Hillsborough verdict

[albrecht]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/Hillsborough-disaster-verdict-96-victims-unlawfully-killed-jury-concludes/
"They concluded it was unlawful killing by a 7-2 majority. The jury also ruled that fan behaviour did not cause or contribute to the tragedy."
And check out the cost of is now the longest jury trial in British history and they might be going after some of the police or even EMS people.

[SredniVashtar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/Hillsborough-disaster-verdict-96-victims-unlawfully-killed-jury-concludes/
"They concluded it was unlawful killing by a 7-2 majority. The jury also ruled that fan behaviour did not cause or contribute to the tragedy."
And check out the cost of is now the longest jury trial in British history and they might be going after some of the police or even EMS people.

I was amazed to read that this was still going on. It feels like my whole life has been punctuated with hearing about this event. Liverpudlians are a breed apart. Very self-obsessed. There have been tons of inquiries and documentaries written about this, and  it has bored the life out of everyone, if they are honest. It led to the end of terracing in stadiums - which was a good thing - and the police learned a lot about how to deal with agitated crowds, but pursuing this for so long serves no purpose in my opinion. They still won't shut about it now, either, you can guarantee that; they will find something else to go on about.

[Yorkshire pud]

I was amazed to read that this was still going on. It feels like my whole life has been punctuated with hearing about this event. Liverpudlians are a breed apart. Very self-obsessed. There have been tons of inquiries and documentaries written about this, and  it has bored the life out of everyone, if they are honest. It led to the end of terracing in stadiums - which was a good thing - and the police learned a lot about how to deal with agitated crowds, but pursuing this for so long serves no purpose in my opinion. They still won't shut about it now, either, you can guarantee that; they will find something else to go on about.

I used to work with a number of blokes who lived very close to the stadium. They were teenagers/twenty somethings at the time. And contrary to the inquest findings they spoke of drunken scouses (Liverpool fans) urinating in front gardens, scaring the hell out of people in the vicinity and just generally behaving the way we accepted pissed up footie fans to behave. The inquest have found that on that day they didn't conform to the stereotype. Which is a good thing of course.

[SredniVashtar]

I used to work with a number of blokes who lived very close to the stadium. They were teenagers/twenty somethings at the time. And contrary to the inquest findings they spoke of drunken scouses (Liverpool fans) urinating in front gardens, scaring the hell out of people in the vicinity and just generally behaving the way we accepted pissed up footie fans to behave. The inquest have found that on that day they didn't conform to the stereotype. Which is a good thing of course.

That must have been the only football match during the eighties that wasn't ruined by a bunch of pissed-up morons. From the way they are carrying on, it sounds like you'd get more argy-bargy at an Anglican synod than with those choirboys.

It is now snowing here. What the fuck!

[albrecht]

That must have been the only football match during the eighties that wasn't ruined by a bunch of pissed-up morons. From the way they are carrying on, it sounds like you'd get more argy-bargy at an Anglican synod than with those choirboys.

It is now snowing here. What the fuck!

I saw alarmist head line that parts of Britain are colder than Siberia today. Must be the global warming.

I also was surprised at some of the verdict. Clearly, things were learned and the police, stadium operator, and emergency services had made some bad decisions (and, like always, the afterwards actions and cover-up is troubling and gets one in trouble.) But I don't buy that the crowds were totally blameless. Or that alcohol, hooliganism, panic, etc didn't exacerbate the situation.

[Yorkshire pud]

I saw alarmist head line that parts of Britain are colder than Siberia today. Must be the global warming.

I also was surprised at some of the verdict. Clearly, things were learned and the police, stadium operator, and emergency services had made some bad decisions (and, like always, the afterwards actions and cover-up is troubling and gets one in trouble.) But I don't buy that the crowds were totally blameless. Or that alcohol, hooliganism, panic, etc didn't exacerbate the situation.

Not many who lived in the UK at the time thinks that either. And that is the disingenuous aspect of the whole sorry tale. Completely innocent people (a lot of kids) died that day. But as SV has said, Liverpool people are one big collective of self obsession. They can't and won't see themselves as anything but the outsiders trying to be equal to everyone else. They're stereotyped as thieves. The well known joke is 'what do you call a Scouser in a suit?; 'the defendent'.

