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

[Pettytyrant101]

In more police news- this time they are the wronged party- you may recall a short while back the Tory Chief Whip got into a bit of a mess leaving Downing Street when the police officers on charge would not let him through the main gate but instead through a side gate- as they had been told to do- his response- 'that they were fucking plebs and should know their place'- caused a storm.

He has since refused to say what he said only to deny he said that- the problem is this is what the police say he said and recorded in their notebooks.
He says he is not calling the police liars (somehow) only that he didn't use the word 'pleb' or tell them they should know your place.
He did however apologise to the officer after it became public.

Yesterday the Senior Police of the MET asked for a meeting with the Chief Whip- it lasted 45 minutes at which they tried to get from him what he did say if it wasnt what was in the books- the meeting ended with them none the wiser.
As a result the police have called for his resignation- criminal prosecutions the length and breadth of the country, they say, relies on what is in a policemans notebook being accepted as truthful- and you cant have a senior cabinet minister saying what is in these policemans noticebooks is not true therefore.

The government response is this is not what was about what was said, he apoligised and that should be that. They claim as the police are facing unpopular austerity measures that this is being used by the police to get at the government.

I suspect a small element of that is true- but even accepting that the police argument still seems to me a clincher.
Either he said what he did (completely politically suicidal and will end his current career) or the police are lying when they say thats what he said.
Its got to be one or the other.

[Orwell]

In more police news- this time they are the wronged party- you may recall a short while back the Tory Chief Whip got into a bit of a mess leaving Downing Street when the police officers on charge would not let him through the main gate but instead through a side gate- as they had been told to do- his response- 'that they were fucking plebs and should know their place'- caused a storm.

What if what he said was perfectly true and applicable?

He has since refused to say what he said only to deny he said that-

Liar!

the problem is this is what the police say he said and recorded in their notebooks.

Liars!

He says he is not calling the police liars (somehow)

Liar!

only that he didn't use the word 'pleb'

Liar!

or tell them they should know your place.

Liar!

He did however apologise to the officer after it became public.

All's well that ends well!

Yesterday the Senior Police of the MET asked for a meeting with the Chief Whip- it lasted 45 minutes at which they tried to get from him what he did say if it wasnt what was in the books- the meeting ended with them none the wiser.

Liars!

As a result the police have called for his resignation-

Did the Police think he was lying?

criminal prosecutions the length and breadth of the country, they say, relies on what is in a policemans notebook being accepted as truthful-

{{{ The weight of it all! }}}

and you cant have a senior cabinet minister saying what is in these policemans noticebooks is not true therefore.

The government response is this is not what was about what was said, he apoligised and that should be that. They claim as the police are facing unpopular austerity measures that this is being used by the police to get at the government.

Liar!

I suspect a small element of that is true-

Harm minimisation!?

but even accepting that the police argument still seems to me a clincher. Either he said what he did (completely politically suicidal and will end his current career) or the police are lying when they say thats what he said. Its got to be one or the other.

What if they're all lying - some before and some afterwards! Pack of liars! Which leaves one wondering, "Give me so truth!"

[Orwell]

As an addendum - since when does a Police Organisation generally disagree with Tories? (Police Unions might tho! )

[David H]

On the point of pushing, I've been in such crowds from time to time and the problem is momentum. If you have several hundred people walking together, even at a slow shuffle, that represents a lot of inertia. Halfwise can give you the formulas. One person literally cannot stop walking forward without risk of being trampled. Nobody needs to intentionally push the person in front of them, anymore than there's intention in a multiple car pile-up in rush hour traffic. If somebody falls, a person can protect them by placing themselves upstream and parting the crowd's flow around the fallen person, but you can't stop the flow unless you can get a large enough mass stopped to resist the flow. It can be scary, and as soon as the first person panics, all bets are off!

That's just my perspective of course.

[Orwell]

You largely agree with my point it seems, David.

