Personally I think your view places an over-emphasis on a decision by individual fans. This is about crowd dynamics, and I fear you're making the same mistake that Thatcher and other politicians made. To be frank, I think you're being a bit naive here. Crowds have to be managed, because they have the capacity to ebb and flow as an entity - as those (like me) at the front of the Palace kettling will understand. Your contention is a bit like blaming a butterfly for the Oklahoma storm, and when challenged you demand the same scrutiny for butterflies as for the wooden structures built in Tornado Alley.
Outside the ground crowds are managed very differently these days to then, and crucially proactive decisions are made for the safety of each individual within the swell. For example, crowd safety now comes ahead of the need to kick off on time and delays in starting the game are communicated to everyone. Not at Hillsborough. This was the police failing in their duty to manage the crowd outside the ground, and even more negligently inside the ground. Fans continued stepping forward unaware of the crush they were causing at the front, and their urgency naturally grew as kick off approached. Yes, it's reasonable to say this was the reason the gate was opened, but that doesn't mean the fans' behaviour itself was the cause or indeed that there was 'public disorder' as you describe it.
Indeed, if you were around at the time you'll also know that the police then used herding tactics by default, by which one might even infer most of those fans had no choice but to keep moving forward.
Yes, the police decision to open the gate was to ease the crush outside - that through their negligence had been allowed to build up - but without the flow control naturally provided by the turnstiles the problem simply transferred inside the ground where the space was fatally constrained. The police's continuing negligence to recognise the need for flow control beyond the gate was catastrophic. There were simply no police or stewards there, and on the testimony of one policeman it was a shock to him that there wasn't anyone directing fans away to the sides as there would normally have been. If you watched the documentary you will know that many of the fans were simply swept into the centre pen, with no choice whatsoever. And those at the back had no idea of what was happening at the front, and almost certainly no opportunity to change it.
Of course if the fans weren't there, if they didn't want to get in to watch the whole game they'd paid for, the tragedy would never have happened, but that doesn't extrapolate to their being jointly responsible. This was a football match with thousands of people in attendance. Seriously, what do you expect the thousands outside to do as the biggest game of their season kicks off with them still outside? Their movements were controlled in part, then uncontrolled at a key moment. This is the reality of crowd dynamics, not thousands of individual causal decisions.
I will concede that the context of the day placed hooliganism in the forefront of the authorities' minds ahead of safety, and this is undoubtedly a major factor. No-one's suggesting that the fans shouldn't be subject to any scrutiny, but that's not what you're doing. You're attributing cause to their actions, and surely that's actually ignoring the facts, as countless editors, senior police and politicians have conveniently done for more than two decades.
Ask yourself this - were the fans to blame for the 1985 Bradford fire? I believe it started through a cigarette butt dropped by a supporter igniting rubbish collected over months under a wooden stand. Smoking was allowed in the stand and I'm sure thousands of people had done similar before. And indeed, smoking wasn't banned from football grounds until 2007 - clearly the authorities didn't believe the cigarette was the primary evil. Thank God that wasn't a penned stand or thousands would have died.
In my view, successive governments failed football by allowing fans to take the blame for something for which they were not responsible. Twice is at best carelessness. It was government legislation that followed the Taylor report, not local authority decision making, and thankfully he leaned more to wise counsel than political expediency. By allowing the full facts of Hillsborough to remain hidden for so long both governments failed those who had died, their families and risked the health and safety of everyone subsequently attending a football match; the full facts could not be acted upon if they were not exposed.
For example, how can the police be held to account for their actions and controls established to avoid them happening again if their actions are not given suitable scrutiny? How tragic the well-intentioned decision to allow the police to gather their own witness reports.
I take fundamental issue, therefore, with your contention that the fans failed in 'a duty of care not to do harm to those around [them]'. It's simply not the truth.
Heres a link for any other overseas members who couldnt watch via BBC iPlayer.
I've now watched and and find it incredibly and horribly complacent. The cover ups are completely undefendable and those that willfully perverted the course of justice should be held accountable. Its without any shadow of a doubt that the Officer in charge on the day was hopelessly inexperienced and two catastrophic mistakes were made in opening the gates by the turnstyles and failing to shut the entrance into the centre section of the ground prior to opening the gates. Compound this with only three ambulances making it into the stadium and a complete lack of any kind of organisation or leadership of the combined services lead to the needless loss of life to 96 innocent victims.
The courage and strength of the families was epitomised by Anne Williams...she never gave up fighting for justice for her son and the other 95. Over half the number of fatalities could have been saved if adequate and timely first aid had been available including Annes son who was still alive as at 3.30pm that afternoon....15 minutes after the coroner said that all the victims would have been already dead.
