| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:17 - Nov 28 with 2731 views | Basuco |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 17:58 - Nov 28 by BloomBlue |
I think you're right there.
I forget but is this the 3rd court case for him, in the first two the jury couldnt reach agreement? |
Yes, it is the third case, but it leaves us with the the only good to come out of this terrible disaster is that I was able to take my two young children to Portman Road in 1998 to watch Town in complete safety. |  | |  |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:28 - Nov 28 with 2721 views | jeera |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 18:40 - Nov 28 by hampstead_blue |
I've not followed it so accept that it may be old news.
It was new to myself this evening and raised an eyebrow.
A couple of people have already stated my thoughts and that's that it must be wider and deeper than just one person in one moment.
Nothing can make it better. |
I don't mean to be rude, especially on such a sensitive subject, but like I say it's been a major point all along.
Anyone who has shown the slightest interest would know this.
The previous, experienced, Chief Superintendent Mole was transferred after a couple of idiot officers thought it would be funny to frighten the wits out of a new constable in a prank that went wrong. Although he had no knowledge of the incident Ch Supt Mole took the rap and was sent elsewhere to the detriment of his role.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/07/most-experienced-police-command |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:43 - Nov 28 with 2695 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:17 - Nov 28 by Basuco |
Yes, it is the third case, but it leaves us with the the only good to come out of this terrible disaster is that I was able to take my two young children to Portman Road in 1998 to watch Town in complete safety. |
You would have been able to anyway. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:04 - Nov 28 with 2665 views | PJH |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:17 - Nov 28 by Basuco |
Yes, it is the third case, but it leaves us with the the only good to come out of this terrible disaster is that I was able to take my two young children to Portman Road in 1998 to watch Town in complete safety. |
I am sure you don't mean this to read as insensitively as it seems to but are you really saying that going to a football match in 1998 was safer because 96 people died in 1989?
I do not think any good whatsoever came out of this "terrible disaster".
I am trying to decide whether to post this or not so I will apologise to you in advance but I do not think that you have worded your post very well. |  | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:09 - Nov 28 with 2651 views | jeera |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:04 - Nov 28 by PJH |
I am sure you don't mean this to read as insensitively as it seems to but are you really saying that going to a football match in 1998 was safer because 96 people died in 1989?
I do not think any good whatsoever came out of this "terrible disaster".
I am trying to decide whether to post this or not so I will apologise to you in advance but I do not think that you have worded your post very well. |
To be fair I think he's trying to find a positive.
I.e. That maybe in the future further lives were not lost.
Not much of a consolation, but I can understand the attempt. | |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:12 - Nov 28 with 2640 views | PJH |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:09 - Nov 28 by jeera |
To be fair I think he's trying to find a positive.
I.e. That maybe in the future further lives were not lost.
Not much of a consolation, but I can understand the attempt. |
Yes, I was unsure whether I should post what I posted at all and was in fact on the point of deleting it.
It was just that when I first read the post that I was responding to it seemed to be worded very insensitively but I do understand the meaning of it. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:26 - Nov 28 with 2622 views | Basuco |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:12 - Nov 28 by PJH |
Yes, I was unsure whether I should post what I posted at all and was in fact on the point of deleting it.
It was just that when I first read the post that I was responding to it seemed to be worded very insensitively but I do understand the meaning of it. |
Sorry, that has not come across as I intended, the fact that the guy in charge of crowd safety did not do his job in any way, shape or form, but was not responsible for what happened is beyond my understanding. The fact that after Hillsborough the fences came down, fans are now treated as human beings rather than thugs, football violence has largely disappeared from football grounds and it is now very common that families go to watch a match together in a safe and proper manor. That is what I was trying to say. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:33 - Nov 28 with 2598 views | PJH |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:26 - Nov 28 by Basuco |
Sorry, that has not come across as I intended, the fact that the guy in charge of crowd safety did not do his job in any way, shape or form, but was not responsible for what happened is beyond my understanding. The fact that after Hillsborough the fences came down, fans are now treated as human beings rather than thugs, football violence has largely disappeared from football grounds and it is now very common that families go to watch a match together in a safe and proper manor. That is what I was trying to say. |
Yes, understood.
As I said I was at first unsure whether I should post what I did and was then going to delete it but I was just posting on my first reaction to reading your post as it was worded, if that makes sense.
I felt and feel very strongly in favour of those that suffered at and because of Hillsborough and even more so after meeting bluelagos a few times. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 21:13 - Nov 28 with 2558 views | Basuco |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 20:33 - Nov 28 by PJH |
Yes, understood.
