Anger as Pokemon Go uses SWFC Hillsborough memorial as 'Pokestop'

[alanharper]

I keep hearing the "fact" that there can't have been any ticketless fans because the numbers who entered the ground were roughly the same as the number of tickets sold. Yet I've seen documents on the H.I.P. website and there are some very interesting witness statements on there from turnstile operators, all of whom say that fans were gaining entry without valid tickets. Some with no tickets, some offering cash (which they obviously wouldn't need to do if they possessed tickets), some with tickets for the Kop end. One of them even says that he had "hundreds" of ticketless fans pass through, although I suspect that's an exaggeration. Furthermore, I also recall seeing a fan's witness statement on there after the report was published (I can't find it again now, there are hundreds on there) saying that they were on one of 2-3 coaches which were late and arrived at a pub which was some distance from Hillsborough at around 3pm so they weren't involved in the crush at all despite having match tickets. How many fans with tickets would fill 3 coaches, about 150 or so? Yet those fans weren't even at the ground, so who was making up the "correct" numbers in the crush if it wasn't them? It can only be people without tickets.

 

However, the "independent" panel and inquest jury seem to have totally ignored or dismissed this evidence (I saw a BBC report during the inquest that at least one turnstile operator gave evidence in person). Now why would they do that, unless they were determined to completely absolve the fans whatever? It's a complete whitewash imo, the local jury was never going to find their neighbours remotely guilty or partly cupable of anything, and they knew there'd be uproar if they had.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144480001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144460001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144520001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144290001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000018950001.pdf

 

How do we define what a "significant" number of ticketless fans is, or how many is a "normal" number? And even if a certain number of fans without tickets is "normal" for a big football game, does this automatically mean that they didn't make a difference? From those witness reports from turnstile operators alone, (just some that I looked at, there may be others) I don't think it's unreasonable to estimate that there could have been at least 100 fans who got in without tickets. Possibly less, possibly more, and if that statement about the fans on coaches who hadn't even got to the ground is true, probably many more. Now, if a tightly packed crowd is swollen by 100 people who shouldn't be there, is it not unreasonable to assume that if those 100 people were removed from the equation then the outcome may have been less severe in terms of the number of fatalities and injuries, or in terms of the pressure of congestion outside the turnstiles? And therefore those ticketless fans were indeed exacerbating the situation and contributing to the outcome? The Taylor Report does state that there were people pushing from the back and exacerbating the crush at the front, obviously the "independent" panel completely ignored this.

 

I should make it clear that I do acknowledge and agree that policing errors rather than fan behaviour were the actual cause of the tragedy, and the subsequent SYP cover up was abhorrent. I just find it difficult to agree that a percentage of the Liverpool fans had literally nothing to do with the situation, there was after all something different that day to cause the crush at the turnstiles outside when that end had been sold out many times before without the scenario developing outside that the exit gates had to be opened to let fans in, ticketless or not.)

 

Or are we not allowed to think that and must accept that jurors could never ever be wrong, would never ever disregard evidence which doesn't fit with their preferred verdict, and Liverpool fans must now always be elevated to saintly status because a handful of not wholly independent people have said so?

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, alanharper said:

I keep hearing the "fact" that there can't have been any ticketless fans because the numbers who entered the ground were roughly the same as the number of tickets sold. Yet I've seen documents on the H.I.P. website and there are some very interesting witness statements on there from turnstile operators, all of whom say that fans were gaining entry without valid tickets. Some with no tickets, some offering cash (which they obviously wouldn't need to do if they possessed tickets), some with tickets for the Kop end. One of them even says that he had "hundreds" of ticketless fans pass through, although I suspect that's an exaggeration. Furthermore, I also recall seeing a fan's witness statement on there after the report was published (I can't find it again now, there are hundreds on there) saying that they were on one of 2-3 coaches which were late and arrived at a pub which was some distance from Hillsborough at around 3pm so they weren't involved in the crush at all despite having match tickets. How many fans with tickets would fill 3 coaches, about 150 or so? Yet those fans weren't even at the ground, so who was making up the "correct" numbers in the crush if it wasn't them? It can only be people without tickets.