Sadly Anne will never see justice. Lets hope the remaining families do. RIP Ann Williams
Well summarized, Tel.
I would just add that Hillsborough is one football ground that I hate visiting. I always felt It to be a grey, forbidding stadium before that fateful afternoon. Since then, the ghosts of the 96 haunt the Leppings Lane end.
Only justice, when it is finally reached, will free them.
You completely misinterpret the point about the Valley. Why was it in our parents day 60,000 people could go to a football match, on a regular basis, more than a few having had a few bevvies in the pub, after a mornings shift in the factories enjoy the game with no doubt as much anticipation excitement but be able to effectively police themselves to the point that there were probably only ten policemen and a dog on duty?
You tell me what has changed.
Different stadium, different layout, different crowd dynamics, different era, and, to a large extent, not the point.
Nothing that the authorities were presented with on that afternoon should have surprised them, and yet they failed in their duty of care so catastrophically that 96 innocent fans lost their lives.
I find the calls for justice a little unnecessary to be honest and the suggestion that stand will be haunted until justice frees those that died there quite unpleasant.
Sure the editing of Police statements was wrong. The decision to 'cover up' much of what happened was wrong, and mistakes were made that, with hindsight, should have been avoided.
However, ignoring those points raised above I, genuinely, believe that despite the authorities being more concerned with crowd trouble that crowd safety (understandable as we had suffered from the former and not the latter) I don't think that any of the actions up to 3:06 were done with anything other than the best intentions.
One of the major issues raised in the latest inquiry was that the fences that segregated the terrace prevented the crowds from dispersing to their left and right, where there was, clearly, enough room to accommodate those that were inside the ground. This fact alone (which was a characteristic of the stadium - and many others like it) forced what happened to be fatal. I remember, from another documentary, that something similar had happened when Spurs played Wolves in an earlier FA Cup Semi Final, yet the terrace was still segregated with fences that trapped fans in.
All the suggestions that a crowd is not controlled by those in it could be applied to the inability of the Police to control it also.
Clearly there is a need for punishment from those that loved lost ones, but sometimes there is no justification for punishment. My wife's sister died at 11 from a brain tumor, five years later her 19 year old brother died in a car crash (a genuine accident that involved no other cars) she, even now, three years later, is struggling to come to terms with it all and she often says that it would be easier if she could find someone to blame - but she can't.
Some of the things written in the press, and attributed to various authorities, were shameless and became a focus for the relatives of the dead, but the Sun newspaper, for all of it's bile, did not cause the deaths.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the deaths that were preventable were not caused by malice. The decisions that the Police made (all be it that they probably didn't have a lot of love for large crowds of football fans - many of which had been drinking) were all made with their best intentions. I'm sure that the decision to open the gate was not done in the hope that the fans would all crush into a pen too small with no escape exits.
Clearly more should have been done to manage the event, but the same stadium had held similar crowds in the past and their had never been anything like this.
Justice, if that's what we are really talking about (opposed to punishing someone, anyone, for the loss of a loved one) will, perhaps, deal with the cover-up, but the cover-up didn't cause the loss of life, and I don't believe that any premeditated decision did either.
The attempt to blame the fans, however much of it was premeditated, and how much was simply because, initially, the authorities, genuinely, believed that the tragedy was caused by excessive, ticket-less, fans was terribly insensitive to the families. The clip on the drama of the father of the two teenage girls that died being asked how much alcohol he'd had to drink was horrendous, but I suspect that many believed (as some on here have admitted to) that the crush was caused, in part at least, by drunk fans that arrived too late to take their place in a calm manor.
I'm not defending the Police; I'm not defending Thatcher's government; I'm not defending Blair's government; nor am I blaming the fans. However, sometimes bad things happen and even if mistakes were made it doesn't necessarily mean that someone in particular is guilty of causing those things to happen. There were a number of factors that led to the deaths, but I seriously doubt that those in control that day did anything other that what they thought was best as the events unfolded up to 3:06 when it was clear that this was much more serious than anything that had, ever, happened before.
Why was it in our parents day 60,000 people could go to a football match, on a regular basis, more than a few having had a few bevvies in the pub, after a mornings shift in the factories enjoy the game with no doubt as much anticipation excitement but be able to effectively police themselves to the point that there were probably only ten policemen and a dog on duty?
You tell me what has changed.
