....thus spoke Zarathustra

Grant wrote:
chuffer wrote:
Grant wrote:

How did he know it was a small number?  How did he know any kind of number?  That's laughable.

But how does anyone know any number? There's been some pretty strong assertions that there were a significant number of ticketless fans but how did they come to know such "facts"?

I'm basing my opinion on the number of fans inside the ground and those trying to get in.

I'm dropping out of this thread

lol, me too - feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall....sorry for calling you a bell end btw

liquitech1 wrote:
chuffer wrote:
Grant wrote:

How did he know it was a small number?  How did he know any kind of number?  That's laughable.

But how does anyone know any number? There's been some pretty strong assertions that there were a significant number of ticketless fans but how did they come to know such "facts"?

...safe to assume given the culture at the time, no?

So it's more reasonable to believe speculation based on "the culture at that time" over the findings of Taylor's report?

Grant wrote:

How did he know it was a small number?  How did he know any kind of number?  That's laughable.

But how does anyone know any number? There's been some pretty strong assertions that there were a significant number of ticketless fans but how did they come to know such "facts"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me … e-35473732

Lord Justice Taylor, in his 1990 report into the disaster, concluded fans were reasonable to arrive between 14.30 and 14.40 as match tickets only requested people be in their places "15 minutes before the game". He was also satisfied that the large concentration of fans arriving at Leppings Lane at 14.40 to 14.50 "did not arrive as a result of any concerted plan".
He concluded that police had "failed" to prepare for controlling the arrival of a large number of fans in a short period. Both the club and police "should have realised the turnstile area could not easily cope with the large numbers demanded of it" unless they arrived steadily over a lengthy period.
He accepted there were "small groups without tickets" looking to "exploit any chance of getting into the ground". But the main problem was simply one of "large numbers packed into the small area outside the turnstiles". He stated categorically that "fans' behaviour played no part in the disaster".
The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) report concluded crowd congestion outside the stadium was "not caused by fans arriving late" for the kick-off. The turnstiles, it said, were "inadequate to process the crowd safely" and the rate of entry insufficient to prevent a dangerous build-up outside the ground.

So the report acknowledges that there were a small number without tickets but that it was not significant in the overall outcome

liquitech1 wrote:

"No contingency plans were made for the sudden arrival of a large number of fans." - answer given by the jury. So although they recognise the need for contingency plans the fact that large numbers of presumably ticketless fans arriving somehow didn't contribute?? This is too confusing, I'm out.

I think the key thing there is your use of the words "presumably ticketless".....do you not think that there could be a sudden arrival of a large number of fans WITH tickets? Say, at 2:45 pm, when most fans leave the nearest pubs to head for the ground just in time for kick off (as BedRob pointed out earlier, tended to happen - and still does to some extent)

BedRob wrote:

but I won’t change my opinion of it

lol, quite

Grant wrote:

I honestly don't know Chuffer.

found another, second part to that Q7 - it reads:

If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury’s answer: No.

Now, that seems to me like an open door to allow the jury an option to say something along the lines of "it's feasible that ticketless fans added to the congestion" or "if Liverpool fans weren't pushing so much then perhaps there wouldn't have been so much of a problem" etc etc ......but they didn't for some reason

Grant wrote:

to say that fans are completely blameless is embarrassing, we've all seen the footage.

Grant, look at Q7 again.....if you've seen the footage then the jury has seen the same footage (perhaps even a hell of a lot more than you) and so, with that in mind, how the hell did they arrive at the answer they gave for Q7?

BedRob wrote:

So you are essentially saying that if ONLY ticket holders for the match had congregated outside the stadium the subsequent crush inside would still have taken place ?