 

However, the "independent" panel and inquest jury seem to have totally ignored or dismissed this evidence (I saw a BBC report during the inquest that at least one turnstile operator gave evidence in person). Now why would they do that, unless they were determined to completely absolve the fans whatever? It's a complete whitewash imo, the local jury was never going to find their neighbours remotely guilty or partly cupable of anything, and they knew there'd be uproar if they had.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144480001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144460001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144520001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000144290001.pdf

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000018950001.pdf

 

How do we define what a "significant" number of ticketless fans is, or how many is a "normal" number? And even if a certain number of fans without tickets is "normal" for a big football game, does this automatically mean that they didn't make a difference? From those witness reports from turnstile operators alone, (just some that I looked at, there may be others) I don't think it's unreasonable to estimate that there could have been at least 100 fans who got in without tickets. Possibly less, possibly more, and if that statement about the fans on coaches who hadn't even got to the ground is true, probably many more. Now, if a tightly packed crowd is swollen by 100 people who shouldn't be there, is it not unreasonable to assume that if those 100 people were removed from the equation then the outcome may have been less severe in terms of the number of fatalities and injuries, or in terms of the pressure of congestion outside the turnstiles? And therefore those ticketless fans were indeed exacerbating the situation and contributing to the outcome? The Taylor Report does state that there were people pushing from the back and exacerbating the crush at the front, obviously the "independent" panel completely ignored this.

 

I should make it clear that I do acknowledge and agree that policing errors rather than fan behaviour were the actual cause of the tragedy, and the subsequent SYP cover up was abhorrent. I just find it difficult to agree that a percentage of the Liverpool fans had literally nothing to do with the situation, there was after all something different that day to cause the crush at the turnstiles outside when that end had been sold out many times before without the scenario developing outside that the exit gates had to be opened to let fans in, ticketless or not.)

 

Or are we not allowed to think that and must accept that jurors could never ever be wrong, would never ever disregard evidence which doesn't fit with their preferred verdict, and Liverpool fans must now always be elevated to saintly status because a handful of not wholly independent people have said so?

 

The HSE were totally independent and counted the people who went on via computer and camera. Taylor was totally independent - and appointed by a police loving Liverpool hater. He heard the evidence and asserted this was a public safety not a public order issue. Crowds act as crowds do - its human not Scouse nature.

 

As ever now confirmation bias has set in and views are entrenched. The only thing we can probably all agree on is monitor those central pens and close off the tunnel gate then the disaster doesn't happen. Full stop. That "blunder of the first magnitude" makes the police responsible. 

 

Your tone makes my point for me. It's the anger against Liverpool fans (or should that be saintly but whinging Scousers) for not accepting a "tiny" amount of blame that baffles me. How much blame - 1%? 0.1%? 1.345%? 3%? 49%? As a conspiracy theory to (eventually) clear football fans at the expense of the police makes it the weirdest in the history of conspiracy theories.

 

 

Enjoy your diatribes.

 

[bigthinrob]

20 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

The HSE were totally independent and counted the people who went on via computer and camera. Taylor was totally independent - and appointed by a police loving Liverpool hater. He heard the evidence and asserted this was a public safety not a public order issue. Crowds act as crowds do - its human not Scouse nature.

 

As ever now confirmation bias has set in and views are entrenched. The only thing we can probably all agree on is monitor those central pens and close off the tunnel gate then the disaster doesn't happen. Full stop. That "blunder of the first magnitude" makes the police responsible. 

 

Your tone makes my point for me. It's the anger against Liverpool fans (or should that be saintly but whinging Scousers) for not accepting a "tiny" amount of blame that baffles me. How much blame - 1%? 0.1%? 1.345%? 3%? 49%? As a conspiracy theory to (eventually) clear football fans at the expense of the police makes it the weirdest in the history of conspiracy theories.

