Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[halfwise]

It smacks of teachers being given the sole blame for kids not doing as well in school. It's as much a large scale social problem as a simple control problem.

Would people get so hotheaded over a piano competition? There's something deeply wrong with the whole social setup here. Half the world seems to be complicit in this type of madness.

[David H]

Anyway, I'm a cop, sadly, and anything I say can only really be seen as being irremedially tainted by the fact I am one.

Not tainted in my opinion Orwell. It's an important perspective without which many things wouldn't make sense to me. As I think I've said, I've known a lot of cops and I try to put myself in their shoes whenever I read one of these stories.

Objectivity is admirable, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a certain perspective at the same time. As a matter of fact I'd be suspicious of somebody who didn't have a perspective.

[Orwell]

Anyway, I'm a cop, sadly, and anything I say can only really be seen as being irremedially tainted by the fact I am one.

Not tainted in my opinion Orwell. It's an important perspective without which many things wouldn't make sense to me. As I think I've said, I've known a lot of cops and I try to put myself in their shoes whenever I read one of these stories.

Objectivity is admirable, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a certain perspective at the same time. As a matter of fact I'd be suspicious of somebody who didn't have a perspective.

A rather unbiased asessment, David! It will never do, you know!

When someone tells you that you 'tend' to see something from a certain viewpoint, I think what is being suggested - politely, tho - is that your, occupation say!, naturally makes you have a 'biased' view. I know bias can just mean, "You have your own views and argue from them", but I mean 'bias' here as "your 'bias' is tainted by your job and cannot be seen separated from it, nor can you rise above it. That is, your view can't be trusted and in no way can you be seen as striving to be objective." Life is a veil of tears, what!

[Pettytyrant101]

"The police let in too many people and sholuld have known full well that the very likely outcome of that was around (or exactly!) 96 people being crushed to death." -Orwell

The Police were supposed to following recommendations put into place following an investigation into a similar (non fatal cruishing incident at another match) in 1988 (the year before Hillsborough) the complaint against the police in this regard is yes, they should have known, that was exactly the sort of thing the report highlighted and its procedures were designed for- they failed to implent it at all.

"But laying ALL the blame at one group is a cop out - excuse the pun - and to not seek answers that are free of scapegoating is a poor way of doing things."- Orwell

Not all the blame has been laid at police- the reports highlights failings on other emergency services and the stewards. Not to mention the stadium, insuffienct exits ect- but the police were in overall responsibilty- they had control of the situation no one else. And the crush only occured as a direct consequenc eof police action- not the crowd. It was th epolice who let all the extra people in to relieve congestion at the gates (then tried to claim the fans forced their way in). It was the police who failed to notify th eofficers inside the stadium this was being done. It was th epolice in the police HQ (whith views over the stands) who failed to notice the results of their decision until people were already dying. Indeed when fans were trying to escape the crush police were preventing them getting out, still of the mind they were trying to invade the pitch and were hooligans- not escape a lethal crush.
And only the police saw fit to alter waht happened and present a lie which tarnished the names and reputations of the victims.

"this whole investigation seems to reek to me of a Witch Hunt. The
investigators seem to have found exactly what they were looking for"- Orwell.

Members of the panel for the inquiry included:

Professor Phil Scraton

From Merseyside, Phil Scraton is Professor of Criminology in the School of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast and Director of the
Childhood, Transition and Social Justice Initiative. He has held recent scholarships at Monash University, Melbourne and Sydney University’s Law School. His primary research includes: controversial deaths and institutional responsibility; the rights of bereaved and survivors in the aftermath of disasters.


Paul Leighton, CBE QPM

Paul Leighton retired as Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in May 2009.
He has worked in policing in Northern Ireland and the North East of England and dealt with the aftermath of the Chinook helicopter
crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 when 25 police and service personnel lost their lives. From late 1994 to early 1996 he was seconded to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), where he assisted in the inspection of a number of English police forces. He is a law graduate and was awarded the Queen's Police Medal in 2005 and the CBE in the New Year's Honours List 2010. Paul is currently involved in a review of the Northern Ireland prison system for the Department of Justice.