As I said I was at first unsure whether I should post what I did and was then going to delete it but I was just posting on my first reaction to reading your post as it was worded, if that makes sense.
I felt and feel very strongly in favour of those that suffered at and because of Hillsborough and even more so after meeting bluelagos a few times. |
Thanks, yes, I also feel the same, for me it was after hearing BL's account and reading his blog's, well worth a read should anyone have missed them. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 00:30 - Nov 29 with 2469 views | bluelagos |
Cheers for the supportive comments guys.
I won't be commenting much other than to say that imho our justice system is a joke. But then I think we all knew that anyway. 96 dead and the only conviction is of a civilian. Establishment protecting their own, just as they always do. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 08:46 - Nov 29 with 2368 views | Crawfordsboot |
This must be a devastating outcome for the families and friends. I can empathize with their need to find a guilty party but I fear that had Duckinfield been found guilty he would have been the fall guy for what was in reality a widespread failure, both individual and institutional.
It is too easy to blame the system looking after their own. The police authority tasked with investigating the South Yorkshire police did so and recommended prosecution of a range of individuals. They did their job and can’t be charged with looking after their own. Prosecutions were not taken up due to insufficient evidence. Some challenge that decision but it was a decision taken by lawyers not by police looking after their own.
At the time of the tragedy, policing of football fans, civilian management of such events and public attitudes towards them was conditioned by years of antisocial behavioral patterns. ( Though Of course we now know that the Liverpool fans were not at fault at Hillsborough). This social environment conditioned both the handling and reaction on the day and the subsequent follow up.
The delay in prosecuting has denied justice to the families. Surely the lesson to learn from this that speedy investigations must be expedited because justice delayed is justice denied. |  | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:37 - Nov 29 with 2316 views | bluelagos |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 08:46 - Nov 29 by Crawfordsboot |
This must be a devastating outcome for the families and friends. I can empathize with their need to find a guilty party but I fear that had Duckinfield been found guilty he would have been the fall guy for what was in reality a widespread failure, both individual and institutional.
It is too easy to blame the system looking after their own. The police authority tasked with investigating the South Yorkshire police did so and recommended prosecution of a range of individuals. They did their job and can’t be charged with looking after their own. Prosecutions were not taken up due to insufficient evidence. Some challenge that decision but it was a decision taken by lawyers not by police looking after their own.
At the time of the tragedy, policing of football fans, civilian management of such events and public attitudes towards them was conditioned by years of antisocial behavioral patterns. ( Though Of course we now know that the Liverpool fans were not at fault at Hillsborough). This social environment conditioned both the handling and reaction on the day and the subsequent follow up.
The delay in prosecuting has denied justice to the families. Surely the lesson to learn from this that speedy investigations must be expedited because justice delayed is justice denied. |
Given what you have previously said to me (namely that the disaster was an accident) and your lack of knockledge on the working of the Iopc, Resolve, WMP and how the evidence was collated, presented, prosecuted etc I'll store your comments in the 'ignorance is bliss' category.
You want to think justice has been served that's your perogative. I dont nor do any of the dozens of fellow campaigners, survivors and family members I know.
But eh, keep faith in our justice system, I just. hope you don't ever have to rely on it...
Edit: Happy that I got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Will leave it up my reply rather than edit it - as any subsequent posts wouldn't make sense. Apologies. [Post edited 29 Nov 2019 12:16]
| |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:48 - Nov 29 with 2289 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 16:04 - Nov 28 by BackToRussia |
Ridiculous. Where's the justice? |
How can you possibly claim to be in a position to judge him?
The jury sat through weeks of evidence and arguments.
You’ve made a snap decision.
You tell me what the test is for gross negligence manslaughter, the threshold for it, they key issues and what evidence applies. |  | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:51 - Nov 29 with 2291 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 16:12 - Nov 28 by Steve_M |
AS ever with this, David Conn has more:
The whole thread is worth reading but the last bit here stands out, nobody has been found liable for the 96 deaths.
|
Actually that’s not true.
The police admitted liability for negligence and responsibility at the time and were sued. There are a number of leading cases on the extent to which claimants (especially secondary victims like the fire bridge and police) could claim for nervous shock.
You are taking about criminal liability. That requires intent or recklessness to the extent that it almost equivalent to intent. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:54 - Nov 29 with 2282 views | BackToRussia |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:48 - Nov 29 by Oxford_Blue |
How can you possibly claim to be in a position to judge him?
The jury sat through weeks of evidence and arguments.
You’ve made a snap decision.
You tell me what the test is for gross negligence manslaughter, the threshold for it, they key issues and what evidence applies. |
If this isn't, then what is. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:55 - Nov 29 with 2284 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 16:27 - Nov 28 by Steve_M |
So, because the jury can't know anything about the case, the same old lies from 30 years ago - drunken, ticketless fans etc, etc - can be allowed to sway their verdict. It's no wonder that the families will feel that this is a travesty of justice.
Duckenfield failed catastrophically in his job and lied about it for years afterwards. Regardless of this verdict we know the truth of that. |
Again you’re not understanding.
The evidence was put before the jury by the prosecution as to the facts. It’s not right to say that the jury didn’t hear this. They heard weeks of it.
It’s also not right to say that because Duckenfield lied he is guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. The two are not casually connected. The prosecution needed to have shown a high degree of recklessness such that he essentially intended or did not care if he killed anyone and knew that killing people was likely. The jury heard the evidence and 9-1 agreed he wasn’t guilty as the law stands. Don’t let emotions get in the way. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:09 - Nov 29 with 2263 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:51 - Nov 29 by Oxford_Blue |
Actually that’s not true.
The police admitted liability for negligence and responsibility at the time and were sued. There are a number of leading cases on the extent to which claimants (especially secondary victims like the fire bridge and police) could claim for nervous shock.
You are taking about criminal liability. That requires intent or recklessness to the extent that it almost equivalent to intent. |
Is that really true though? Latest from Conn:
"Then in April 2016, the jury at the new inquests determined that the 96 people were unlawfully killed by the gross negligence manslaughter of the South Yorkshire police officer in command, Ch Supt David Duckenfield, to a criminal standard of proof."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/28/how-david-duckenfield-trial-left
Now if Conn is wrong, I would expect an incoming press complaint and likely libel case. Lets see what happens.
I'm seeing an ugly return to blaming the fans - 'they were drunk', 'they didn't have tickets', 'they were looking for trouble', etc. All of this was proven as a lie in the last inquiry.
Duckenfield is a very lucky fella. Those who perished on the terraces because of his actions and then were stitched up and made out to be the victims, not so lucky. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:09 - Nov 29 with 2261 views | Dyland |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 00:30 - Nov 29 by bluelagos |
Cheers for the supportive comments guys.
I won't be commenting much other than to say that imho our justice system is a joke. But then I think we all knew that anyway. 96 dead and the only conviction is of a civilian. Establishment protecting their own, just as they always do. |
I'd use the hug emoji if it didn't have a stupid grinning face Lagers :(
Shocking... but not really, I guess. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:13 - Nov 29 with 2250 views | Darth_Koont |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 00:30 - Nov 29 by bluelagos |
Cheers for the supportive comments guys.
I won't be commenting much other than to say that imho our justice system is a joke. But then I think we all knew that anyway. 96 dead and the only conviction is of a civilian. Establishment protecting their own, just as they always do. |
Stay strong, mate.
Hope you and the others get the full justice you undeniably deserve. And sooner rather than later. |  |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:24 - Nov 29 with 2233 views | hampstead_blue |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 19:28 - Nov 28 by jeera |
I don't mean to be rude, especially on such a sensitive subject, but like I say it's been a major point all along.
Anyone who has shown the slightest interest would know this.
The previous, experienced, Chief Superintendent Mole was transferred after a couple of idiot officers thought it would be funny to frighten the wits out of a new constable in a prank that went wrong. Although he had no knowledge of the incident Ch Supt Mole took the rap and was sent elsewhere to the detriment of his role.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/07/most-experienced-police-command |
I've made a point not to get into this in detail. It is not out of disrespect at all.
Having lost a few mates in Northern Ireland I tend to swerve the detail of this type of tragedy. Especially when justice cannot be found.
I just find it so upsetting as it takes me to a place I don't want to be and isn't healthy.
The loss cannot be filled and some will never find peace. That is horrid and I feel for them all. |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:43 - Nov 29 with 2213 views | bluelagos |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:09 - Nov 29 by Swansea_Blue |
Is that really true though? Latest from Conn:
"Then in April 2016, the jury at the new inquests determined that the 96 people were unlawfully killed by the gross negligence manslaughter of the South Yorkshire police officer in command, Ch Supt David Duckenfield, to a criminal standard of proof."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/28/how-david-duckenfield-trial-left
Now if Conn is wrong, I would expect an incoming press complaint and likely libel case. Lets see what happens.
I'm seeing an ugly return to blaming the fans - 'they were drunk', 'they didn't have tickets', 'they were looking for trouble', etc. All of this was proven as a lie in the last inquiry.
Duckenfield is a very lucky fella. Those who perished on the terraces because of his actions and then were stitched up and made out to be the victims, not so lucky. |
David Conn is correct. The jury at the inquests heard all the evidence and were directed they could only find unlawful killing if they concluded, to a criminal standard, DD was guilty of manslaughter.
The CPS presented far less evidence and a jury yesterday found DD not guilty of the exact same thing.
At the inquests, family lawyers challenged DD and police evidence. At the trial, the CPS were solely responsible for the evidence put in front of the jury.
Given the inquests took 2 years and the trial 6 weeks, it is self evident much available evidence was never shown to the jury.
I am happy to stand by my position that justice has not been served and that the CPS, Resolve and judge failed in their role to deliver justice. | |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 10:52 - Nov 29 with 2189 views | Dyland |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 09:51 - Nov 29 by Oxford_Blue |
Actually that’s not true.
The police admitted liability for negligence and responsibility at the time and were sued. There are a number of leading cases on the extent to which claimants (especially secondary victims like the fire bridge and police) could claim for nervous shock.
You are taking about criminal liability. That requires intent or recklessness to the extent that it almost equivalent to intent. |
"That requires intent or recklessness to the extent that it almost equivalent to intent."
Is that what's needed to prove manslaughter?
There is a strong argument Duckenfield's actions were reckless in the extreme. Could he have known his reckless actions would cause such a tragedy? Of course not. But that's not the point is it. I agree it's a complex situation but bottom line is justice has not been served.
I witnessed a murder in Brixton many years ago and gave testimony at the Old Bailey for the CPS. The perpetrator had been involved in an argument with a group of men, and had gone to his van, taken an iron bar with a lump of concrete attached (he was a plumber), returned to confront one of the men, and whacked him full force over the back of the head after the victim had turned away, splitting his skull open. The defence's case rested on CCTV footage of the victim grabbing a table spray cleaner from KFC and squirting it at the perp (whilst laughing), before the latter went to get the iron bar. The argument was he thought it was a knife and was worried about his friends' safety. Yeh right.
The jury found him guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. He got six years. The law is an ass, and juries can be made up of fooking idiots. You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. | |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 11:06 - Nov 29 with 2178 views | charlie1 |
Unfortunately this was the only possible outcome as soon as it became a proven fact that every fan trying to enter that end was sober, behaving impeccably and was in possession of a ticket.
It was never going to be possible for a court to convict Duckenfield of being criminally negligent in allowing fans to enter the ground who, by their conduct and status as ticket-holders he had no cause to deny entry to. | | | |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 11:18 - Nov 29 with 2160 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 11:06 - Nov 29 by charlie1 |
Unfortunately this was the only possible outcome as soon as it became a proven fact that every fan trying to enter that end was sober, behaving impeccably and was in possession of a ticket.
It was never going to be possible for a court to convict Duckenfield of being criminally negligent in allowing fans to enter the ground who, by their conduct and status as ticket-holders he had no cause to deny entry to. |
Missed so many points, it's hard to know where to start.
The number of people in the Leppings Lane terrace was in-line with the number of tickets sold.
However, the number of tickets sold was based on a capacity that assumes equal distribution across all the enclosures on that terrace. But it was a very uneven distribution, because when the gates were opened, the vast majority went straight down the tunnel to the already over-full central areas, and not to the sides where there was plenty of space.
The fact that no thought was given to where the fans would go once the gate was opened was fatal. Duckenfield then lied about why the gate was opened - he said (while fans were injured, dying and dead literally before his very eyes), to the FA's Graham Kelly that the fans forced a gate.
He is a liar and a coward. | |
| |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 11:26 - Nov 29 with 2148 views | rickw |
| Duckenfield not guilty.... on 11:06 - Nov 29 by charlie1 |
Unfortunately this was the only possible outcome as soon as it became a proven fact that every fan trying to enter that end was sober, behaving impeccably and was in possession of a ticket.
It was never going to be possible for a court to convict Duckenfield of being criminally negligent in allowing fans to enter the ground who, by their conduct and status as ticket-holders he had no cause to deny entry to. |
I've never been comfortable with people looking to blame this solely on 1 person, this happened due to a combination of lots of decisions, and only occurred due to them all being made.
It's partly due to the way stadiums were at the time, with no seats and large fences due to past crowd trouble (nationwide)
It's partly down to the person who put Duckenfield in charge of this match despite him being in-experienced
It's partly down to Duckenfield's poor decisions
It's also partly down to the thousands of fans who pushed their way into the match without a ticket. Individually they didn't cause it, but if none of them did it wouldn't have happened. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