 

 

Enjoy your diatribes.

 

And there you have it. Changing the point of the argument to now apportioning an amount of blame, as if to imply 1% would be / is, negligible and somehow irrelevant (which maybe is correct), but that isn't the point,

 

The argument on here from the outset has been that the enquiry said the Liverpool fans had no input WHATSOEVER in the events that unfolded outside Leppings Lane, which regardless of all the evidence and self appointed experts on here, cannot be correct. 

 

No matter how minimal their culpability was, it is clearly not zero, so they clearly had some influence on the outcome and i think it is this point that a lot of people on here take issue with.

 

No doubt more 'evidence' will be rolled out to refute this, but to my mind it is basic common sense.

 

 

 

   

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

54 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

 

 there was after all something different that day to cause the crush at the turnstiles outside when that end had been sold out many times before without the scenario developing outside that the exit gates had to be opened to let fans in, ticketless or not.)

 

Or are we not allowed to think that and must accept that jurors could never ever be wrong, would never ever disregard evidence which doesn't fit with their preferred verdict, and Liverpool fans must now always be elevated to saintly status because a handful of not wholly independent people have said so?

 

23: Turnstiles for 24,200 Liverpool supporters 
60: Turnstiles for 29,800 Nottingham Forest supporters 

 

Averaged out that's 1052 per turnstile for Liverpool, 497 per turnstile for Forest. The bigger mystery is why it hadn't happened before - although of course it had. The Coventry/Leeds semi kick off was delayed. A new match commander and good weather were the likely causes. Why stand on a poo poo terrace when you can sit in Hillsborough Park?

 

[Dick_Turpin]

3 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

And there you have it. Changing the point of the argument to now apportioning an amount of blame, as if to imply 1% would be / is, negligible and somehow irrelevant (which maybe is correct), but that isn't the point,

 

The argument on here from the outset has been that the enquiry said the Liverpool fans had no input WHATSOEVER in the events that unfolded outside Leppings Lane, which regardless of all the evidence and self appointed experts on here, cannot be correct. 

 

No matter how minimal their culpability was, it is clearly not zero, so they clearly had some influence on the outcome and i think it is this point that a lot of people on here take issue with.

 

No doubt more 'evidence' will be rolled out to refute this, but to my mind it is basic common sense.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

"Regardless of all the evidence."

 

And Taylor who reviewed more evidence than you or I (or should that be "evidence"?) wasn't self appointed - the Thatcher government appointed him. Nor were the inquest jury btw.

 

Any fan involvement is hugely debatable . I can see why you think as you do. I happen to disagree.  To some extent it may be an issue of semantics. Where are the boundaries between blame, contributory, deliberately contributory, input etc?  Police culpability, however, is crystal clear and should be where any anger lies. Failing to monitor the pens and not closing the tunnel gates were catastrophic errors caused by negligence, scorn for football fans, incompetence or simple basic understandable human failings. The next step will be down to the CPS I suppose.

 

[lukestheman82]

5 hours ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

5 hours ago, DeeJayOne said:

If I pee into a lake and someone later drowns in that lake, am I then responsible for their death?

 

 

The point being that the number of drunk and or ticketless fans was so minute it didn't have a significant or crucial effect. The disaster would have happened anyway with or without them due to the other, significant and crcuial factors that played their unfortunate part.

 

 

 

 

Clearly you ignore the numerous posts where I say that that the disaster would have happened anyway.

 

I just also think that, having fans in the end that shouldn't have been there can only add to an already shitty situation.

[bigthinrob]

I decided about half an hour ago to re acquaint my self with some of the pictures from the disaster to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks with me about how it all unfolded and also to make sure that whilst arguing the semantics of the why's & wherefore's i wasn't losing sight of the bigger picture.

 

Big mistake.

 

Whilst most of them showed the complete end and the ones that make up the default archive material, there are some that are quite disturbing and have made me consider my stance on the issue.