If one stops in front of you, and you stop, and the next person stops, then a (benevolent) chain reaction can occur in which we might end in a (if only temporary) 'everybody waiting patiently' stasis (state?); but only if someome behind does not, say, 'make contact' with you, thus 'momentumming' you forward again with, frankly, horrendous results.

I think it's called entropy maybe when everyone stops - a non-malicious entropy; not a vicious push-and-shove entropy, which, of course, can't actually exist, except in word.

Anyway, Halfy will know.


{{{David, is 'pushing" a rude word in Scottish? Just wondering?}}}

[halfwise]

I'm afraid I made some disparaging comments about the fans without reading back far enough to see what had really happened. David and Orwell seem to have nailed it as a sort of human fluid dynamics problem, which would take a very competent/experienced central controlling authority to manage correctly. Compression waves can actually propogate away from whatever caused the original disturbance; very difficult to predict.

You know how you are driving down a freeway, then everything comes to a standstill for about 10 minutes, then magically it all opens up and a few minutes later you are cruising past the scene of an accident? The traffic there bunched up, causing the folks upstream to bunch up, then the folks behind them bunch up, and it can travel miles backwards. Realizing what will happen and properly managing it without prior experience in a stadium situation sounds like a nightmare. I can see the police realizing what they should have done in retrospect, then going back and trying to cover up what would only be obvious in hindsight.

[Orwell]

Wow! Why didn't you come in earlier and save me from being (largely) serious about a subject over so many posts.

This bit was particularly edifying for me:

Compression waves can actually propogate away from whatever caused the original disturbance; very difficult to predict.

[Pettytyrant101]

trying to cover up what would only be obvious in hindsight.- Halfwise

That is the contentious bit about the whole thing Halfwise- did it need hindsight?
Remember only the year before after a similar occurance where tragedy was narrowly avoided new procedures were put in place- but not followed at Hillsborough.
Many (including the Families Suport Groups) argue that was their hindsight moment- they had had the warning- they had new procedures to deal with it but they didnt use them.

On the use of push- no I dont like it, Ive got to admit. It implies to me a delibtrate choice, an allocation of blame- whereas I am more inclined to the idea Halfwise and David outline and that these things have a life and momentum of their own if the conditions are right.
So I dont think in this sort of circumstance 'pushing' is an appropriate description for those reasons. No more than to say people in Halfwises or David's traffic examples are 'pushing'.

[Orwell]

Use whatever word/s you wish to describe the 'forward momentum', but it does not change the fact that these situations have a 'momentum' of their own and hindsight, as Halfwise fullwisely suggests here, 'hindsight' is a powerful thing. Humans aren't perfect.

[David H]

You largely agree with my point it seems, David.

{{{ he keeps using that word! }}}

[halfwise]

trying to cover up what would only be obvious in hindsight.- Halfwise

That is the contentious bit about the whole thing Halfwise- did it need hindsight?
Remember only the year before after a similar occurance where tragedy was narrowly avoided new procedures were put in place- but not followed at Hillsborough.
Many (including the Families Suport Groups) argue that was their hindsight moment- they had had the warning- they had new procedures to deal with it but they didnt use them.

Were the new procedures put in place by the same security/police force in one place but not another? What I'm asking is whether some lateral communication had to occur between groups of security people, or was it the same set of people? If it was the same group there's reason to place blame, but if two different groups, well, such information takes time to be disseminated and recognized as important. A year may sound like a lot of time, but if it's something you've only read about in a newspaper rather than having someone come over and offer training, chances are the new procedures will not be implemented.

[Pettytyrant101]

The answer there as far as I can see Halfwise is a bit up in the air- someone may be lying.
Certainly the most senior new however there is this from the report:

The SYP decision to replace the experienced match commander, Chief Superintendent Brian Mole, and appoint Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield who had minimal experience of policing at Hillsborough, just weeks before an FA Cup semi-final, has been previously criticised. None of the documents disclosed to the Panel indicated the rationale behind this decision.

and this

A planning meeting attended by both senior officers was held less than a month before the match. The documents disclosed to the Panel give no explanation for the non-attendance of the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service and the Fire Service at this meeting.

and this

SYP officers with experience of the inner concourse and terrace access stated that previously they had controlled access to the tunnel once the central pens appeared to be full, particularly in 1988. The disclosed documents reveal that this information was deleted from some officers' statements.

and finally this

Senior SYP officers denied knowledge of tunnel closures at previous semi-finals, particularly 1988. They placed responsibility for that
information not being given at debriefings on the officers responsible for the closures. Yet SYP officers responsible for closing the tunnel access in 1988 claimed that they had acted under instructions from senior officers.