Re: large crowds at the Valley - can I just point out: 1. The fans weren't penned in or restricted to one area- they had the full run of the ground. 2. It's debatable whether the situation of having tens of thousands still outside the ground at kick-off time arose and if it ever did was an exit gate ever opened to allow mass entry ? I doubt it 3. As I recall, exiting the old Valley in vast crowds was often a quite scary experience - as a youngster me and my mates would often laugh hysterically because we were squashed, buffeted and trapped in a forward momentum to the exit gates which it would have been impossible to resist. Of course, we knew that relief would come once we were beyond the confines of the exit gates - but if some barrier had halted that forward momentum I could easily envisage a situation that those in the front would quickly become trapped and suffocated and those at the back would have been none the wiser. So, I don't think there was anything special or uniquely different about our fans all those years ago - it was just completely different circumstances. Just my opinion
Nothing that the authorities were presented with on that afternoon should have surprised them, and yet they failed in their duty of care so catastrophically that 96 innocent fans lost their lives.
Really?
Only I thought the events of that day were more than a little surprising - I'd say shocking.
I would bet my son's life that if any of the senior Police, or any of the more senior authorities. had the slightest clue that 96 fans could die they would have done things differently. I suspect they would have cancelled the game completely if they'd known of the genuine potential for loss of life.
I suspect that your comment doesn't come across as you meant it to, but it does read like they knew this could happen and I don't think anyone had a clue that something like this was possible.
John motson could see what was happening why the hell couldnt those in the control room. was thought at first there was a pitch invasion,beggars belief the footage cant be any clearer.people fighting for their lives to get out of that crammed pen.
I have to say I find the tornado interpretation beyond bizarre. The last time I looked, having lived in tornado alley (Dallas - the construct of buildings in North Texas was a disgrace) for a decade, tornadoes were a natural force of nature beyond mans control, are you really arguing the crowd dynamic is a natural force of nature? I would argue it is not
Is the argument the individual responsibility for one actions can be ignored because they are morphed into the "crowd collective"? Is there some unwritten edict that ones ability to think and act for yourself is automatically negated because you are in a crowd? If it is then none of us have any right to complain at the actions of the authorities in managing to the lowest common denominator as per the recent experience after the Millwall match.
I am very happy to be deemed naïve (though I doubt Thatcher stood on one football terrace in 30yrs) if that satisfies your angst and I really cannot help that people cannot read. Perhaps if I write (as I have said 3 times)100 lines "the responsibility for the loss of 96 lines lies with the authorities and those responsible should be prosecuted" it will help.
I see little point in responding further. It seems the dye is cast the "crowd collective" absolves the individual from all and any responsibility for their actions. So god forbid if the authorities fail again to properly manage any given public function, peoples fate will be in the hands (without responsibility) of the "crowd dynamic".
Forgive me if I find that troubling for a process lasting over 20 years where the entire focus has been the accountability for peoples actions or lack of them.
Nothing that the authorities were presented with on that afternoon should have surprised them, and yet they failed in their duty of care so catastrophically that 96 innocent fans lost their lives.
Really?
Only I thought the events of that day were more than a little surprising - I'd say shocking.
I would bet my son's life that if any of the senior Police, or any of the more senior authorities. had the slightest clue that 96 fans could die they would have done things differently. I suspect they would have cancelled the game completely if they'd known of the genuine potential for loss of life.
I suspect that your comment doesn't come across as you meant it to, but it does read like they knew this could happen and I don't think anyone had a clue that something like this was possible.
Sorry - that's not what I meant at all. Many people over the year have (and still do) blamed drunken fans, ticketless fans, fans arriving late, etc. What I am saying is that these factors should have been predictable and managed, in order to discharge a duty of care towards the vast majority of sober, law-abiding fans with tickets who were caught up in the disaster.
Perhaps I should have said 'Nothing that the authorities were presented with prior to 3pm should have surprised them'. Hope that clarifies things.
I have to say I find the tornado interpretation beyond bizarre. The last time I looked, having lived in tornado alley (Dallas - the construct of buildings in North Texas was a disgrace) for a decade, tornadoes were a natural force of nature beyond mans control, are you really arguing the crowd dynamic is a natural force of nature? I would argue it is not
Is the argument the individual responsibility for one actions can be ignored because they are morphed into the "crowd collective"? Is there some unwritten edict that ones ability to think and act for yourself is automatically negated because you are in a crowd? If it is then none of us have any right to complain at the actions of the authorities in managing to the lowest common denominator as per the recent experience after the Millwall match.
I am very happy to be deemed naïve (though I doubt Thatcher stood on one football terrace in 30yrs) if that satisfies your angst and I really cannot help that people cannot read. Perhaps if I write (as I have said 3 times)100 lines "the responsibility for the loss of 96 lines lies with the authorities and those responsible should be prosecuted" it will help.
I see little point in responding further. It seems the dye is cast the "crowd collective" absolves the individual from all and any responsibility for their actions. So god forbid if the authorities fail again to properly manage any given public function, peoples fate will be in the hands (without responsibility) of the "crowd dynamic".
Forgive me if I find that troubling for a process lasting over 20 years where the entire focus has been the accountability for peoples actions or lack of them.