 

I still maintain the Liverpool fans did have some involvement in respect of the number of latecomers and the other associated issues and do bear some responsibility no matter how minimal and i will not change that point of view. But maybe we have all done that from time to time in those days.

 

However. Having looked at some of the more graphic photo's, one of a smallish female crushed & horribly distorted against the fence, possibly dead, (i don't know) and another one where someone has highlighted someone with a name tagged on, brings it into sharp focus.

 

Suddenly, me trying to prove my point and engaging in these interminable debates about the subject seem a bit self indulgent.

 

I know this is a forum for debate and we all think our point of view is correct, but i think on this occasion, from my point of view, the arguments of who are culpable and the arguments regarding the scope of the enquiry etc etc etc etc, are pretty much mute points when one considers what that poor girl was going through.

 

If anyone accuses me of changing my tune and being a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, then so be it.

 

Maybe it is time though, to not only let those that died RIP, but also the numerous debates on the subject.

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

18 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

I decided about half an hour ago to re acquaint my self with some of the pictures from the disaster to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks with me about how it all unfolded and also to make sure that whilst arguing the semantics of the why's & wherefore's i wasn't losing sight of the bigger picture.

 

Big mistake.

 

Whilst most of them showed the complete end and the ones that make up the default archive material, there are some that are quite disturbing and have made me consider my stance on the issue.

 

I still maintain the Liverpool fans did have some involvement in respect of the number of latecomers and the other associated issues and do bear some responsibility no matter how minimal and i will not change that point of view. But maybe we have all done that from time to time in those days.

 

However. Having looked at some of the more graphic photo's, one of a smallish female crushed & horribly distorted against the fence, possibly dead, (i don't know) and another one where someone has highlighted someone with a name tagged on, brings it into sharp focus.

 

Suddenly, me trying to prove my point and engaging in these interminable debates about the subject seem a bit self indulgent.

 

I know this is a forum for debate and we all think our point of view is correct, but i think on this occasion, from my point of view, the arguments of who are culpable and the arguments regarding the scope of the enquiry etc etc etc etc, are pretty much mute points when one considers what that poor girl was going through.

 

If anyone accuses me of changing my tune and being a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, then so be it.

 

Maybe it is time though, to not only let those that died RIP, but also the numerous debates on the subject.

 

 

 

I don't think there's any hypocrisy involved at all.

 

I never start a Hillsborough thread but I am guilty of jumping in with facts - and there are many well-established facts - and opinions supported by evidence - which may be contested in some cases. I've done that partly because I seem to be one of the few people on here that likes Liverpool and its people, partly because I sincerely believe what I write and partly because I don't want the impression people get from reading these Hillsborough threads is that all our fans blame the Liverpool supporters to some degree or other. It may be a bit PC but I think the way some people express their opinions casts a bit of a shadow over our fanbase as a whole.

 

To have been on that terrace - particularly the two middle pens - doesn't bear thinking about. As well as the 96 dead there are a couple of thousand other fans in those middle pens who may feel it was lucky it wasn't them - who would have had people very close to them die. Imagine the horror of someone right next to you being crushed to death and you being able to do nothing about it - maybe even feeling you were contributing to it. I don't think it's possible to really know what those people went through.

 

Add that to their friends and family and the thousands of fans in other areas who would have been able to see what was unfolding and were helpless to assist - you can see how this wasn't something that just touched 96 people and their immediate families. And, of course, why they would be angry the people they felt were the real culprits effectively getting away with it. To see Duckenfield, who has since admitted concocting a story about the storming of the gate and his own inadequacies, in well-paid retirement enjoying his golf must have stuck in the craw even if he was haunted by his own demons. 

 

96 people died going to a football match because SYP f**ked up policing a ground that although it had its faults wasn't unpoliceable.  It's because of the experience of that girl - and if you can find that picture so can her family - and the others who died and were injured that I despair when people talk about whinging Scousers, they're only doing it for the compo etc etc.and the families should just let it go......

