Hillsborough Disaster:The truth at last

[cullennz]

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]

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]

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/stati...1-to-99-for-total-income-before-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]

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]

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]

Link here to see where I get the figures from;



https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...1-to-99-for-total-income-before-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]

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;

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

he is guilty of manslaughter

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

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]

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

Which I accepted in the post above.

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.