Grapevine49
I think you are missing the point. You are coming at this from a perspective of 'crowd behaviour', i.e. the fact that people behave differently in a crowd. You are saying that, in these situations, people still bear responsibility for their own actions. In this regard, I agree with you.
However, you musn't confuse this with the physical phenomenon of 'crowd dynamics', which is the way in which a crowd ebbs and flows, irrespective of the nature, behaviour or actions of the individuals within it. We are not talking about the 'ability to think and act for yourself', we are talking about a physical process by which the vast majority of people in the crowd would have had no control over their movements. People were swept and carried along, lifted off the ground, etc. and most would not have had any choice in the matter. In this respect, crowd dynamics ARE a force of nature.
I believe I understand what Grapevine49 is saying, even if others do not.
Basically if some fans, weren't rushing or pushing or edging forwards, then there may have not been any fatalities.
Yes, they were misdirected, but would this have been so likely to happen at say Lords for a cricket match ?
I doubt it because the crowd are generally a bit older & less boisterous.
Most of us have been caught up in crowds, when impatient people pushing/edging forwards have caused a crush.
I was at Bowie at Milton Keynes in @1981. After, outside the train station, I was convinced there would be deaths, due to the crushing.
If people at the back had just stood still & waited until there was clear space, there would be no crush.
The fans were not to blame, but the situation may have not been so bad, if there wasn't any pushing/edging forwards etc.
I believe this is all Grapevine49 is trying to say. In other words, if you're in a crowd don't push forwards, but people always will & there is his learning point !
Out of interest could this have turned out differently if all the Liverpool fans had arrived at the ground at 2pm (or 1pm if it was a big game - like an FA Cup Semi-Final or something) and waited patiently to get through the turnstiles?
There is a football stadium I have frequently visited over a span of 40 years. It hosts some of the biggest crowds in the UK. It is a Hillsborough waiting to happen, not in the stadium itself but in the transit to and from the only form of public transport to the stadium that large numbers can use. That a Hillsborough has not happened at this location is down to the fact that the crowds, despite being pumped up for what is by definition going to be a huge game, show a duty of care for each other. Despite the complete rebuild of the stadium a few years ago, the authorities have done nothing to address this hideous deathtrap.
I am talking about our national stadium, and specifically the walkway to Wembley Park tube. If anything ever happens there, the blood will be on the hands of the FA and the planning authorities who failed to insist on a complete rework of the path to the station as part of the permission for the rebuild. But if, heaven forbid it does happen, you can bet your life that said authorities will seek to blame fans for pushing, shoving, rowdy behaviour, drunkeness.
It is a fucking disgrace, and if you want to see how it should be done, then visit the Allianz Arena by U-bahn as I did a few weeks ago.
Could they all have turned up 30 minutes earlier? Probably, but does this happen even now? Could they have been less excited? Sure, but unrealistic. Could they have decided to stick with the crush rather than head for the open gate? Would you? etc.
I haven't seen the programme yet - maybe at the weekend if I get time...but the reason why so many fans turned up late was down to roadworks on the Transpennine motorway (M62). With so many fans from north-west England hitting the motorway and the roadworks at more-or-less the same time what shouldn't have been a long problem turned into a major delay for a lot of fans. Hence a lot of people through no real fault of their own arrived late.
Out of interest could this have turned out differently if all the Liverpool fans had arrived at the ground at 2pm (or 1pm if it was a big game - like an FA Cup Semi-Final or something) and waited patiently to get through the turnstiles?
Probably. (although it remains a question whether the police would still have stuffed too many people into the central pen, since they seemed incapable on the day of judging the extent of the overcrowding)
And have you ever been to a match, or any other major event, where 'everybody' decided to be that sensible? Is that what you yourself do? Really? Can you give an example from anywhere in the world where people behave like this?
Out of interest could this have turned out differently if all the Liverpool fans had arrived at the ground at 2pm (or 1pm if it was a big game - like an FA Cup Semi-Final or something) and waited patiently to get through the turnstiles?
Probably. (although it remains a question whether the police would still have stuffed too many people into the central pen, since they seemed incapable on the day of judging the extent of the overcrowding)
And have you ever been to a match, or any other major event, where 'everybody' decided to be that sensible? Is that what you yourself do? Really? Can you give an example from anywhere in the world where people behave like this?
This is a really good point which is often overlooked. When people blame 'the fans', they are in fact talking about a large group of individuals who had no influence over the behaviour of the other members of the group. Whereas the 'authorities' were all large, well organised organisations (police, FA, SWFC, etc.) whose leadership DID (or SHOULD) have had control over how the organisations operated as a whole.