[halfwise]

Yep, sounds like something complicated had to be got right, and the communication was not as clear as need be.

[Orwell]

No matter how much I read to and fro through this stuff, I can't help thinking the original problem was that someone decided to open a gate they shouldn't have. But, to me, opening gates to relieve pressure still doesn't seem all that dumb (in principle), only now in hindsight. Who is to say that opening a gate can't even nowadays still be a feature of a sensible management plan, providing we have learnt the lessons of Hillsborough. What I mean is, providing there is a plan in place at any given venue which includes a practical method for Authorities to be able to turn back dangerous forward momentum if and when it's actually happening. Maybe we could even have ongoing media campaigns that implore people to be patient and thus avoid any risk of non-maliciously causing forward momentum to the person in front of them in a crowd situation. Patience is a virtue, after all.

[Pettytyrant101]

The police who opened the gate and put people in that way were indeed thinking they were doing the right thing to relieve the pressure there- however where they failed was to follow procedure- they never coordinated (or even informed) the central control box or the police inside (who could have told them it was full).
This was then further compounded by the action taken in 1988, which diverted a similar problem, not being carried out by those inside when the problem began- and those in overall control in the box, despite having a clear view of the stand and cctv coverage of it, the tunnel and the front gate- failed to do anything at all.

So are those who opened the gate at fault? To my eyes only in so much as they did not cooridinate what they were doing as they should have- but the brunt of the blame for me has to lie with the senior officers in the control box who should have been able to see what was going on.
And who surely should have realised after 45 minutes of people being pulled out dying and dead and wounded that this was not hoolginism.

All stadiums in the UK now are all seater- so the sort of huge standing crowds of the past dont exist anymore. You couldnt get that sort of crush in a modern crowd- and as a result of Hillsborought the barriers between crowd and pitch were removed.

[Orwell]

The police who opened the gate and put people in that way were indeed thinking they were doing the right thing to relieve the pressure there- however where they failed was to follow procedure- they never coordinated (or even informed) the central control box or the police inside (who could have told them it was full).

We can look at this as being anything (legally) between "Well intentioned but in hindsight bad decision making," and "horrible criminal negligence" then.

This was then further compounded by the action taken in 1988, which diverted a similar problem, not being carried out by those inside when the problem began- and those in overall control in the box, despite having a clear view of the stand and cctv coverage of it, the tunnel and the front gate- failed to do anything at all.

Maybe they were looking at something else and did not twig immediately that the plan had been suddenly modified? Maybe someone at the gate thought someone else was going to radio the Control Centre? Maybe things seemed to be going swimmingly as in other big games crowd wise? Maybe opening another gate was not at all unusual in the circumstances? Maybe the police person who gave the instruction to open it had made similar instructions in past situations and had full authority to do so without having to let the Control Centre aware of it? Routine matter in these situations. (Until a flaw is show up in planning!) I guess I'd have to review all the evidence but I can't see me doing a Freedom of Information request to get copies of ALL the said evidence to make a truly informed judgement here.

So are those who opened the gate at fault? To my eyes only in so much as they did not cooridinate what they were doing as they should have- but the brunt of the blame for me has to lie with the senior officers in the control box who should have been able to see what was going on.

Maybe, but for some reason the Authorities don't seem to have realised immediately what was brewing, or could see something had changed, but weren't sure what and why. There were a hell of a lot of fans and gates there apparently.

And who surely should have realised after 45 minutes of people being pulled out dying and dead and wounded that this was not hoolginism.

