Hillsborough Disaster:The truth at last - Page 16

cullennz · 29th November 2019, 06:29 PM

It is kind of shameful no one has been found to account.

We had a similar situation with the CTV building that collapsed during the ChCh earthquakes killing 115.

Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick, but no one was found truely accountable it that one either.

But I am sure lawyers made shedloads in both

Edit: Probably help if I added a link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_Building

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I agree that he was protected but we cant allow, if you like, one wrong to be met with another wrong to right the first wrong. He was obviously given the times not guilty of this charge. I know some people have said this particular charge was prosecuted because it would be so hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so it was merely a fob to the campaign. Certainly given what we now know happened in regards to the cover up it could have been, even if the prosecution was only ten years ago, but now after all the stuff that has come to light I don't think it will have been so.

That he was not up to the job of being match commander is one of the reasons why I think it was gross negligence and manslaughter, rather than a pathetic excuse to let him away with what he did.

I once refused to be a match commander (of a lower league Scottish team with a crowd that was possible not going to get to 4 figures) because I had no previous experience. Another officer of the same rank who had run games was brought in and I shadowed him.

If I had gone ahead and there had been an incident, the question should have been, why did I let myself be put in charge of something that I was not fit to run?

Duckensfield is an example of what happens when people get into senior ranks of the police, it does not matter if they up to the job or not, they are bullet proof and they will be protected. That is in itself gross negligence.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Planigale

I would guess that less than 1:20 of police officers are of the rank of superintendent or above. I would guess that police officers earn above average (a police constable earns £26,000 to £ 40,000 + overtime). So on that basis I do not think that if Chief Superintendents and above are in the top 5% of earners that is excessive. To be in the top 1% of income tax payers one would need to earn above £160,000.

Link here to see where I get the figures from;

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-after-tax

You will see that a Chief Superintendent is in the top 5%.

Roughly, out of every ten police officers, one is a Sergeant and one is an Inspector or above.

Duckensfield retired a Chief Superintendent. As of 2012 someone retiring in that rank gets a £264k lump sum and annual pension of £40k.

I think people like that should have to take full responsibility when it goes wrong, since they love to take full responsibility when it goes right and claim they have earned their wages.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Planigale

I understand that the prosecutions for perjury, malfeasance in public office etc. were deferred until the manslaughter trial was completed. So (retired) police officers may still be convicted of the 'cover up'.

I hadn't read about that. Be good if true.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

That he was not up to the job of being match commander is one of the reasons why I think it was gross negligence and manslaughter, rather than a pathetic excuse to let him away with what he did.

I once refused to be a match commander (of a lower league Scottish team with a crowd that was possible not going to get to 4 figures) because I had no previous experience. Another officer of the same rank who had run games was brought in and I shadowed him.

If I had gone ahead and there had been an incident, the question should have been, why did I let myself be put in charge of something that I was not fit to run?

Duckensfield is an example of what happens when people get into senior ranks of the police, it does not matter if they up to the job or not, they are bullet proof and they will be protected. That is in itself gross negligence.

Times have changed since Hillsborough, at the time of Hillsborough there was no legislation that (for instance) required there to have been a full risk assessment in place for the event. That is now a legal requirement.

You seem to be wanting him to be held to today's standards.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Link here to see where I get the figures from;

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-after-tax

You will see that a Chief Superintendent is in the top 5%.

Roughly, out of every ten police officers, one is a Sergeant and one is an Inspector or above.

Duckensfield retired a Chief Superintendent. As of 2012 someone retiring in that rank gets a £264k lump sum and annual pension of £40k.

I think people like that should have to take full responsibility when it goes wrong, since they love to take full responsibility when it goes right and claim they have earned their wages.

All that would do is to ensure no one would ever take such a role in any organisation or company.

If I was organising a public event and I have ensured I have done everything required as per the legislation and then some freak event happened and people died I should not be held personally responsible for the freak event.

Again you seem to want him to be judged by today's standards and today's legislation. That would be wrong.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

All that would do is to ensure no one would ever take such a role in any organisation or company.

If I was organising a public event and I have ensured I have done everything required as per the legislation and then some freak event happened and people died I should not be held personally responsible for the freak event.

Again you seem to want him to be judged by today's standards and today's legislation. That would be wrong.

Yet here you point out that rules have been tightened;

Originally Posted by Darat

Times have changed since Hillsborough, at the time of Hillsborough there was no legislation that (for instance) required there to have been a full risk assessment in place for the event. That is now a legal requirement.