I have to say I find the tornado interpretation beyond bizarre. The last time I looked, having lived in tornado alley (Dallas - the construct of buildings in North Texas was a disgrace) for a decade, tornadoes were a natural force of nature beyond mans control, are you really arguing the crowd dynamic is a natural force of nature? I would argue it is not
Is the argument the individual responsibility for one actions can be ignored because they are morphed into the "crowd collective"? Is there some unwritten edict that ones ability to think and act for yourself is automatically negated because you are in a crowd? If it is then none of us have any right to complain at the actions of the authorities in managing to the lowest common denominator as per the recent experience after the Millwall match.
I am very happy to be deemed naïve (though I doubt Thatcher stood on one football terrace in 30yrs) if that satisfies your angst and I really cannot help that people cannot read. Perhaps if I write (as I have said 3 times)100 lines "the responsibility for the loss of 96 lines lies with the authorities and those responsible should be prosecuted" it will help.
I see little point in responding further. It seems the dye is cast the "crowd collective" absolves the individual from all and any responsibility for their actions. So god forbid if the authorities fail again to properly manage any given public function, peoples fate will be in the hands (without responsibility) of the "crowd dynamic".
Forgive me if I find that troubling for a process lasting over 20 years where the entire focus has been the accountability for peoples actions or lack of them.
Grapevine49
Of course I am not saying that the "crowd collective" absolves individuals from all and any responsibility (nor am I saying it's a force of nature). What I am saying is that the realities of crowd dynamics means that most simply had no choice when being carried along by the swell, and those at the back whose behaviour you're placing as a causal factor simply would have no idea of what was happening at the front. The chaos theory comparison (for that is what it was) is simple - in reality not all factors bear causal responsibility for the outcome.
That is, the end point of your contention would be 'had there been no-one there this would never have happened.' The reality was that 55,000 people were due to be there, and the duty of care was upon the police's shoulders. That they failed in their crowd management outside the ground and then compounded it tragically by failing inside the ground - and then failing to respond to what they were told and could see was happening - is at the heart of it. I'm glad you agree with this part, but I simply cannot agree the fans bore responsibility of any significance, in the same way that the supporter dropping the fag at Bradford didn't for that disaster.
I'm not quite with Prague's comparison with Wembley Way either. It was redesigned and flow is typically managed throughout the journey. There is more capacity for a duty of care when a quart is not herded into a pint pot, and there is plenty of space for people to flow into - not perfect, I grant thee, but not quite a disaster waiting to happen in my view. Hillsborough absolutely was. I was pleasantly surprised at just how well it was organised when I first went to an event at the place. Ultimately, 90,000 people heading for the same small green patch in West London isn't going to be an exercise in relaxation.
Out of interest could this have turned out differently if all the Liverpool fans had arrived at the ground at 2pm (or 1pm if it was a big game - like an FA Cup Semi-Final or something) and waited patiently to get through the turnstiles?
Probably. (although it remains a question whether the police would still have stuffed too many people into the central pen, since they seemed incapable on the day of judging the extent of the overcrowding)
And have you ever been to a match, or any other major event, where 'everybody' decided to be that sensible? Is that what you yourself do? Really? Can you give an example from anywhere in the world where people behave like this?
This is a really good point which is often overlooked. When people blame 'the fans', they are in fact talking about a large group of individuals who had no influence over the behaviour of the other members of the group. Whereas the 'authorities' were all large, well organised organisations (police, FA, SWFC, etc.) whose leadership DID (or SHOULD) have had control over how the organisations operated as a whole.
I tend to turn up 10 minutes late, but can't in all conscience claim that's executing my duty of care...
Out of interest could this have turned out differently if all the Liverpool fans had arrived at the ground at 2pm (or 1pm if it was a big game - like an FA Cup Semi-Final or something) and waited patiently to get through the turnstiles?
Probably. (although it remains a question whether the police would still have stuffed too many people into the central pen, since they seemed incapable on the day of judging the extent of the overcrowding)
And have you ever been to a match, or any other major event, where 'everybody' decided to be that sensible? Is that what you yourself do? Really? Can you give an example from anywhere in the world where people behave like this?
No I haven't been to an event where everyone is that sensible, but I've been to a few where a lot (maybe even enough to allow the late arrivals to just walk straight in) have been.
What I do, which is a personal preference, is get to games early. I'm normally in my seat at The Valley close to 2pm for a normal 3pm kick off. Really!
Just because people around the world don't get to events early doesn't, in my view, make it any safer if most people turn up late and push those in front to get in before the start.
Besides, in order to make it as safe as possible it helps if everyone (not literally) turns up at a different time. Football stadia, by their very nature, are not designed to have close to capacity get in very quickly. Out, maybe, but not in.
I was not aware of the traffic delays, and besides I've already said that I don't blame the fans, I was just making the point that there are a number of things that they could have done differently that might have helped prevent what happened.