 

 

     

[CE-Owl]

I was at Preston away last season and at half time a load of fans had had a bit too much to drink and were jumping around, shoving, singing, chucking pints around etc. on the concourse. It was not my thing as I travelled by car and was stone cold sober. However, when fans are out for the day, for some this kind of mischief / rowdiness is part of the day out.

 

But imagine, god forbid, if:

- the concourse was designed too small for that amount / concentration of fans

- the police made a rash decision in the apparent 'chaos' that caused even more fans to enter the concourse

- there weren't enough exits out of the concourse for people to escape

 

And, god forbid, Wednesday fans died as a result.

 

Imagine then if:

- a national newspaper blamed it on Wednesday fans - and went as far as saying Wednesdays fans stole off the dead and injured

- if the police tried to cover up their own decisions, again blaming the fans

- if it came about that those consulted on designing and judging the safety of the concourse were deemed to have not done due diligence

- if at the inquest, relatives of the victims were openly insulted by the officials running the inquest itself

 

You can see how the initial wound would just get deeper and deeper until it either finished you off or all that keeps you going is trying to get some kind of justice.

 

That's what it's like for Hillsborough families. We need to try put ourselves in their shoes.

 

In my own life - very separate to football - I have seen an elderly relative die in suspicious circumstances in a hospital - probably put on the 'Liverpool care pathway' (denied food and water) and given an extra dose of morphine to 'see them on their way'. A whistleblower is only what stopped us from never knowing and not thinking they died of natural causes - but in doing so, they opened up hell for us as we tried to unpick what happened. The elderly relative died at a hospital in a very small town where the police and medical staff all backed each other up, even stood outside the courts smoking together and joking. It took years to get some measure of justice and believe me, it can consume and poison you to face such injustice from people and institutions you are brought up to trust and respect as experts / professionals.

Edited August 26, 2016 by CEOwl

[tom]

1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

 

 

 

96 people died going to a football match because SYP f**ked up policing a ground that although it had its faults wasn't unpoliceable.  It's because of the experience of that girl - and if you can find that picture so can her family - and the others who died and were injured that I despair when people talk about whinging Scousers, they're only doing it for the compo etc etc.and the families should just let it go......

 

 

     

 

I agree Ricky and to be fair, you've argued your point to a large majority for some time now. However I've always thought a bit like AlanHarper - there's a hypocrisy that really drives some fans around the bend, especially Wednesday and Forest fans (who were also subjected to the day's events, but don't even receive a passing mention).

 

For example, there was somebody who back in their champions league final days rang TalkSport and bragged how they had managed to get into the ground without a ticket. Sorry, but where are the HJC condemning this kind of behavior? They've been stereotyped with this kind of thing for 15/16 years.. You couldn't make it up. Add into the equation about Margaret Aspinall talking about safe standing (which she isn't qualified in any way, shape or form to do), the whole Alan Davies saga (and something similar happened to me.. Retweeted and then blocked by some Liverpool fan with 000's of followers and subjected to abuse.) and the enquiry/panel (people from or associated with Liverpool  shouldn't have had anything to do with it).

 

It even happened this year in my job - talking to one of my guests in a hotel and he said how his lad was going to the Europa League final without a ticket "to enjoy the atmosphere". 

 

Also.. There remains the questions of justice. What justice is sufficient? And If that justice prevails, will it be laid to rest? I've always thought the FA should never have backed down with that semi-final. Just because it makes one club more important than the entire competition.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's horrible what happened and I fully support those who were culpable to be sent to prison/stripped and even made to pay back their pension/made an example of. But like I said above, will that be the end of it? I really don't think it will be.

[Dick_Turpin]

Some of what you say I agree with - but only to a degree. Alan Davies admits his tone was inappropriate - saying the refusal of Liverpool to play on that date got on his boobies was simply not the right thing to say. Nor was linking it to an anti-Dalglish rant.  He could have made his point in a more sensitive way.  If he'd made his point cogently and temperately as you may have done then there shouldn't have been a problem. If there was then the response was out of order. 

