liverpool fans were also to blame but that's beside the point.
We appoint and give authority to people to make these decisions.
They ought to be making it, and if for some blunder they fail, they ought to own up.

Had he owned up years ago, he might not be prosecuted for the serious offence he now faces. Probably for some malfeasance of duty or maybe perhaps civil litigation against the police and other bodies.
He may even escape any severe retribution other than a demotion or severe reprimand if he could explain a genuine error of judgment.

Anyway he still has his day in court to justify his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romanis

I don't doubt Liverpool fans were also to blame but that's beside the point.
We appoint and give authority to people to make these decisions.
They ought to be making it, and if for some blunder they fail, they ought to own up.

Had he owned up years ago, he might not be prosecuted for the serious offence he now faces. Probably for some malfeasance of duty or maybe perhaps civil litigation against the police and other bodies.
He may even escape any severe retribution other than a demotion or severe reprimand if he could explain a genuine error of judgment.

Anyway he still has his day in court to justify his actions.

---

It’s not about Liverpool fans, Rom. Amongst football fans in general there will always be a minority who behave badly whether that be those turning up late and drunk, those making fascist gestures or those just looking for trouble.
That’s precisely why matches are so heavily policed and especially so back in the seventies and eighties. There were other mitigating factors...the behaviour of a minority...the giving of the ‘home’ end to the less well supported team, the fact that there had been sufficient previous incidents at Hillsborough semi finals before to cause concern, but those were known factors that the police and Duckenfield had, allegedly, been trained to deal with.
They didn’t and then they covered it up and attached blame where it didn’t belong.

P.S. I still think the entrance in and out of the Leppings Lane End is dangerous and the policing of Hillsborough, in stark contrast to that at Bramall Lane, unhelpful to say the least.

Indeed RA but I did say that was besides the point. Even if there were Liverpool fans as a small cause of the incident, it's very hard to pin the blame on a group of fans whose only desire was to watch a football match even without tickets.
The problem rests entirely with the officials who should have taken precautions and have a suitable course of action in the event of any safety matter.
Even if the Chief Super was not au fait with crowd control, he should have taken steps to understand the role and duties.
That's why the police have an Ops Control, in the event of any uncertainty he should have refered to them but also as the ground commander, made the decision on the grounds of safety. I'm sure his superiors would have backed his judgment.

Of course if we take another logical analysis, If he felt he knew little about crowd control, he should have stepped aside and not taken the gig. A Boeing captain having never flown an Airbus won't accept pilotting duties would he?

Having made wrong decisions from the get go, he compounded it by lying and covering up his mistakes, where instead the best route was to admit his error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

It’s not about Liverpool fans, Rom. Amongst football fans in general there will always be a minority
who behave badly whether that be those turning up late and drunk, those making fascist gestures or those just looking for trouble.
That’s precisely why matches are so heavily policed and especially so back in the seventies and eighties. There were other mitigating factors...the behaviour of a minority...the giving of the ‘home’ end to the less well supported team, the fact that there had been sufficient previous incidents at Hillsborough semi finals before to cause concern, but those were known factors that the police and Duckenfield had, allegedly, been trained to deal with.
They didn’t and then they covered it up and attached blame where it didn’t belong.

P.S. I still think the entrance in and out of the Leppings Lane End is dangerous and the policing of Hillsborough, in stark contrast to ithat at Bramall Lane, unhelpful to say the least.

---

RA you are right about the the entrance in and out of Leppings Lane end still the same today Only now they don't let the away fans use the terracing