Dr Bill Kirkup, CBE

Dr Bill Kirkup was appointed a consultant in 1986 and held posts in public health and at Newcastle University before moving into
NHS management with the former Northern Regional Health Authority.
In 1999, he was appointed Regional Director of Public Health and in 2005 became Associate Chief Medical Officer in the Department of
Health. Bill has also worked on public health and reconstruction in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and was made a CBE in 2008.

Raju Bhatt

Raju Bhatt has specialised over more than two decades in private and public law claims, as well as inquests into deaths in custody involving allegations of abuse of power or neglect of duty within the police service, the prison service and other associated law
enforcement agencies.
Raju has been responsible for many significant developments in his area of legal practice, and in the process he has acquired
extensive experience of litigation at all levels of the courts up to the highest appellate courts. More recently, he has been called upon to act in significant claims involving the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Ministry of Defence and the Security Services.


I think to accuse people such of this as conducting a 'witchhunt' against th epolice is hugely disengenious of you.
Presumably you would say the same about the members of the preciding Taylor Inquiry which also found huge faults in the police that day?


'Anyway, I'm a cop, and anything I say can only be seen as being irremedially tainted by the fact I am one'- Orwell


I never said that, but I did imply it gave you a certain persepctive, which as you rightly point out me being a care worker gives me a certain perspective on it- I do have and on matters of care work I would not count myself as an unbiased. I am naturally inclined to be more defensive of care workers than I almost certainly otherwise would be had I never been a care worker.

I dont think the weight evidence here can just be dismissed as scapegoating or a blame game as you seem to be implying.

[Eldorion]

I don't want to stick my nose in the Hillsborough discussion too much but I think Orwell (and Halfwise) raise reasonable points about the issue of crowd control. I think that trying to pin the blame on fans by leaking inaccurate information to the press is indefensible, but I'm not sure if the disaster itself is something that can be blamed entirely on any one group.

On another thing we were discussing here. I've mulled over the issue of 'offensive behaviour' regards our t-shirt wearer. I think that maybe the matter should not have been prosecuted in retrospect. I'm serious. It was not thrust directly into the face of the victim's family, who the prick clearly didn't know, so I guess it's the kind of thing a free society must tolerate. I do wonder though, if a friend or relative (presumably still torn up with grief) had met him in the street and punched and kicked him to death, would it be seen as a reasonable 'defense' in Brittain? 'Provocation' is not a defense in Victorian Criminal Law. (That's Victorian as in Victoria, Australia btw).

I feel similarly, as I mentioned a couple of pages back. I get that it's a very emotional issue for many people but I agree that there are some things a free society has to put up with. As for provocation, I'm not aware of the exact law in Britain (though it seems provocation is more broadly defined there than in the US or, I take it, Victoria) but I don't think that trying to justify murdering the T-shirt guy would be a good thing. I might have some sympathy for this hypothetical family member, at least if they weren't trying to kill the guy, but if we're protecting free speech from the government then I think it needs to be protected from angry private citizens as well. It seems rather meaningless to say that people have the right to say offensive things if other people have the right to beat them to death for it.

[Pettytyrant101]

A thought occuured to me Orwell so I shall ask it!

If the report and information I have provided was not into the police but into the handling of the crowd by a private security firm, would you still call it a witchunt?

And as a copper would you expect, in light of the inquiries findigs (and those preceding it) for there to be prosecutions for negligence had it been a private firm?

[Orwell]

It seems rather meaningless to say that people have the right to say offensive things if other people have the right to beat them to death for it.

I'm suggesting no such 'right' Eldo. I'm just postulating about genuine grief and spontaneous anger, and if it can be forgiven (under law).

[Orwell]

A thought occuured to me Orwell so I shall ask it!