 

What are you suggesting the justice campaign will do if Duckenfield is imprisoned and compensation is paid? I would say they will be delighted their campaign has ended in victory. I don't blame them for continuing their campaign until victory is achieved or impossible.

 

Any comments on what a bereaved parent thinks about standing should be respectful of the way her life was torn apart by what happened. I've worked with mothers who have lost 17 year old sons in car accidents. Academically and technically they have no qualifications. But they had every right to have their say on government policy on young drivers. A bit of understanding wouldn't go amiss. She can say what she wants - her views won't be the determining factor. Nor should they be - but she has every right to  be heard. 

 

I know lots of people who went to France this summer to soak up the atmosphere or try and pick up tickets from touts. That's not the same as forcing their way in. Forcing gates etc should be condemned. 

 

I'm sure it was hugely traumatic for everyone in the ground that day. To literally play a part in crushing someone to death because you can't move is unimaginable but witnessing all that and the bodies being lined up and carried past must also have been awful as must the experience of the police. That's no reason to try and belittle what the Liverpool fans went through and if there is hypocrisy it's probably the media's fault.  It's certainly no reason to tell them to forget it all or be angry or resentful at Liverpool fans. That's my opinion anyway. 

 

 

 

 

[owler66]

I never post on a Hillsborough disaster thread,but I think it's time us as Wednesday fans stop being so precious that people are are slagging our ground off,because that drives much of the anamosity.

yes i've heard the stories ain't half of Sheffield,it was a f-uc up by SYP.

And guess what I'm a Sheffield Wednesday supporter who married a scouser,went to many a do sometimes in a Wednesday shirt and have never once felt it was my fault or the clubs.

 

[Paolo Di Catio]

20 hours ago, rickygoo said:

 

23: Turnstiles for 24,200 Liverpool supporters 
60: Turnstiles for 29,800 Nottingham Forest supporters 

 

Averaged out that's 1052 per turnstile for Liverpool, 497 per turnstile for Forest. The bigger mystery is why it hadn't happened before - although of course it had. The Coventry/Leeds semi kick off was delayed. A new match commander and good weather were the likely causes. Why stand on a poo poo terrace when you can sit in Hillsborough Park?

 

 

Can you explain this further?

[Dick_Turpin]

It's all in here:-

 

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/sites/default/files/Taylor Interim Report.pdf

 

From Taylor Report - it's from a PDF so formatting is a bit un-workable:-

 

By 2pm it was apparent to those inside the ground and those monitoring events in the police and Club control rooms that the number of Nottingham fans in their places greatly outnumbered those from Liverpool. The Kop and the south stand were filling up steadily, but the north and west stands were half empty. It was noted about that time that the turnstile figures showed only 12,000 had entered as against 20,000 at the same time the previous year. On the west terraces, although pens 3 and 4 were filling, the wing pens 1,2,6 and 7 were nearly empty. At 2.15 pm a Tannoy message asked fans in pens 3 and 4 to move forward and make room for others. 

 

That was important because later Taylor says:-

 

 

The decision to fill the whole of the north stand from the Leppings Lane end required the 23 turnstiles there to admit 24,256 spectators. Of those, the seven turnstiles (A to G) serving the terraces had to admit 10,100, ie an average of just under 1,450 through each turnstile. At the Penistone Road end, 29,800 were served by 60 turnstiles, or just under 500 per turnstile.

 

188. The Green Guide recognises (paragraph 47) that the rate at which spectators can pass through turnstiles depends on a variety of local circumstances but states "in general based on observation and experience, it is unlikely that the maximum notional rate per turnstile would exceed 750 per hour". Since the semi-final was an all ticket match requiring no cash transactions, the Club considered that a higher rate of about 1,000 per hour per turnstile could be expected. Even at this higher rate, which assumes the turnstiles working at maximum efficiency non-stop, it would have taken nearly 1 ft hours to admit all those with terrace tickets. At 750 per hour, it would have taken nearly two hours.