In that 45 minutes of chaos, how would you know? Had there been no history of hooliganism in the past? How does one know the difference between forward momentum caused chaos and hooliganisn caused chaos without pre-knowledge of what's happening? The key words here seemed to be "panic" and "chaos."

Maybe everyone was sucked into the panic and the clarity of a Senior Officer's view was distorted.
"My God! The crowd's gone berserk!"
"It looks a hell of a lot like hooligansm, Sir. Look at those poor souls jumping onto the ground to get away from it!"
"You might be right, Sergeant Brown. It's a reasonable thought given past history. But from up here, it's hard to know."
"In all my years of policing I've never seen anything quite like this, Sir."
"Quite right Brown. But I remember a few previous riots. None of them exactly the same!"
"Sir! It might be a severe case of forward momentumming!"
"Shut up PC Smith! I know hooliganism when I see it!"

(Like you, Petty, I'm happy to diss it on Senior Officers. )

All jokes asside, the crime is still the cover-ups later as I see it. The whole thing was a freakish accident (or one thing leading to another) which only with the wonderful gift of hindsight could it have been prevented. We know better now. Hopefully, it won't happen again.

[Orwell]

I'm not trying to be Devil's Advocate here btw Petty. I'm as interested as you are to know what really happened. But in fairness, considering the possibility of 'cover-ups', 'incompetence', and 'Witch Hunts'; the 'motive/s' of everyone involved in 'reviewing' what happened all those years ago must be included in our considerations if we honestly want to get to the bottom of it. And, anyway, just trying to lay the blame at anyone or any organisation's feet sounds suspciously like politics not clear eyed logic to me.

Even those police you mentioned earlier who accept fault on behalf of previous police so gladly I don't necessarily trust. "Ooh look how modern and well organised and co-ordinated we are now. We modern police are not only smarter and wiser and honester than our predecessors, but we're politically correct too, and therefore all worthy of promotion to higher positions. Hurrah!"

[Pettytyrant101]

Heres a short fim- testimony from Liverpool fans who were there on the day- all of this of course was before the police began smearing the fans- saying they stormed the gate, they were drunk and disordely and violent and before they smeared the dead - its also of course before anyone knew the details. But some of the comments- particularly from the fans is insightful.
Contains some distressing testimony but Ive picked one without footage just stills- if you want to see that there are plenty videos of the footage shown on tv at the time

[Orwell]

The police opened the gate because they were worried that people would be killed "outside". Panic! Chaos! All round! Fucking glad I wasn't on duty there in those circumstances having to make decisions on the run. Plans (even ones made for specific contingencies) tend to go out the window when unexpected situations arrive and you're Johnny-on-the-spot.

I remember something my Dad said to me after I'd been in the midle of a situation where four of my comrades were shot back in 1999. (I was saved by a Pittosporum bush, actually, which I had not planted ahead of time, but perhaps should have. I'm glad some unkown indiviudual thought so far ahead tho! ) My dad's a Second World War veteran. You see, after the event, all sorts of comments were made (by other cops as well!) about how we cops on duty should have done better, planned better, not have put ourselves in the situation in quite the way we did. In these things, one always does his own assessment (and constant re-assessment over the years!) and at the time I was thinking, "I could have done this...I should have done that....", weighed down by the views of folk who hadn't actually been there but seemed very wise in the way of these things.

My Dad (bless him) said words to the effect of: "When we went overseas any training we had, both in skills and plans, meant nothing until you'd survived a few actual fights. Skills and plans then might make some sense, but, still, neither are perfect answers when things turn to shit. You run things the best way you can and no situation is identical - and you only ever can only hope that things go well and you survive."

This left me with the view that, yes, we can always do things better, and, yes, we can learn from experience, but, no, we are not Gods, nor do we have Magic Wands, nor do we always see with perfect clarity what is happening around us (some call it 'tunnel vision' but that's not the totality of the problem), especially when things turn to utter shit around us (nor do we have the benefit of hindsight at the time).