Because of their complex, they immediately jump on the world being against them and can't accept any blame for anything. If the inquest had apportioned (for instance) a few drunken hooligans as being a major factor, they'd scream 'cover up'. Yes, the police were grossly negligent, no question. Co-ordination was non existent. Terrible decisions were made that led to the unlawful deaths. But to return that alcohol among some fans wasn't a factor is basically crap and panders to this 'oppressed' narrative.

[SredniVashtar]

Let's not forget that English clubs were banned from playing in Europe for years after the Heysel disaster, which was unequivocally the fault of Liverpool supporters, just four years before Hillsborough. This kind of stuff is exclusively the preserve of football fans, who get into groups and behave like maniacs. If there was a problem of overcrowding in any other situation people would come to their senses before it got too serious. It's nowhere near as bad as is used to be, but there is still an ingrained feeling among some supporters that if you aren't challenging the police and behaving like a dick then you aren't fully participating in the experience.

Now the bloody Scousers want to go after the main man in the charge. Really, just let it go; but they can't because it has become their life, and if they can't bore people with it then they have lost their identity. They're like their brothers across the Irish Sea - another bunch of self-obsessed fuckers who think they are better than everyone else.

[Yorkshire pud]

Let's not forget that English clubs were banned from playing in Europe for years after the Heysel disaster, which was unequivocally the fault of Liverpool supporters, just four years before Hillsborough. This kind of stuff is exclusively the preserve of football fans, who get into groups and behave like maniacs. If there was a problem of overcrowding in any other situation people would come to their senses before it got too serious. It's nowhere near as bad as is used to be, but there is still an ingrained feeling among some supporters that if you aren't challenging the police and behaving like a dick then you aren't fully participating in the experience.

Now the bloody Scousers want to go after the main man in the charge. Really, just let it go; but they can't because it has become their life, and if they can't bore people with it then they have lost their identity. They're like their brothers across the Irish Sea - another bunch of self-obsessed fuckers who think they are better than everyone else.

They tend to keep their drunken debauchery for such as Cheltenham races and the St Leger at Doncaster. But it's fine because they wear suits so it's respectable.

[albrecht]

But to return that alcohol among some fans wasn't a factor is basically crap and panders to this 'oppressed' narrative.

Believe me, I understand. We, in the US now, have a complete political and cultural system in some areas/demographics based on 'oppression' and 'victim-hood.' And increasingly a legal system in which some one, some business, some entity, etc needs to be blamed for any accident, happenstance, or damage done- even when the victim was drunk, acting recklessly, and so forth. Nothing can simply be bad luck, an accident, or misadventure and certainly one cannot be held to account for their own actions or lack of judgement. Micro-aggressions, affirmative action, "safe spaces," and on it goes.

We have to have labels telling us not to eat things that nobody would ever consider eating. And silliness like sleeping pill bottles with warnings like "may cause drowsiness." Peanuts with label "this product was packaged in a facility that also processes nuts." Signage on things like cliffs warning us that you might die if you fall. "Do not eat without cooking" on frozen food packages.

[Yorkshire pud]

Believe me, I understand. We, in the US now, have a complete political and cultural system in some areas/demographics based on 'oppression' and 'victim-hood.' And increasingly a legal system in which some one, some business, some entity, etc needs to be blamed for any accident, happenstance, or damage done- even when the victim was drunk, acting recklessly, and so forth. Nothing can simply be bad luck, an accident, or misadventure and certainly one cannot be held to account for their own actions or lack of judgement. Micro-aggressions, affirmative action, "safe spaces," and on it goes.

We have to have labels telling us not to eat things that nobody would ever consider eating. And silliness like sleeping pill bottles with warnings like "may cause drowsiness." Peanuts with label "this product was packaged in a facility that also processes nuts." Signage on things like cliffs warning us that you might die if you fall. "Do not eat without cooking" on frozen food packages.

At the foot of Ben Nevis in the glen, is a huge sign with big red letters warning people not to attempt to scramble up the stone chute (massive slab of granite about 100 feet high) that has a cascade of ice water running down it, because it can lead to certain death..guess what happens?  Bet you get it in one.