I'm saying that, if that was an issue, it would surely have been taken into consideration during the 2 yrs of evidence! If it's as glaringly obvious as everyone says then surely that occurred to those involved in the trial......the police lawyers would have been all over that one.....maybe it was considered and was totally debunked.

chuffer wrote:

6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
Jury's answer: Yes

The issue wasn't just about opening the gate.....there's anecdotes from his colleagues that he totally froze on the day, didn't know what he was doing, was asked if he should call for a delay to the game to sort out the pressure and calm the fans eagerness to get in and he didn't. apparently. allegedly. .....but to lay all the blame at his feet would be harsh, he was out of his depth - the chap who normally ran the show (Mole) had been ferried off somewhere else that day due to internal politics - so as someone else pointed out earlier there's as much blame to be had one rung up the police ladder than duckinfield as he was put in a situation where he was out of his depth. apparently. allegedly.

also...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19545126

8. Defects in Hillsborough stadium: Were there any features of its design, construction and layout which were dangerous or defective and which probably or may have caused or contributed to the disaster?
Jury's answer: Yes
"The design and layout of the crush barriers in P 3 and 4 were not fully compliant with the green guide.
"The removal of barrier 144 and the partial removal of barrier 136 would have exacerbated the waterfall effect of pressure towards the front of the pens.
"The lack of dedicated turnstiles for individual pens meant that capacities could not be monitored.
"There were too few turnstiles for a capacity crowd.
"Signage to the side pens was inadequate".

I think this is a key one - everyone was heading toward pens 3 and 4 and you could only get to pens either side by some small gates right at the top nr the pen entrance....by the time the middle pens had filled up it was too much of a bottle neck to get people through into the adjacent pens...then the flood gates at the back were opened and even more pressure was put on those central pens

6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
Jury's answer: Yes

liquitech1 wrote:

..it would be nice to have some decent input from that side of the fence (no pun intended) in the thread instead of just shutting people down. I'm yet to see the "truth" as it were. And again I'm ignorant here, hope no offence is caused.

don't mean to sound flippant Liquitech but you could try this as a starter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me … e-35401436

7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
Jury's answer: No

Dermatron wrote:

Anyhow when's chuffer decided he's suddenly a Liverpool fan? Been on here years and never a peep. All of a sudden he's Barry fucking Grant. Probably dogmess hacked him.

I'm not a liverpool fan.....

Dermatron wrote:

I've heard figures of up to 5000 without tickets. But another lad i knew says he thinks it was more like 2000. How they measured that i don't know though.

exactly.....which suggests to me it could easily be a bit of billy bullshit....


Dermatron wrote:


One thing for sure is if they hadn't turned up without tickets those people inside would never have died.

actual fact eh?....strange how the jury have spent two years listening to evidence from all sources and yet seemed to have missed this blindingly obvious "fact" though eh?

Diminished Responsibility wrote:

Understand this a touchy subject, but basically a bunch of liverpool fans behaved liked Neanderthals as they made their entrance in to the stadium, causing a stampede which killed people? And everyone is blaming the police and authorities for letting it happen?

Yet another example of a moron blindly regurgitating lies that were fed by the police, media and perpetuated by Bernard ingham

Yes, a lot of fans turned up to a ground that was unsuitable to host the game, too few turnstiles, ridiculous pen funneling a cages all around...the police the  failed to control the flow of the crowd adequately and then blamed the fans and told lies about them when it all went tits up

Lol....2yrs going over the evidence, a jury goes through everything with a fine tooth comb and debunks all those accusations....but balls to that coz dermo knows someone who reckons such and such....read the article, duckinfield didn't know what he was doing, someone else should have been overseeing that day, a fella who knew the ground and who's managed sketchy situations there previously. The conspiracy is not what happened but the cover up/blame afterwards is

Dermatron wrote:

At last, closure. Hopefully this will be the last everyone hears about it.

Babycham all round.

Doubt it...duckinfield will be swinging from the gallows at some point...

22

(55 replies, posted in General Bedrock Discussion)

Big fella was/is as dull as the author of this thread

Fuck off grant you bell end.

An interesting bit of background to the tragedy....not that half you cunts will bother reading anything other than The Sun...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 … ed-decades

24

(646 replies, posted in General Bedrock Discussion)

If I was a yank I'd be worried about all this shrinking....is it related to the Zika Virus? Can you get a cream for it free of charge on Obama Care?

25

(646 replies, posted in General Bedrock Discussion)

zackster wrote:

kick his ass seabass

lol