I've been to Wembley several times and ignoring the delays getting to the tube I've always found it to be very well managed by the Police. There are several 'check points' and I'm not sure that a crush could be caused even if a group of fans set out to do so - not that I think they ever would do, of course.
The police are paid to do a job and sometimes they f*** up. What's unforgiveable is to try and cover it up rather than take responsibility - Hillsborough was a shameful cover-up.
Comments
Personally I think your view places an over-emphasis on a decision by individual fans. This is about crowd dynamics, and I fear you're making the same mistake that Thatcher and other politicians made. To be frank, I think you're being a bit naive here. Crowds have to be managed, because they have the capacity to ebb and flow as an entity - as those (like me) at the front of the Palace kettling will understand. Your contention is a bit like blaming a butterfly for the Oklahoma storm, and when challenged you demand the same scrutiny for butterflies as for the wooden structures built in Tornado Alley.
Outside the ground crowds are managed very differently these days to then, and crucially proactive decisions are made for the safety of each individual within the swell. For example, crowd safety now comes ahead of the need to kick off on time and delays in starting the game are communicated to everyone. Not at Hillsborough. This was the police failing in their duty to manage the crowd outside the ground, and even more negligently inside the ground. Fans continued stepping forward unaware of the crush they were causing at the front, and their urgency naturally grew as kick off approached. Yes, it's reasonable to say this was the reason the gate was opened, but that doesn't mean the fans' behaviour itself was the cause or indeed that there was 'public disorder' as you describe it.
Indeed, if you were around at the time you'll also know that the police then used herding tactics by default, by which one might even infer most of those fans had no choice but to keep moving forward.
Yes, the police decision to open the gate was to ease the crush outside - that through their negligence had been allowed to build up - but without the flow control naturally provided by the turnstiles the problem simply transferred inside the ground where the space was fatally constrained. The police's continuing negligence to recognise the need for flow control beyond the gate was catastrophic. There were simply no police or stewards there, and on the testimony of one policeman it was a shock to him that there wasn't anyone directing fans away to the sides as there would normally have been. If you watched the documentary you will know that many of the fans were simply swept into the centre pen, with no choice whatsoever. And those at the back had no idea of what was happening at the front, and almost certainly no opportunity to change it.
Of course if the fans weren't there, if they didn't want to get in to watch the whole game they'd paid for, the tragedy would never have happened, but that doesn't extrapolate to their being jointly responsible. This was a football match with thousands of people in attendance. Seriously, what do you expect the thousands outside to do as the biggest game of their season kicks off with them still outside? Their movements were controlled in part, then uncontrolled at a key moment. This is the reality of crowd dynamics, not thousands of individual causal decisions.
I will concede that the context of the day placed hooliganism in the forefront of the authorities' minds ahead of safety, and this is undoubtedly a major factor. No-one's suggesting that the fans shouldn't be subject to any scrutiny, but that's not what you're doing. You're attributing cause to their actions, and surely that's actually ignoring the facts, as countless editors, senior police and politicians have conveniently done for more than two decades.
Ask yourself this - were the fans to blame for the 1985 Bradford fire? I believe it started through a cigarette butt dropped by a supporter igniting rubbish collected over months under a wooden stand. Smoking was allowed in the stand and I'm sure thousands of people had done similar before. And indeed, smoking wasn't banned from football grounds until 2007 - clearly the authorities didn't believe the cigarette was the primary evil. Thank God that wasn't a penned stand or thousands would have died.
In my view, successive governments failed football by allowing fans to take the blame for something for which they were not responsible. Twice is at best carelessness. It was government legislation that followed the Taylor report, not local authority decision making, and thankfully he leaned more to wise counsel than political expediency. By allowing the full facts of Hillsborough to remain hidden for so long both governments failed those who had died, their families and risked the health and safety of everyone subsequently attending a football match; the full facts could not be acted upon if they were not exposed.
For example, how can the police be held to account for their actions and controls established to avoid them happening again if their actions are not given suitable scrutiny? How tragic the well-intentioned decision to allow the police to gather their own witness reports.
I take fundamental issue, therefore, with your contention that the fans failed in 'a duty of care not to do harm to those around [them]'. It's simply not the truth.
I would just add that Hillsborough is one football ground that I hate visiting. I always felt It to be a grey, forbidding stadium before that fateful afternoon. Since then, the ghosts of the 96 haunt the Leppings Lane end.
Only justice, when it is finally reached, will free them.
God bless them & their families.
Nothing that the authorities were presented with on that afternoon should have surprised them, and yet they failed in their duty of care so catastrophically that 96 innocent fans lost their lives.