If the report and information I have provided was not into the police but into the handling of the crowd by a private security firm, would you still call it a witchunt?

And as a copper would you expect, in light of the inquiries findigs (and those preceding it) for there to be prosecutions for negligence had it been a private firm?

First question: If this same business is laid out in the way it has been, but just substituting a 'private firm' for 'police' - Yes! (Petty, I have to ask: have you even read what I've written? )

Second question: On the issue of prosecutions, if anyone has done anything legitmately prosecutable, what difference does it make who the prosecution-worthy person is?

You may refer to me however you wish, of course, but for some reason I find the word 'copper' a bit offensive. Not sure why. Maybe because I can't recall it ever being used except derisively in some way... Just me - and only a minor thing - I've been called much worse (collectively or individually) but just saying....

[Eldorion]

I'm suggesting no such 'right' Eldo. I'm just postulating about genuine grief and spontaneous anger, and if it can be forgiven (under law).

I wasn't trying to say that you wanted to enshrine the right to beat people in law, but I worry that that would be the ultimate consequence of setting such a legal precedent.

[Pettytyrant101]

In the Uk 'copper' is a rather endearing term- invoking old fashioned 'Dixon of Dock Green' Community Policing ('an honest copper' and all that)

'I have to ask: have you even read what I've written'- Orwell

I have wondered the same of you and the report- I still fail to see how you can see it as scapegoating and a witch-hunt.
Most criminals get sentenced on far less scrutiny than two inquires taking years to scutinise evidence and take witness statements- yet you seem to disregard the major findings of both inquires- gross negilience on the part of the police conmpounded by 23 years worth of cover up to hide the fact.

This is not my opinion, or my conclusion- this is the findings of the reports- there is no one in the UK i am aware of- from police to government to the families of the deceased who are saying anything other of this report than it has finally been able to get to the truth- a truth it took 23 years to get to precisely becuase the police went to such lengths to cover it up.

On the issue of prosecutions, if anyone has done anything legitmately prosecutable, what difference does it make who the prosecution-worthy
person is?- Orwell

I ask because if you assume the inquiries are all withchunts and scapegoating then presumably you assume there would be no case to answer- fortunetly this will be tried it seems in court and due process will take its course and we will have an answer to this question.

[Orwell]

'Anyway, I'm a cop, and anything I say can only be seen as being irremedially tainted by the fact I am one'- Orwell


I never said that, but I did imply it gave you a certain persepctive, which as you rightly point out me being a care worker gives me a certain perspective on it- I do have and on matters of care work I would not count myself as an unbiased. I am naturally inclined to be more defensive of care workers than I almost certainly otherwise would be had I never been a care worker.

I dont think the weight evidence here can just be dismissed as scapegoating or a blame game as you seem to be implying.

I fear this is going to make me seem "holier than thou" - but I honestly try not to immediately defend any one person or organisation more than any other person or organization. I hate being the blind follower of anything or any one.

I imply, suggest and fear that the investigation may be 'tainted' with a Witch Hunt mentality, but I don't pretend any of my hints are proven fact, just a call to being open minded (I hope!)

[Norc]

Yeah, I've been busy with school stuff and haven't been doing much writing in general lately. I'll get back into it eventually, though.

you have my understanding

[Pettytyrant101]

Orwell there has been 23 years of people trying to get to the bottom of this- one government inquiry and an independent enquiry not to mention numerous jouranlistic attempts.
Unless you assume some big conspiracy against the police by, well everyone, government officials, individual police officers themselves, the members of both inquiries, the testimony of all the witnesses, the media involved in running the original false stories I dont see how you can come to your conclusion.
How much evidence do you require before you consider there to be little chance of a witchunt or scapegoating? (thats not rhetorical!)

And you say you think the report might be tainted- why?
Because the conclusion finds the major fault lay with the police? Or is there some part of the process of the enquiries themselves which gives you that impression?