[albrecht]

At the foot of Ben Nevis in the glen, is a huge sign with big red letters warning people not to attempt to scramble up the stone chute (massive slab of granite about 100 feet high) that has a cascade of ice water running down it, because it can lead to certain death..guess what happens?  Bet you get it in one.

Amazing. A regret that I never got that far up north but I hear it is beautiful. Watched some show about the rescue teams. We have same stuff here (signage but also that odd balance of wanting/allowing people to explore but having to deal with the costs, environmental and in rescues.) Especially in places that are urban, but close, to treacherous mountains (like near Seattle etc)  Even here in my non-mountain area we have helicopter rescues (one nurse recently died during one) and crazy stuff like unprepared kids (one underneath my old property) who go into caves or climb cliffs (Karst/Limestone caverns.) Now, I think, they are billed for it but I'm not sure how much is actually recovered.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

That must have been the only football match during the eighties that wasn't ruined by a bunch of pissed-up morons.

There's a concept that is missing from the discussion here, and I am a bit surprised that you of all people have missed it.

When it comes to conducting public events, you have to play it as it lies (to use a golf analogy).  The sentence above and others like it spell it out: everyone knows that there will be rowdy and inebriated fans at these events.  It's to be expected.  Legally, and morally, you have to provide for those conditions so that the event can take place with a reasonable level of safety.  And if you can't, then the event shouldn't take place at that location under those conditions.

My city used to have a 4th of July fireworks exhibition every year at the central park.  It an all day event capped off by the fireworks show, a lot of fun and greatly anticipated.  But the thugs from San Jose started attending, and one year there were mini-riots due to fights between rival gangs.  It was clearly a situation where there was a significant risk of injury or death to members of the general public.  The city council determined that the additional cost, in the form of police and other services to keep the event safe, just wasn't in the budget, so they stopped holding the event.

Nobody likes it when asshats ruin a good time.  But a conversation about "It's a shame we can't have that event because of a few drunken assholes" is a much better one than one about "It's a shame that all those people died because of a few drunken assholes." 

The deaths and injuries that day were not just reasonably foreseeable, they were inevitable.  The core responsibility lies with those in charge of holding the event in spite of that reality, and not providing for it.  Not with hooligans, present or not. 

[SredniVashtar]

There's a concept that is missing from the discussion here, and I am a bit surprised that you of all people have missed it.

When it comes to conducting public events, you have to play it as it lies (to use a golf analogy).  The sentence above and others like it spell it out: everyone knows that there will be rowdy and inebriated fans at these events.  It's to be expected.  Legally, and morally, you have to provide for those conditions so that the event can take place with a reasonable level of safety.  And if you can't, then the event shouldn't take place at that location under those conditions.

My city used to have a 4th of July fireworks exhibition every year at the central park.  It an all day event capped off by the fireworks show, a lot of fun and greatly anticipated.  But the thugs from San Jose started attending, and one year there were mini-riots due to fights between rival gangs.  It was clearly a situation where there was a significant risk of injury or death to members of the general public.  The city council determined that the additional cost, in the form of police and other services to keep the event safe, just wasn't in the budget, so they stopped holding the event.

Nobody likes it when asshats ruin a good time.  But a conversation about "It's a shame we can't have that event because of a few drunken assholes" is a much better one than one about "It's a shame that all those people died because of a few drunken assholes." 

The deaths and injuries that day were not just reasonably foreseeable, they were inevitable.  The core responsibility lies with those in charge of holding the event in spite of that reality, and not providing for it.  Not with hooligans, present or not.

Sorry, I missed this post before.

It's a fair point, but I don't think the two situations are comparable. The one you described was an isolated event, the other was part of a series of events. You could play the match behind closed doors, yes, and that has happened, but if you wanted to eliminate risk entirely you'd have to do the same for every match in the country, indefinitely. Not possible. I doubt they would hold the NFL under similar circumstances. It's nowhere near as bad a problem as it used to be, mainly because they made the stadiums all-seater, they play the more high-risk games earlier in the day to avoid fans getting too drunk before the game starts, and ticket prices are so high now that it's become more corporate and family-friendly than ever. I'm not a football fan so I don't know all the details, but it's much less of an issue than it was.

I don't know that it was inevitable, really. Unless I'm mistaken, those two teams didn't have a real history, unlike others where trouble would be almost guaranteed. It looked, to me, like something that spiralled out of control very quickly and the police lacked the ability to control the situation.