You seem to be wanting him to be held to today's standards.

and we have no shortage of people who want to be in charge. But, instead of those people being held to account when it goes wrong, we get all sorts of excuses to pay them big money but only be responsible when it goes right.

He had little training, no risk assessment etc, but he gets the money when the match passes without incident. Job well done if it had all been fine and the TV highlights had been of a great game.

Why is his lack of training etc only an excuse when it goes wrong?

Darat · 30th November 2019, 04:29 AM

Sorry but you seem to be all over the place.

To try and understand where we are disagreeing, this is what I am saying, which do you disagree with?

At the time of Hillsborough Duckensfield acted in accordance with the legislation and did not act in a grossly negligent manner according to a court of law.

Since the time of Hillsborough health and safety legislation has changed.

Someone acting like Duckensfield today would more than likely be charged with an even more serious crime than gross negligence manslaughter and would be found guilty.

We cannot use the legislation we have today retrospectively to prosecute Duckensfield.

If a person in charge of an event has acted in accordance with the legislation in place at the time and a disaster happens they should not be held personally responsible.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Sorry but you seem to be all over the place.

To try and understand where we are disagreeing, this is what I am saying, which do you disagree with?

At the time of Hillsborough Duckensfield acted in accordance with the legislation and did not act in a grossly negligent manner according to a court of law.

Since the time of Hillsborough health and safety legislation has changed.

Someone acting like Duckensfield today would more than likely be charged with an even more serious crime than gross negligence manslaughter and would be found guilty.

We cannot use the legislation we have today retrospectively to prosecute Duckensfield.

If a person in charge of an event has acted in accordance with the legislation in place at the time and a disaster happens they should not be held personally responsible.

My argument is that the relative lack of legislation back then is not an excuse.

1 - the police had been policing games for about a century and had a wealth of experience, including by then experience of policing games after fencing had been introduced to stop fans from invading the pitch.

2 - Duckensfield chose to take command even though he knew he had little experience. I gave you my example of when I refused to take command of a football march for that very reason.

3 - Duckensfield had accepted the risk of taking command knowing he was going to have to wing it and knowing he would get the plaudits if it all gone fine, especially since it was the match of the day and very high profile.

4 - if anything, it should have been the entire senior policing team that day, not just Duckensfield who should have been charged. They seriously thought it was OK for him to be in charge because they operated on a "wing it" policy of there will be others to help who have done games there before, that to any reasonable person is deeply flawed. The gross negligence extended beyond Duckensfield.

5 - that they slept walked into a disaster waiting to happen that has resulted in huge changes to fan safety at football grounds, is evidence of how negligent they were back then.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 05:03 AM

Another way of putting it.

The lack of legislation, risk assessments etc was because the police had convinced everyone that they knew what they were doing and they had the right experienced people to do the job. Negligently, they did not.

That there was a lack of legislation, risk assessments etc is part of the evidence for the negligence, not an excuse for it.

Rolfe · 30th November 2019, 05:10 AM

The thing is, this wasn't a freak accident. It had damn nearly happened on a previous occasion and had been averted by the then match commander taking appropriate action. Duckenfield refused to take on board this previous experience even though there were people urging him to do so.

I'm not baying for him to be convicted of actual manslaughter because I think that's a high bar to clear, but he was a lot more culpable than some people seem to think.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The thing is, this wasn't a freak accident. It had damn nearly happened on a previous occasion and had been averted by the then match commander taking appropriate action. Duckenfield refused to take on board this previous experience even though there were people urging him to do so.

I'm not baying for him to be convicted of actual manslaughter because I think that's a high bar to clear, but he was a lot more culpable than some people seem to think.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of those that should be held responsible for what happened. And he was incompetent. But Nessie to me seems to want him to be prosecuted based on today's legislation and standards and I think that is very wrong.

And he also seems to be saying that even if someone has followed all the required legislation and wasn't incompetent if a disaster does occur they should be held personally responsible. Again I think that is very wrong, if someone has acted in a responsible and competent way, followed the legislation, followed the guidelines and so on and a disaster still happens they should not be prosecuted.

It seems Nessie would have us prosecute the head of security at the Manchester arena because security obviously failed to stop the bomber!

Rolfe · 30th November 2019, 05:30 AM

I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of those that should be held responsible for what happened. And he was incompetent. But Nessie to me seems to want him to be prosecuted based on today's legislation and standards and I think that is very wrong.