This report and its findings is being hailed as a triumph for justice, and I think it is, and not because of who it finds culpable but because it address the disgraceful position of the slandering of the deceased and finally exonorates them and gives some peace of mind to their families.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just some updates to the Hillsbororugh story from BBC news over the last 48 hours-

Both serving and former officers would be investigated, the IPCC said.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, meanwhile, said a separate inquiry would also review evidence relating to how the fans died, which could lead to charges of manslaughter through gross negligence.
Martin Harding, a retired police superintendent involved in other investigations of police forces, told the BBC: "We won't know the full picture until we speak to every single person who was involved on the day, at the scene and at the periphery."
Many police officers "have carried the ghost" of Hillsborough with them, he said, and want the officers responsible for the cover-up brought to justice.

The chief constable of West Yorkshire Police - an inspector in South Yorkshire at the time of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster -has announced he is to retire.

Andy Burnham, Labour MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester said retirement "shouldn't be a route to escape full accountability".
He said it was "a matter for the investigating authorities" to decide whether Sir Norman should continue in his role while the inquiry is ongoing.
"There was an orchestrated campaign to blame the victims and survivors of a terrible tragedy. We now know that to be true and there has to be full accountability for that," he said.
"I welcome today's decision by the IPCC to look into the role of West Midlands Police following the tragedy at Hillsborough in 1989.

"As chief constable, I read the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report and immediately referred West Midlands Police to the IPCC.-
Chris Sims, Chief Constable.

[Orwell]

Orwell there has been 23 years of people trying to get to the bottom of this- one government inquiry and an independent enquiry not to mention numerous jouranlistic attempts.
Unless you assume some big conspiracy against the police by, well everyone, government officials, individual police officers themselves, the members of both inquiries, the testimony of all the witnesses, the media involved in running the original false stories I dont see how you can come to your conclusion.

What 'conclusion' of mine are you referring to, Petty?

How much evidence do you require before you consider there to be little chance of a witchunt or scapegoating? (thats not rhetorical!)

It's not a question of 'how much' but what is the evidence? But one thing I might throw in is, how did the original Coroner get it so wrong? Even if some of the evidence was apparently tainted, was ALL the evidence he saw tainted?

And you say you think the report might be tainted- why?

I suspect the possibility, even in what I read of the things you posted. I have an open mind on these things because I am wary of 'motivation' in all things.

Because the conclusion finds the major fault lay with the police?

I've already said that is NOT the issue with me. You clearly don't trust I would argue honestly about these things.

Or is there some part of the process of the enquiries themselves which gives you that impression?

I've seen enough of beat-ups, scapegoatings and Witch Hunts over time (and through my interest in history generally) to wonder - having read the little (admittedly) I have read on the subject but also (I hope) logically 'informed' by personal experience too -that there may be all sorts of 'motives' involved.

This report and its findings is being hailed as a triumph for justice, and I think it is, and not because of who it finds culpable but because it address the disgraceful position of the slandering of the deceased and finally exonorates them and gives some peace of mind to their families.

Who are the hailers? Are there dissenting views?

One thing. If people got crushed, does it imply someone at least was pushing someone else, who pushed someone else. Was there a policeman nearby who saw it start and said, "Now now, don't push, or it may cause a fatal chain reaction!" That policeman was negligent, I guess, if he didn't stop it then, I guess, but so too was the first impatient person who started the pushing. These being but my personal thoughts, ideas, perceived possibilities, mind!

Again: the police are NOT blameless no matter how we look at it, judging by what I've seen presented here so far. I just question the role of everyone else too. What do you think of the (presumably) impatient person who did the pushing to begin with? Not guilty of anything? Actually, the 'blame game' is certainly evident when the quoted current finding appears to be: "The crowd (or some one or some individuals the crowd) are in no way to blame, but the police totally are" - or however it was put! That is manifestly bullshit!

I'm not barracking for a team here btw. I'm not goalie for the coppers. Again: the police are NOT blameless, but maybe finding solutions is better than seeking to malign and finger point - even if some finger pointing may in some ways be necessary in the process.