Your vid only makes me surer of the need to look at what happened without seking to blame anyone, Petty. I'm very suspicious that the Adversarial System that underlines our Justice Systems has badly tainted the whole inquiry.

[Pettytyrant101]

On the otherhand there are reasons for planning and procedures and training- and not to follow any of it has to be an error surely?

I think if it had not been for the appaling coverup it would have been put down in history as a terrible tragedy- there would have been a day in court to get to the bottom of it and the law would have decided if anyone in a position of authority had blame to shoulder.

But to persist in 23 years in a coverup to prevent that happening is what really sticks in people throats- especially when that coverup involves smearing the deceased.

And even if it turns out that the Courts dont think anyone person or group of people can be held responsible that day someone is for the coverup and they have to be brought to some sort of justice in the name of the families of the dead.

[Orwell]

I did some major editing, Petty. Hopefully, it doesn't affect your considerations in your last post! I wasn't trying to be tricky - just thinking more and editing!

[Pettytyrant101]

The police opened the gate because they were worried that people would be killed "outside". - Orwell

At previous cup matches at Hillsborough the police had funneled the fans outside the gates to prevent this- for reasons that are still not clear
those in charge that day opted not to do this and instead to 'let the fans find their own level' outside the gates- whatever that means. Is it a policing term?

I fully get your points Orwell about how its easier after the event to see clearly what was happening- and that is why it is tantamount, not just for justice for those lost, but for our justice system- that a full, open and fair look is taken at this by the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service- I dont want to see some scapegoat getting the blame- I want those (if anyone was) responsible to face their day in court- and especially those who conducted the coverup- that had to be illegal on all sorts of counts.

[Orwell]

I think if it had not been for the appaling coverup it would have been put down in history as a terrible tragedy- there would have been a day in court to get to the bottom of it and the law would have decided if anyone in a position of authority had blame to shoulder.

A fair minded enquiry - not an Adversarial yeah-or-nay (black-or-white) debate is fine by me.

But to persist in 23 years in a coverup to prevent that happening is what really sticks in people throats- especially when that coverup involves smearing the deceased.

And even if it turns out that the Courts dont think anyone person or group of people can be held responsible that day someone is for the coverup and they have to be brought to some sort of justice in the name of the families of the dead.

So long as "Pervert the Course of Justice" is not seen as the same thing as "Criminal Negligence", I guess. One is 'after the fact', the other is 'at the time', and they definitely should not be confused with each other.

[Pettytyrant101]

I imagine they will treat the coverup as a seperate issue from the events of the day- that seems only sensible.

[Orwell]

The police opened the gate because they were worried that people would be killed "outside". - Orwell

At previous cup matches at Hillsborough the police had funneled the fans outside the gates to prevent this- for reasons that are still not clear
those in charge that day opted not to do this and instead to 'let the fans find their own level' outside the gates- whatever that means. Is it a policing term?

No situation is identical. Plans sometimes are made on the run. Maybe the fear of deaths outside the ground (in the specific circumstances that arose) caused this 'planning on the run'? (EDIT: Doesn't sound like a police term, Petty, but I imagine they're saying that well behaved crowds tend to work out where they're going to stand in relation to where others are going to stand.)

I fully get your points Orwell about how its easier after the event to see clearly what was happening- and that is why it is tantamount, not just for justice for those lost, but for our justice system- that a full, open and fair look is taken at this by the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service- I dont want to see some scapegoat getting the blame- I want those (if anyone was) responsible to face their day in court- and especially those who conducted the coverup- that had to be illegal on all sorts of counts.

I'm not sure a Court Hearing is the only answer (or a fair answer at all - but I do distrust the Adversarial System in this matter, as I've admitted above). An open enquiry by a panel would seem the best step. Which, I assume in theory is what was meant to have happened. The blunt statement that: "The crowd were in no way responsible for what happened," (or however it was put), disturbs me a hell of a lot. My experience of life tells me that this is not the kind of event in which anyone can logically make such definitive statements, no matter how well meaning that is as a gesture toward the grieving friends and families of the deceased and injured.