And he also seems to be saying that even if someone has followed all the required legislation and wasn't incompetent if a disaster does occur they should be held personally responsible. Again I think that is very wrong, if someone has acted in a responsible and competent way, followed the legislation, followed the guidelines and so on and a disaster still happens they should not be prosecuted.

It seems Nessie would have us prosecute the head of security at the Manchester arena because security obviously failed to stop the bomber!

You are wrong. Stop ignoring how I have explained why what happened was negligent at that time.

There was bugger all legislation risk assessments etc as you have admitted. So, how did the police operate? The answer is purely by learning in an ad hoc manner through experience, including putting someone in post with no experience who has to then wing it.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though.

I am not conflicted, since he was responsible for a very large measure of the blame, he is guilty of manslaughter, as are some others who had a lesser role and who also should have been on trial.

There is a dreadful culture here that those in senior positions are excused their responsibility, that they use to claim large wages and power, when things go terribly wrong and there has been negligence.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though.

When I first read the definition of gross negligence manslaughter I thought there wasn't a cat-in-hells chance of him being found guilty.

And I'll stress again that I do think he has to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the disaster and that he was completely incompetent and out of his depth. But at the time this happened he didn't breach the legislation.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

You are wrong. Stop ignoring how I have explained why what happened was negligent at that time.

There was bugger all legislation risk assessments etc as you have admitted. So, how did the police operate? The answer is purely by learning in an ad hoc manner through experience, including putting someone in post with no experience who has to then wing it.

In every day speech I would agree he was negligent however under the legislation at the time he was not criminally negligent as defined by the laws prevailing back then.

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 09:36 AM

Under presumption of innocence and that he was found not guilty, I accept he cannot be called a murderer or whatever a grossly negligent manslaughterer would be called.

But, he carries major responsibility for the deaths and it is disgusting that he is not going to be punished for that. The law is an ass and I think it is deliberately like that, because those in power do not want a law that truly holds them accountable.

jeremyp · 30th November 2019, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

he is guilty of manslaughter

No he is not. He was cleared in a court of law.

Quote:

There is a dreadful culture here that those in senior positions are excused their responsibility, that they use to claim large wages and power, when things go terribly wrong and there has been negligence.

What large wages and power did Duckenfield claim as a result of the Hillsborough disaster?

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

No he is not. He was cleared in a court of law.

Which I accepted in the post above.

Quote:

What large wages and power did Duckenfield claim as a result of the Hillsborough disaster?

He was already on the big wage and the power came with being a Chief Superintendent. He is presently on a pension of over £40k a year.

Darat · 30th November 2019, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Under presumption of innocence and that he was found not guilty, I accept he cannot be called a murderer or whatever a grossly negligent manslaughterer would be called.

But, he carries major responsibility for the deaths and it is disgusting that he is not going to be punished for that. The law is an ass and I think it is deliberately like that, because those in power do not want a law that truly holds them accountable.

The law at the time or the law now?

Nessie · 30th November 2019, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

The law at the time or the law now?

Both. Hillsborough is just one of many instances where negligence killed and no one was held responsible, from Aberfan to the Bradford Stadium fire to the Herald of Free Enterprise to potentially Grenfell.

Captain_Swoop · 30th November 2019, 02:12 PM

Design of grounds at the time made a disaster like Hillsborough inevitable sooner or later.

He was like a captain put in charge of an already sinking ship.

Nessie · 1st December 2019, 06:50 AM

Talking about captains in charge;

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...on-how-9254186

Regarding the Heysel Stadium disaster in Belgium in 1985, the trial in 1989 that convicted 14 Liverpool fans of involuntary manslaughter was also the trial for various officials;

"Captain Johan Mahieu, the police officer who was responsible for Z Block, where the disaster took place, is given a nine-month suspended sentence. Albert Roosens, the former general secretary of the Belgian Football Association, who organised ticket sales, is given a six month suspended sentence. These sentences were imposed for the offence of criminal negligence. Mahieu had told the court it was the first time he had policed a football match. He admitted there were communications breakdowns between senior police, and poor liaison with match organisers. Belgian police officer Michel Kensier was acquitted"

29th November 2019, 06:29 PM	#601
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,438	It is kind of shameful no one has been found to account. We had a similar situation with the CTV building that collapsed during the ChCh earthquakes killing 115. Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick, but no one was found truely accountable it that one either. But I am sure lawyers made shedloads in both Edit: Probably help if I added a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_Building
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000 Last edited by cullennz; 29th November 2019 at 06:31 PM.