Sure the editing of Police statements was wrong. The decision to 'cover up' much of what happened was wrong, and mistakes were made that, with hindsight, should have been avoided.
However, ignoring those points raised above I, genuinely, believe that despite the authorities being more concerned with crowd trouble that crowd safety (understandable as we had suffered from the former and not the latter) I don't think that any of the actions up to 3:06 were done with anything other than the best intentions.
One of the major issues raised in the latest inquiry was that the fences that segregated the terrace prevented the crowds from dispersing to their left and right, where there was, clearly, enough room to accommodate those that were inside the ground. This fact alone (which was a characteristic of the stadium - and many others like it) forced what happened to be fatal. I remember, from another documentary, that something similar had happened when Spurs played Wolves in an earlier FA Cup Semi Final, yet the terrace was still segregated with fences that trapped fans in.
All the suggestions that a crowd is not controlled by those in it could be applied to the inability of the Police to control it also.
Clearly there is a need for punishment from those that loved lost ones, but sometimes there is no justification for punishment. My wife's sister died at 11 from a brain tumor, five years later her 19 year old brother died in a car crash (a genuine accident that involved no other cars) she, even now, three years later, is struggling to come to terms with it all and she often says that it would be easier if she could find someone to blame - but she can't.
Some of the things written in the press, and attributed to various authorities, were shameless and became a focus for the relatives of the dead, but the Sun newspaper, for all of it's bile, did not cause the deaths.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the deaths that were preventable were not caused by malice. The decisions that the Police made (all be it that they probably didn't have a lot of love for large crowds of football fans - many of which had been drinking) were all made with their best intentions. I'm sure that the decision to open the gate was not done in the hope that the fans would all crush into a pen too small with no escape exits.
Clearly more should have been done to manage the event, but the same stadium had held similar crowds in the past and their had never been anything like this.
Justice, if that's what we are really talking about (opposed to punishing someone, anyone, for the loss of a loved one) will, perhaps, deal with the cover-up, but the cover-up didn't cause the loss of life, and I don't believe that any premeditated decision did either.
The attempt to blame the fans, however much of it was premeditated, and how much was simply because, initially, the authorities, genuinely, believed that the tragedy was caused by excessive, ticket-less, fans was terribly insensitive to the families. The clip on the drama of the father of the two teenage girls that died being asked how much alcohol he'd had to drink was horrendous, but I suspect that many believed (as some on here have admitted to) that the crush was caused, in part at least, by drunk fans that arrived too late to take their place in a calm manor.
I'm not defending the Police; I'm not defending Thatcher's government; I'm not defending Blair's government; nor am I blaming the fans. However, sometimes bad things happen and even if mistakes were made it doesn't necessarily mean that someone in particular is guilty of causing those things to happen. There were a number of factors that led to the deaths, but I seriously doubt that those in control that day did anything other that what they thought was best as the events unfolded up to 3:06 when it was clear that this was much more serious than anything that had, ever, happened before.
1. The fans weren't penned in or restricted to one area- they had the full run of the ground.
2. It's debatable whether the situation of having tens of thousands still outside the ground at kick-off time arose and if it ever did was an exit gate ever opened to allow mass entry ? I doubt it
3. As I recall, exiting the old Valley in vast crowds was often a quite scary experience - as a youngster me and my mates would often laugh hysterically because we were squashed, buffeted and trapped in a forward momentum to the exit gates which it would have been impossible to resist.
Of course, we knew that relief would come once we were beyond the confines of the exit gates - but if some barrier had halted that forward momentum I could easily envisage a situation that those in the front would quickly become trapped and suffocated and those at the back would have been none the wiser.
So, I don't think there was anything special or uniquely different about our fans all those years ago - it was just completely different circumstances.
Just my opinion
Only I thought the events of that day were more than a little surprising - I'd say shocking.
I would bet my son's life that if any of the senior Police, or any of the more senior authorities. had the slightest clue that 96 fans could die they would have done things differently. I suspect they would have cancelled the game completely if they'd known of the genuine potential for loss of life.
I suspect that your comment doesn't come across as you meant it to, but it does read like they knew this could happen and I don't think anyone had a clue that something like this was possible.
Is the argument the individual responsibility for one actions can be ignored because they are morphed into the "crowd collective"? Is there some unwritten edict that ones ability to think and act for yourself is automatically negated because you are in a crowd? If it is then none of us have any right to complain at the actions of the authorities in managing to the lowest common denominator as per the recent experience after the Millwall match.
I am very happy to be deemed naïve (though I doubt Thatcher stood on one football terrace in 30yrs) if that satisfies your angst and I really cannot help that people cannot read. Perhaps if I write (as I have said 3 times)100 lines "the responsibility for the loss of 96 lines lies with the authorities and those responsible should be prosecuted" it will help.