[Pettytyrant101]

Finding solutions is precisely the problem- as is usually the case following an incident like this investigations were done and then rafts of recommendations made to try to prevent it happening again- however as the police were invovled in a large cover up of what actually had happened the blame was placed on hooliginsm- lessons that should have been learned and improved about commuinications, cooperation between stewards and authorities ect were therefore not, or were skewed by the false premise that had been presented of what had happened.

Regards the original coroner- there is an entire section in the Independet Report given over to that- many critiscms of how it was conducted and more- I could post it here but its not short you might be best looking up the report yourself.

The conclusion you seem to have drawn is that there is some likihood of a witchunt or scapegoating- for which I can see no evidence at all.

It's not a question of 'how much' but what is the evidence?- Orwell

The report extracts I have given include much of the sources of the evidence- the police themselves, 440,000 documents or whatever it was- cctv and tv footage form the day and countless testimony.
And two major inquiries.

You clearly don't trust I would argue honestly about these things. - Orwell

Not at all- but it strikes me that you are particularly unwilling to accept the possibility the Inquiry might just be right and have gotten to the truth- that the police were guilty of negiligence leading to deaths and of a massive cover up.

Who are the hailers? Are there dissenting views? - Orwell

As far as I can see the hailers are everyone- the police welcome it (now), th egovernemnt, the families, the IPCC, the media- everyone who has been following it or has been reporting on it. I cannot find anywhere a single dissenting voice or accusation that the findings of the inquiry are anything less than accurate.

If people got crushed, does it imply, someone was pushing someone, who pushed someone else.- Orwell

Noone started pushing in the sense you seem to imply- the crush was caused by the police opening a gate (Gate C) to relieve pressure at the gates where fans were trying to get through an antiquated turnstyle system.
The failure was in recognisising the stand was already full and that there was no communication between those who let the fans in and the police inside- the crush was caused by more and more people being herded in through the gate into the stand by the police- this put huge and growing pressure on those at the front who were crushed against the barriers.
This was further compounded by police preventing people from escaping over the barricades or through the gates as they, being uninformed of what was going on, assumed it was an attempted pitch invasion- but this mentality of the police continued for 45 minutes after it was apprent what was going on- hence them forming a police cordon acorss the pitch with the result casualities could not be gotten to treatment which may have saved them and ambulances (all bar 1 out of 14) were denied access to the ground.

And I am not barracking for a team here either- I have no personanl investment in the events whatsoever- but it did disgust me- to blame the victims to cover up your own mistakes is just wrong, no matter who does it and I for one am very glad it appears some justice may now be done on behalf of the deceased.

[Orwell]

Noone started pushing in the sense you seem to imply- the crush was caused by the police opening a gate (Gate C) to relieve pressure at the gates where fans were trying to get through an antiquated turnstyle system. Sounds diabolical! {{I hope no one was pushing during that 'pressure'!}}}

Maybe you've convinced me there was a 'big area' of blame to be laid at the police. So, will all on duty police that day be blamed and prosecuted? If not, who? The policeman who thought (diabolically) it might be a good idea do something to 'relieve presure'?

Also, it's not logical to say no one pushed. If someone stops ahead of you, a patient person stops and waits until the person in front begins to move again, thus avoidng the possbility of a crush.

Petty said: ".... I have no personanl investment in the events whatsoever- but it did disgust me- to blame the victims to cover up your own mistakes is just wrong, no matter who does it...."

And who would disgaree with that?

Btw have you read 1984?

[Pettytyrant101]

If you are already in a jam, packed crowd and you are at the front and more people are being added to the rear of the crowd I fail to see how those being crushed can in anyway at all be blamed.
In fact this is precisley what the report found- that they could not be blamed.