30th November 2019, 02:42 AM	#602
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Darat I agree that he was protected but we cant allow, if you like, one wrong to be met with another wrong to right the first wrong. He was obviously given the times not guilty of this charge. I know some people have said this particular charge was prosecuted because it would be so hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so it was merely a fob to the campaign. Certainly given what we now know happened in regards to the cover up it could have been, even if the prosecution was only ten years ago, but now after all the stuff that has come to light I don't think it will have been so. That he was not up to the job of being match commander is one of the reasons why I think it was gross negligence and manslaughter, rather than a pathetic excuse to let him away with what he did. I once refused to be a match commander (of a lower league Scottish team with a crowd that was possible not going to get to 4 figures) because I had no previous experience. Another officer of the same rank who had run games was brought in and I shadowed him. If I had gone ahead and there had been an incident, the question should have been, why did I let myself be put in charge of something that I was not fit to run? Duckensfield is an example of what happens when people get into senior ranks of the police, it does not matter if they up to the job or not, they are bullet proof and they will be protected. That is in itself gross negligence.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 02:52 AM	#603
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Planigale I would guess that less than 1:20 of police officers are of the rank of superintendent or above. I would guess that police officers earn above average (a police constable earns £26,000 to £ 40,000 + overtime). So on that basis I do not think that if Chief Superintendents and above are in the top 5% of earners that is excessive. To be in the top 1% of income tax payers one would need to earn above £160,000. Link here to see where I get the figures from; https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-after-tax You will see that a Chief Superintendent is in the top 5%. Roughly, out of every ten police officers, one is a Sergeant and one is an Inspector or above. Duckensfield retired a Chief Superintendent. As of 2012 someone retiring in that rank gets a £264k lump sum and annual pension of £40k. I think people like that should have to take full responsibility when it goes wrong, since they love to take full responsibility when it goes right and claim they have earned their wages.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 03:28 AM	#604
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Planigale I understand that the prosecutions for perjury, malfeasance in public office etc. were deferred until the manslaughter trial was completed. So (retired) police officers may still be convicted of the 'cover up'. I hadn't read about that. Be good if true.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 03:46 AM	#605
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Nessie That he was not up to the job of being match commander is one of the reasons why I think it was gross negligence and manslaughter, rather than a pathetic excuse to let him away with what he did. I once refused to be a match commander (of a lower league Scottish team with a crowd that was possible not going to get to 4 figures) because I had no previous experience. Another officer of the same rank who had run games was brought in and I shadowed him. If I had gone ahead and there had been an incident, the question should have been, why did I let myself be put in charge of something that I was not fit to run? Duckensfield is an example of what happens when people get into senior ranks of the police, it does not matter if they up to the job or not, they are bullet proof and they will be protected. That is in itself gross negligence. Times have changed since Hillsborough, at the time of Hillsborough there was no legislation that (for instance) required there to have been a full risk assessment in place for the event. That is now a legal requirement. You seem to be wanting him to be held to today's standards.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 03:51 AM	#606
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Nessie Link here to see where I get the figures from; https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-after-tax You will see that a Chief Superintendent is in the top 5%. Roughly, out of every ten police officers, one is a Sergeant and one is an Inspector or above. Duckensfield retired a Chief Superintendent. As of 2012 someone retiring in that rank gets a £264k lump sum and annual pension of £40k. I think people like that should have to take full responsibility when it goes wrong, since they love to take full responsibility when it goes right and claim they have earned their wages. All that would do is to ensure no one would ever take such a role in any organisation or company. If I was organising a public event and I have ensured I have done everything required as per the legislation and then some freak event happened and people died I should not be held personally responsible for the freak event. Again you seem to want him to be judged by today's standards and today's legislation. That would be wrong.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 04:09 AM	#607