I see little point in responding further. It seems the dye is cast the "crowd collective" absolves the individual from all and any responsibility for their actions. So god forbid if the authorities fail again to properly manage any given public function, peoples fate will be in the hands (without responsibility) of the "crowd dynamic".
Forgive me if I find that troubling for a process lasting over 20 years where the entire focus has been the accountability for peoples actions or lack of them.
Grapevine49
Perhaps I should have said 'Nothing that the authorities were presented with prior to 3pm should have surprised them'. Hope that clarifies things.
However, you musn't confuse this with the physical phenomenon of 'crowd dynamics', which is the way in which a crowd ebbs and flows, irrespective of the nature, behaviour or actions of the individuals within it. We are not talking about the 'ability to think and act for yourself', we are talking about a physical process by which the vast majority of people in the crowd would have had no control over their movements. People were swept and carried along, lifted off the ground, etc. and most would not have had any choice in the matter. In this respect, crowd dynamics ARE a force of nature.
Basically if some fans, weren't rushing or pushing or edging forwards, then there may have not been any fatalities.
Yes, they were misdirected, but would this have been so likely to happen at say Lords for a cricket match ?
I doubt it because the crowd are generally a bit older & less boisterous.
Most of us have been caught up in crowds, when impatient people pushing/edging forwards have caused a crush.
I was at Bowie at Milton Keynes in @1981. After, outside the train station, I was convinced there would be deaths, due to the crushing.
If people at the back had just stood still & waited until there was clear space, there would be no crush.
The fans were not to blame, but the situation may have not been so bad, if there wasn't any pushing/edging forwards etc.
I believe this is all Grapevine49 is trying to say. In other words, if you're in a crowd don't push forwards, but people always will & there is his learning point !
I am talking about our national stadium, and specifically the walkway to Wembley Park tube. If anything ever happens there, the blood will be on the hands of the FA and the planning authorities who failed to insist on a complete rework of the path to the station as part of the permission for the rebuild. But if, heaven forbid it does happen, you can bet your life that said authorities will seek to blame fans for pushing, shoving, rowdy behaviour, drunkeness.
It is a fucking disgrace, and if you want to see how it should be done, then visit the Allianz Arena by U-bahn as I did a few weeks ago.
I haven't seen the programme yet - maybe at the weekend if I get time...but the reason why so many fans turned up late was down to roadworks on the Transpennine motorway (M62). With so many fans from north-west England hitting the motorway and the roadworks at more-or-less the same time what shouldn't have been a long problem turned into a major delay for a lot of fans. Hence a lot of people through no real fault of their own arrived late.
And have you ever been to a match, or any other major event, where 'everybody' decided to be that sensible? Is that what you yourself do? Really? Can you give an example from anywhere in the world where people behave like this?
That is, the end point of your contention would be 'had there been no-one there this would never have happened.' The reality was that 55,000 people were due to be there, and the duty of care was upon the police's shoulders. That they failed in their crowd management outside the ground and then compounded it tragically by failing inside the ground - and then failing to respond to what they were told and could see was happening - is at the heart of it. I'm glad you agree with this part, but I simply cannot agree the fans bore responsibility of any significance, in the same way that the supporter dropping the fag at Bradford didn't for that disaster.
I'm not quite with Prague's comparison with Wembley Way either. It was redesigned and flow is typically managed throughout the journey. There is more capacity for a duty of care when a quart is not herded into a pint pot, and there is plenty of space for people to flow into - not perfect, I grant thee, but not quite a disaster waiting to happen in my view. Hillsborough absolutely was. I was pleasantly surprised at just how well it was organised when I first went to an event at the place. Ultimately, 90,000 people heading for the same small green patch in West London isn't going to be an exercise in relaxation.
What I do, which is a personal preference, is get to games early. I'm normally in my seat at The Valley close to 2pm for a normal 3pm kick off. Really!
Just because people around the world don't get to events early doesn't, in my view, make it any safer if most people turn up late and push those in front to get in before the start.
Besides, in order to make it as safe as possible it helps if everyone (not literally) turns up at a different time. Football stadia, by their very nature, are not designed to have close to capacity get in very quickly. Out, maybe, but not in.
I was not aware of the traffic delays, and besides I've already said that I don't blame the fans, I was just making the point that there are a number of things that they could have done differently that might have helped prevent what happened.
I've been to Wembley several times and ignoring the delays getting to the tube I've always found it to be very well managed by the Police. There are several 'check points' and I'm not sure that a crush could be caused even if a group of fans set out to do so - not that I think they ever would do, of course.
Overcrowding occurs, then you stop people entering the walkway. It's simple crowd management that the Police and Stewards are well aware of.
Managed Risk. It's how the world in the 21st Century operates.