 

189. TheGreenGuideprovides(paragraph44):-

"Turnstiles should be of such numbers as to admit spectators at a rate whereby no unduly large crowds are kept waiting for admission...".

 

190. The Officer Working Party had discussed in 1985 the need, and Dr Eastwood's various schemes, for improvement of the turnstile arrangements. The mathematics are elementary. Both the police and the Club should have realised that the Leppings Lane turnstiles and the waiting area outside them would be under strain to admit all the Liverpool supporters in time. Success depended on the spectators arriving at a steady rate from an early hour and upon the maximum turnstile rate being maintained. In fact neither of these requirements, which are inter-linked, was fulfilled. That they might not be so was in my view foreseeable. 

 

The "Late" arrival of Liverpool Fans

191. Between 2.30pm and 2.40pm the crowd waiting for the turnstiles swelled to over 5,000 and became unmanageable. The case made for the police was that large numbers of Liverpool supporters arrived late; a high proportion of them were drunk and unco-operative; a high proportion had no tickets; all of them were hell-bent on getting in on time. They say this was unforeseeable and explains why they lost control.

 

192. Whether those who arrived between 2.30pm and 2.40pm were "late" was much debated. The ticket simply requested its holder "to take up [his] position 15 minutes before kick-off. That may have been intended to persuade those with stand tickets to take their seats, but it would not be unreasonable for a standing spectator to arrive at the turnstiles between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm. Whether they were "late" or not, however, there was certainly a large concentration of Liverpool fans arriving at about 2.30 pm and after. 

 

Fine Weather and Drinking

194. The likeliest explanations for the sparse Liverpool attendance in the ground before 2.30 pm were four- fold - the warm weather, drinking, disinclination to enter the ground early and prolong the standing, and a tendency of Liverpool supporters to cut it fine.

 

195. The police emphasised that at the1988 semi-final there was no comparable build-up of"late"arrivals. They claim, therefore, that they had no reason to foresee it in 1989. However, in 1988, although the weather was fine, it was 11 °F cooler than in 1989. 15 April was the sort of fine spring day which tempted fans to sit or stand about in the sun with a drink. If you had a ticket it would seem more pleasant and sensible to relax in that way than to enter the ground early and stand on the terrace for an extra hour. Pre-match entertainment in the ground had been advertised but did not take place. Even if it had, it may not have been an encouragement to many fans to enter so early. 

 

He goes on to consider drinking and ticketless fans in the succeeding paragraphs.

 

[bigthinrob]

2 hours ago, rickygoo said:

It's all in here:-

 

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/sites/default/files/Taylor Interim Report.pdf

 

From Taylor Report - it's from a PDF so formatting is a bit un-workable:-

 

By 2pm it was apparent to those inside the ground and those monitoring events in the police and Club control rooms that the number of Nottingham fans in their places greatly outnumbered those from Liverpool. The Kop and the south stand were filling up steadily, but the north and west stands were half empty. It was noted about that time that the turnstile figures showed only 12,000 had entered as against 20,000 at the same time the previous year. On the west terraces, although pens 3 and 4 were filling, the wing pens 1,2,6 and 7 were nearly empty. At 2.15 pm a Tannoy message asked fans in pens 3 and 4 to move forward and make room for others. 

 

That was important because later Taylor says:-

 

 

The decision to fill the whole of the north stand from the Leppings Lane end required the 23 turnstiles there to admit 24,256 spectators. Of those, the seven turnstiles (A to G) serving the terraces had to admit 10,100, ie an average of just under 1,450 through each turnstile. At the Penistone Road end, 29,800 were served by 60 turnstiles, or just under 500 per turnstile.