The policeman who gave the go ahead to open Gate C and put the fans through that way was not coordinated with the Senior Officers in the control room (overlooking the stands). However they could see from their vantage point and the cctv what was happening- but dont appear to have- nor were the police on duty inside the crowd informed about the extra fans coming in at the rear of the crowd- there were procedures in place should that happen to deal with it- but these were never put into action because of the complete lack of communication betweent the various police officers involved.

As to exactly who will be prosecuted that will depend very much on the findings of the IPCC who will make their recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service- and it is they who will decide if there are charges to answer- from what I can tell most inddependent observers seem to strongly think there will be- but until the IPCC do their investigation we wont know.

It certainly raises some interesting questions- we know individual officers doctored their reports- but did so under the guidance (and pressure) of senior officers.
However after WW2 the legal precedent was set (and as far as I am aware adopted in the UK) for the war trials that the defence of 'I was only following orders' is inadmissable.

1984 is one of my favourite books.

[Orwell]

If you are already in a jam, packed crowd and you are at the front and more people are being added to the rear of the crowd I fail to see how those being crushed can in anyway at all be blamed.

Nor I.

In fact this is precisley what the report found- that they could not be blamed.

That's pure logic.

The policeman who gave the go ahead to open Gate C and put the fans through that way was not coordinated with the Senior Officers in the control room (overlloking the stands).

But he'll need to be held up for the evil person he is then, do you think?

However they could see from their vantage point and the cctv what was happening- but dont appear to have- nor were th epolice on duty inside th ecrowd informed about the extra fans coming in at the rear of the crowd- there were procedures in place should that happen to deal with it- but thse were never put into action because of the comlpete lack of communication betweent he various police officers invovled.

Training and resourcing was poor, it seems. Not surprising. I can vouch for that. Training and resources are never good enough, though they always improve somewhat (at least for awhile) after a fuck up. (That is, a 'fuck up' seen with the power of retrospectivity).

As to exactly who will be prosecuted that will demand very much on the findings of the IPCC who will make their recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service- and it is they who will decide if there are charges to answer- from what I can tell most inddependent observers seem to strongly think there will be- but until the IPCC do their investigation we wont know.

I'll wait and watch with interest. From what you say, it appears bad errors of judgment (easily percieved retrospectively!) were made by certain police at the beginning. People - according to the Chaos Theory it seems - became victims of a crush' that was caused by absolutely NO ONE pushing forward in the ranks behind them!

It certainly raises some interesting questions- we know individual officers doctored their reports- but did so under the guidance of senior officers.

Definite reason to see if prosecutions are in order -- after a fair trial, I hope.

However after WW2 the legal precedent was set (and as far as I am aware adopted in the UK) for the war trials that the defence of 'I was only following orders' is inadmissable.

One must be tried (hopefully fairly) under the Laws of the Land. I have no problem with that.

This clearly a human tragedy where mistakes were made (when one looks back from his or her armchair). The only real crime I see though at the moment, is all the alleged lying afer the fact.

[Pettytyrant101]

Noone was 'pushing' at the back in the manner you seem to imply- there was nowhere else for people to go. Humans in a large crowd when a crush like that happens, as has been shown elsewhere, act to self preserve. Panic sets in when you can no longer breath.
If you are being crushed you try to make room for yourself- the pressure on the crowd was so great that people in the stand above and to the side of it were despretley trying to grab people to lift out of it and it is hardly suprising there was so much more pressure on those stuck against the fences at the front.
I suppose it comes down to if the police had followed the procedutres that they were suposed to on the day the crush would never have begun in the first place.
The extra fans should not have been admitted that way, those inside should have been ready as they knew it was already full ect.

As to who gets prosecuted- individuals, just senior officers or the entire force I have no idea- I dont know my legal side well enough to comment.
News reports from the BBC are talking about charges of manslaughter through gross negligence- but I am unclear if that is against individuals or the force as a whole.

One must be tried (hopefully fairly) under the Laws of the Land.- Orwell

Indeed. The police in the UK get their authority to police (or so they like to say anyway) from what they call 'consentual policing'- our police is based on that idea- policing with the good will and consent of those policed.
This sort of thing strikes at the very heart of that idea and that it is seen to be dealt with by the Courts and fairly is paramount now.

[Orwell]

Noone was 'pushing' at the back in the manner you seem to imply- there was nowhere else for people to go.

Stopping and waiting was not an option then?

Humans in a large crowd when a crush like that happens, as has been shown elsewhere, act to self preserve. Panic sets in when you can no longer breath.

Maybe this happened after the 'failing to stop and wait' happened? On a personal level, I have often been in crowds where people were trying to push past me when the crowd was moving too slowly for them. I never really contemplated that their actions might cause a chain reaction and end up in a crush. But it's possible - clearly.

If you are being crushed you try to make room for yourself- the pressure on the crowd was so great that people in the stand above and to the side of it were despretley trying to grab people to lift out of it and it is hardly suprising there was so much more pressure on those stuck against the fences at the front.

A horrific human tragedgy hapened, I don't dispute that.

As to who gets prosecuted- individuals, just senior officers or the entire force I have no idea- I dont know my legal side well enough to comment.

So long as there are police scalps, justice will be done. I wonder if any post traumatic stress was incurred by any of the police involved? Would that be punishment enough?

News reports from the BBC are talking about charges of manslaughter through gross negligence- but I am unclear if that is against individuals or the force as a whole.

A show trial - but I fear it could not be won by prosecutors - but then, who knows, the right Judge and Jury might swing it. Tho "Attempting to pervert the course of justice" (one of our Laws) might - from what you say - get up.

One must be tried (hopefully fairly) under the Laws of the Land.- Orwell

Indeed. The police in the UK get their authority to police (or so they like to say anyway) from what they call 'consentual policing'- or police is base don that idea- policing with the good will and consent of those policed. This sort of thing strikes at the very heart of that idea and that it iseen to be dealt with by the Courts and fairly is paramount now.

Thank Eru for that! I was beginning to think it might be a Witch Hunt!

[Pettytyrant101]

Stopping and waiting was not an option then?- Orwell

From reading the report- no- more fans were being put in behind them from the gates- put simply there were a lot more fans than there was room to put them in-there was only one way to go, forward, to avoid being crushed in the tunnel itself- this of course meant a continous increase on pressure on the crowd already inside the stand- those in the tunnel couild not stop because there were more and more coming in behind them- and those in front had nowhere left to go.
The only place the pressure could have ben relieved was at the gate entrance itslef - but as the cops out there had no idea what was happening inside the stand they were putting more people in there instead, making it even worse.
A horrific set of circumstances which should never have arisen in the first place had all procedures been followed and communications maintained.

[Orwell]

If no one was trying to move forward, no one in front could be squeezed in the least. We have a finite number of people in a place at the time. A large number, but not an infinite number where First Causes can only be postulated. (I'm not suggesting btw that Eru pushed anyone, though I'm happy to blame God for most things! ) No postulating is required. There were people crushing people in front of them through weight of numbers, the forward movement MUST have been caused by the first person/s who started the movement forward, presumably at the back somehere - but who'd admit to that? Stopping and waiting means NO MOVEMENT forward by anyone.

Maybe I've come up with a solution: Police were at the back of the crowd, pushing people! Just the sort of thing they'd do - back in those days at least.

Petty, someone in some way or other was 'pushing' forward somewhere. But I'm not saying it with a view of 'blaming' (with it's negative connotations), but of pointing out a (possibly) non-malicious act that had a negative chain reaction. Unfair to blame. No one meant to hurt anyone - even the cop who tried to 'relieve pressure.'

Again, the lying afterwards is the criminal and hurtful part.

And hopefully lessons (by ALL involved and us in our armchairs) have been learned.

[Pettytyrant101]

You know me Orwell- never learned a lesson yet not about to start now!

[Orwell]

I'd have it no other way!