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Darat All that would do is to ensure no one would ever take such a role in any organisation or company. If I was organising a public event and I have ensured I have done everything required as per the legislation and then some freak event happened and people died I should not be held personally responsible for the freak event. Again you seem to want him to be judged by today's standards and today's legislation. That would be wrong. Yet here you point out that rules have been tightened; Originally Posted by Darat Times have changed since Hillsborough, at the time of Hillsborough there was no legislation that (for instance) required there to have been a full risk assessment in place for the event. That is now a legal requirement. You seem to be wanting him to be held to today's standards. and we have no shortage of people who want to be in charge. But, instead of those people being held to account when it goes wrong, we get all sorts of excuses to pay them big money but only be responsible when it goes right. He had little training, no risk assessment etc, but he gets the money when the match passes without incident. Job well done if it had all been fine and the TV highlights had been of a great game. Why is his lack of training etc only an excuse when it goes wrong?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 04:29 AM	#608
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Sorry but you seem to be all over the place. To try and understand where we are disagreeing, this is what I am saying, which do you disagree with? At the time of Hillsborough Duckensfield acted in accordance with the legislation and did not act in a grossly negligent manner according to a court of law. Since the time of Hillsborough health and safety legislation has changed. Someone acting like Duckensfield today would more than likely be charged with an even more serious crime than gross negligence manslaughter and would be found guilty. We cannot use the legislation we have today retrospectively to prosecute Duckensfield. If a person in charge of an event has acted in accordance with the legislation in place at the time and a disaster happens they should not be held personally responsible.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 04:46 AM	#609
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Darat Sorry but you seem to be all over the place. To try and understand where we are disagreeing, this is what I am saying, which do you disagree with? At the time of Hillsborough Duckensfield acted in accordance with the legislation and did not act in a grossly negligent manner according to a court of law. Since the time of Hillsborough health and safety legislation has changed. Someone acting like Duckensfield today would more than likely be charged with an even more serious crime than gross negligence manslaughter and would be found guilty. We cannot use the legislation we have today retrospectively to prosecute Duckensfield. If a person in charge of an event has acted in accordance with the legislation in place at the time and a disaster happens they should not be held personally responsible. My argument is that the relative lack of legislation back then is not an excuse. 1 - the police had been policing games for about a century and had a wealth of experience, including by then experience of policing games after fencing had been introduced to stop fans from invading the pitch. 2 - Duckensfield chose to take command even though he knew he had little experience. I gave you my example of when I refused to take command of a football march for that very reason. 3 - Duckensfield had accepted the risk of taking command knowing he was going to have to wing it and knowing he would get the plaudits if it all gone fine, especially since it was the match of the day and very high profile. 4 - if anything, it should have been the entire senior policing team that day, not just Duckensfield who should have been charged. They seriously thought it was OK for him to be in charge because they operated on a "wing it" policy of there will be others to help who have done games there before, that to any reasonable person is deeply flawed. The gross negligence extended beyond Duckensfield. 5 - that they slept walked into a disaster waiting to happen that has resulted in huge changes to fan safety at football grounds, is evidence of how negligent they were back then.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 05:03 AM	#610
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Another way of putting it. The lack of legislation, risk assessments etc was because the police had convinced everyone that they knew what they were doing and they had the right experienced people to do the job. Negligently, they did not. That there was a lack of legislation, risk assessments etc is part of the evidence for the negligence, not an excuse for it.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 05:10 AM	#611
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 44,273	The thing is, this wasn't a freak accident. It had damn nearly happened on a previous occasion and had been averted by the then match commander taking appropriate action. Duckenfield refused to take on board this previous experience even though there were people urging him to do so. I'm not baying for him to be convicted of actual manslaughter because I think that's a high bar to clear, but he was a lot more culpable than some people seem to think.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