[Yorkshire pud]

Sorry, I missed this post before.

It's a fair point, but I don't think the two situations are comparable. The one you described was an isolated event, the other was part of a series of events. You could play the match behind closed doors, yes, and that has happened, but if you wanted to eliminate risk entirely you'd have to do the same for every match in the country, indefinitely. Not possible. I doubt they would hold the NFL under similar circumstances. It's nowhere near as bad a problem as it used to be, mainly because they made the stadiums all-seater, they play the more high-risk games earlier in the day to avoid fans getting too drunk before the game starts, and ticket prices are so high now that it's become more corporate and family-friendly than ever. I'm not a football fan so I don't know all the details, but it's much less of an issue than it was.

I don't know that it was inevitable, really. Unless I'm mistaken, those two teams didn't have a real history, unlike others where trouble would be almost guaranteed. It looked, to me, like something that spiralled out of control very quickly and the police lacked the ability to control the situation.

I'd also add that the inquests have determined that drunken fans didn't have anything to do with it; implying they weren't present. As you said previously, it would be a first.

[albrecht]

There's a concept that is missing from the discussion here, and I am a bit surprised that you of all people have missed it.

When it comes to conducting public events, you have to play it as it lies (to use a golf analogy).  The sentence above and others like it spell it out: everyone knows that there will be rowdy and inebriated fans at these events.  It's to be expected.  Legally, and morally, you have to provide for those conditions so that the event can take place with a reasonable level of safety.  And if you can't, then the event shouldn't take place at that location under those conditions.

My city used to have a 4th of July fireworks exhibition every year at the central park.  It an all day event capped off by the fireworks show, a lot of fun and greatly anticipated.  But the thugs from San Jose started attending, and one year there were mini-riots due to fights between rival gangs.  It was clearly a situation where there was a significant risk of injury or death to members of the general public.  The city council determined that the additional cost, in the form of police and other services to keep the event safe, just wasn't in the budget, so they stopped holding the event.

Nobody likes it when asshats ruin a good time.  But a conversation about "It's a shame we can't have that event because of a few drunken assholes" is a much better one than one about "It's a shame that all those people died because of a few drunken assholes." 

The deaths and injuries that day were not just reasonably foreseeable, they were inevitable.  The core responsibility lies with those in charge of holding the event in spite of that reality, and not providing for it.  Not with hooligans, present or not.

There have been improvements in how stadiums are arranged and also policed. For example, in order for me to go to a soccer game in Holland (which also had a history of hooliganism) I had to join the club, submit a picture ID, get approved (compared against banned list and, I guess, criminal history list,) and then I could buy a ticket. (Shocked me as an American.) First game (versus Arsenal) police on horses everywhere. PSV supporters enter by some entrances, away by other entrances. All the entrances was like a prison entrance (I imagine) single-file cages turnstile (that could be stopped by police/operator and no way you could escape.)  Fans separated by barriers and police. Match went ahead. Though it was marred by racism, which I didn't get it at the time, but every time a black Arsenal player touched the ball many people would whistle (which apparently is illegal or frowned upon) and, worse, rightfully, some idiots threw coins at Henry during a kick, apparently. UEFA fined the club and said empty stadium for next game (though as I recall I think PSV was successful in appealing that empty stadium ban but forget.)
But, my main point was:
1) no fights or hooliganism (or limited) because threats identified beforehand
2) few arrests and clashes between hooligans and police
3) harsh penalties for the "misbehavior" of whistling (which I find weak) and coin-throwing (which I fully support penalizing, especially if the CCTVs can identify the people which encourage management/team to dissuade that kind of stuff because lose much $$
4) bans, even life-time and travel-bans for convicted/known hooligans
5) collective punishment (for supporters and owners- fines, empty stadium, etc might encourage better behavior or even people "ratting out" or "grassing" on other people.

Though, considering the 'rape-u-gee' and immigration problem, and the politicians and police that accept or even encourage the invasion- it might be only the hooligan types that can save Europe.

ps: we have similar situation here as you sometimes in our parks. Have had to ban alcohol, change opening hours, and sometimes cancel traditional events. The solution, of course, is pretty easy but society wants the open-border and lax policies on "youths," gangs, and "petty crime."