 

188. The Green Guide recognises (paragraph 47) that the rate at which spectators can pass through turnstiles depends on a variety of local circumstances but states "in general based on observation and experience, it is unlikely that the maximum notional rate per turnstile would exceed 750 per hour". Since the semi-final was an all ticket match requiring no cash transactions, the Club considered that a higher rate of about 1,000 per hour per turnstile could be expected. Even at this higher rate, which assumes the turnstiles working at maximum efficiency non-stop, it would have taken nearly 1 ft hours to admit all those with terrace tickets. At 750 per hour, it would have taken nearly two hours.

 

189. TheGreenGuideprovides(paragraph44):-

"Turnstiles should be of such numbers as to admit spectators at a rate whereby no unduly large crowds are kept waiting for admission...".

 

190. The Officer Working Party had discussed in 1985 the need, and Dr Eastwood's various schemes, for improvement of the turnstile arrangements. The mathematics are elementary. Both the police and the Club should have realised that the Leppings Lane turnstiles and the waiting area outside them would be under strain to admit all the Liverpool supporters in time. Success depended on the spectators arriving at a steady rate from an early hour and upon the maximum turnstile rate being maintained. In fact neither of these requirements, which are inter-linked, was fulfilled. That they might not be so was in my view foreseeable. 

 

The "Late" arrival of Liverpool Fans

191. Between 2.30pm and 2.40pm the crowd waiting for the turnstiles swelled to over 5,000 and became unmanageable. The case made for the police was that large numbers of Liverpool supporters arrived late; a high proportion of them were drunk and unco-operative; a high proportion had no tickets; all of them were hell-bent on getting in on time. They say this was unforeseeable and explains why they lost control.

 

192. Whether those who arrived between 2.30pm and 2.40pm were "late" was much debated. The ticket simply requested its holder "to take up [his] position 15 minutes before kick-off. That may have been intended to persuade those with stand tickets to take their seats, but it would not be unreasonable for a standing spectator to arrive at the turnstiles between 2.30 pm and 2.40 pm. Whether they were "late" or not, however, there was certainly a large concentration of Liverpool fans arriving at about 2.30 pm and after. 

 

Fine Weather and Drinking

194. The likeliest explanations for the sparse Liverpool attendance in the ground before 2.30 pm were four- fold - the warm weather, drinking, disinclination to enter the ground early and prolong the standing, and a tendency of Liverpool supporters to cut it fine.

 

195. The police emphasised that at the1988 semi-final there was no comparable build-up of"late"arrivals. They claim, therefore, that they had no reason to foresee it in 1989. However, in 1988, although the weather was fine, it was 11 °F cooler than in 1989. 15 April was the sort of fine spring day which tempted fans to sit or stand about in the sun with a drink. If you had a ticket it would seem more pleasant and sensible to relax in that way than to enter the ground early and stand on the terrace for an extra hour. Pre-match entertainment in the ground had been advertised but did not take place. Even if it had, it may not have been an encouragement to many fans to enter so early. 

 

He goes on to consider drinking and ticketless fans in the succeeding paragraphs.

 

I've had more than my fair share of run ins with RG (all conducted 'relatively' amicably i might add), but i think it is somewhat unfair to neg someone for merely copying and pasting a document that is clearly factual.

 

I would suggest it is opinions that are fair game for 'reputation' plusses or minus's, but not factual material that doesn't contain any direct opinion of the poster.

 

I've therefore redressed the balance, not because i have an opinion on the 'post', but as stated above.

 

 

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

3 hours ago, bigthinrob said:

I've had more than my fair share of run ins with RG (all conducted 'relatively' amicably i might add), but i think it is somewhat unfair to neg someone for merely copying and pasting a document that is clearly factual.

 

I would suggest it is opinions that are fair game for 'reputation' plusses or minus's, but not factual material that doesn't contain any direct opinion of the poster.

 

I've therefore redressed the balance, not because i have an opinion on the 'post', but as stated above.

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto - OWL2D2 obviously isn't a fan of me or Peter Taylor - or you as it happens!