30th November 2019, 05:26 AM	#612
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Rolfe The thing is, this wasn't a freak accident. It had damn nearly happened on a previous occasion and had been averted by the then match commander taking appropriate action. Duckenfield refused to take on board this previous experience even though there were people urging him to do so. I'm not baying for him to be convicted of actual manslaughter because I think that's a high bar to clear, but he was a lot more culpable than some people seem to think. There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of those that should be held responsible for what happened. And he was incompetent. But Nessie to me seems to want him to be prosecuted based on today's legislation and standards and I think that is very wrong. And he also seems to be saying that even if someone has followed all the required legislation and wasn't incompetent if a disaster does occur they should be held personally responsible. Again I think that is very wrong, if someone has acted in a responsible and competent way, followed the legislation, followed the guidelines and so on and a disaster still happens they should not be prosecuted. It seems Nessie would have us prosecute the head of security at the Manchester arena because security obviously failed to stop the bomber!
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 05:30 AM	#613
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 44,273	I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

30th November 2019, 06:17 AM	#614
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Darat There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of those that should be held responsible for what happened. And he was incompetent. But Nessie to me seems to want him to be prosecuted based on today's legislation and standards and I think that is very wrong. And he also seems to be saying that even if someone has followed all the required legislation and wasn't incompetent if a disaster does occur they should be held personally responsible. Again I think that is very wrong, if someone has acted in a responsible and competent way, followed the legislation, followed the guidelines and so on and a disaster still happens they should not be prosecuted. It seems Nessie would have us prosecute the head of security at the Manchester arena because security obviously failed to stop the bomber! You are wrong. Stop ignoring how I have explained why what happened was negligent at that time. There was bugger all legislation risk assessments etc as you have admitted. So, how did the police operate? The answer is purely by learning in an ad hoc manner through experience, including putting someone in post with no experience who has to then wing it.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 06:21 AM	#615
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Rolfe I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though. I am not conflicted, since he was responsible for a very large measure of the blame, he is guilty of manslaughter, as are some others who had a lesser role and who also should have been on trial. There is a dreadful culture here that those in senior positions are excused their responsibility, that they use to claim large wages and power, when things go terribly wrong and there has been negligence.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 09:27 AM	#616
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Rolfe I'm very conflicted about this. I have read the report from start to finish. Duckenfield was incompetent and arrogant and bears a very large measure of the blame for what happened. I'm uncomfortable with having to decide if that amounts to actual guilt for manslaughter though. When I first read the definition of gross negligence manslaughter I thought there wasn't a cat-in-hells chance of him being found guilty. And I'll stress again that I do think he has to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the disaster and that he was completely incompetent and out of his depth. But at the time this happened he didn't breach the legislation.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 09:28 AM	#617
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Nessie You are wrong. Stop ignoring how I have explained why what happened was negligent at that time. There was bugger all legislation risk assessments etc as you have admitted. So, how did the police operate? The answer is purely by learning in an ad hoc manner through experience, including putting someone in post with no experience who has to then wing it. In every day speech I would agree he was negligent however under the legislation at the time he was not criminally negligent as defined by the laws prevailing back then.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 09:36 AM	#618
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Under presumption of innocence and that he was found not guilty, I accept he cannot be called a murderer or whatever a grossly negligent manslaughterer would be called. But, he carries major responsibility for the deaths and it is disgusting that he is not going to be punished for that. The law is an ass and I think it is deliberately like that, because those in power do not want a law that truly holds them accountable.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 11:21 AM	#619
jeremyp Muse Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 988	Originally Posted by Nessie he is guilty of manslaughter No he is not. He was cleared in a court of law. Quote: There is a dreadful culture here that those in senior positions are excused their responsibility, that they use to claim large wages and power, when things go terribly wrong and there has been negligence. What large wages and power did Duckenfield claim as a result of the Hillsborough disaster?

30th November 2019, 01:14 PM	#620
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by jeremyp No he is not. He was cleared in a court of law. Which I accepted in the post above. Quote: What large wages and power did Duckenfield claim as a result of the Hillsborough disaster? He was already on the big wage and the power came with being a Chief Superintendent. He is presently on a pension of over £40k a year.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 01:23 PM	#621
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,420	Originally Posted by Nessie Under presumption of innocence and that he was found not guilty, I accept he cannot be called a murderer or whatever a grossly negligent manslaughterer would be called. But, he carries major responsibility for the deaths and it is disgusting that he is not going to be punished for that. The law is an ass and I think it is deliberately like that, because those in power do not want a law that truly holds them accountable. The law at the time or the law now?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th November 2019, 01:34 PM	#622
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Originally Posted by Darat The law at the time or the law now? Both. Hillsborough is just one of many instances where negligence killed and no one was held responsible, from Aberfan to the Bradford Stadium fire to the Herald of Free Enterprise to potentially Grenfell.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th November 2019, 02:12 PM	#623
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 22,787	Design of grounds at the time made a disaster like Hillsborough inevitable sooner or later. He was like a captain put in charge of an already sinking ship.

1st December 2019, 06:50 AM	#624
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,438	Talking about captains in charge; https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...on-how-9254186 Regarding the Heysel Stadium disaster in Belgium in 1985, the trial in 1989 that convicted 14 Liverpool fans of involuntary manslaughter was also the trial for various officials; "Captain Johan Mahieu, the police officer who was responsible for Z Block, where the disaster took place, is given a nine-month suspended sentence. Albert Roosens, the former general secretary of the Belgian Football Association, who organised ticket sales, is given a six month suspended sentence. These sentences were imposed for the offence of criminal negligence. Mahieu had told the court it was the first time he had policed a football match. He admitted there were communications breakdowns between senior police, and poor liaison with match organisers. Belgian police officer Michel Kensier was acquitted"
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic