Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on April 27, 2016, 06:55:16 AM
-
Now that the jury has pronounced its verdicts, I wonder whether there is a case for the FA to answer. Over the years, it has become clear that the stadium was in a poor condition at that time. Without dismissing or minimising the negligence issues on the police's part on the day, is there a case to argue that, by choosing Hillsborough over any of the other traditional semi-final venues, the FA were - at least in part - responsible for the situation that occurred?
Has this actually ever been suggested?
-
Now that the jury has pronounced its verdicts, I wonder whether there is a case for the FA to answer. Over the years, it has become clear that the stadium was in a poor condition at that time. Without dismissing or minimising the negligence issues on the police's part on the day, is there a case to argue that, by choosing Hillsborough over any of the other traditional semi-final venues, the FA were - at least in part - responsible for the situation that occurred?
Has this actually ever been suggested?
I'm sure that a lot of people were negligent, but even more serious is the major cover-up and misinformation that came from senior police figures.
-
Now that the jury has pronounced its verdicts, I wonder whether there is a case for the FA to answer. Over the years, it has become clear that the stadium was in a poor condition at that time. Without dismissing or minimising the negligence issues on the police's part on the day, is there a case to argue that, by choosing Hillsborough over any of the other traditional semi-final venues, the FA were - at least in part - responsible for the situation that occurred?
Has this actually ever been suggested?
The case against the police seems to based on who was directing the fans and where that who directed them to. On the other hand the judgment of the court limits this responsibility.
I would imagine any attempt to widen the scope is an attempt to overturn the judgment of this court.
-
There have been serious criticisms of the FA. For example, they were asked by Liverpool to switch the game to another ground, because of previous problems. In fact, there had been a game in 1988, where crushing was experienced by fans, some of whom complained. Of course, the response was a magisterial silence by the FA.
Also relevant is the fact that the ground didn't have a valid safety certificate. You would think that the FA would have led an investigation into what happened, but I guess, they couldn't care less, and were quite content that fans were blamed, and after all, where's the money in it?
-
The lies shocked me. Until Hillsborough I was so naive in trusting the authorities. The greatest betrayal was of those involved and their families and friends, but it was also a betrayal of the trust that we all have no option but to have in those who are supposed to keep us safe.
-
Now that the jury has pronounced its verdicts, I wonder whether there is a case for the FA to answer. Over the years, it has become clear that the stadium was in a poor condition at that time. Without dismissing or minimising the negligence issues on the police's part on the day, is there a case to argue that, by choosing Hillsborough over any of the other traditional semi-final venues, the FA were - at least in part - responsible for the situation that occurred?
Has this actually ever been suggested?
Hillsborough was a 'traditional' semi final venue and I'm not sure other possible stadiums were markedly safer at the time. By the late 1980s most stadiums, even at the top clubs, were crumbling and really relics of decades previously.
-
The lies shocked me. Until Hillsborough I was so naive in trusting the authorities. The greatest betrayal was of those involved and their families and friends, but it was also a betrayal of the trust that we all have no option but to have in those who are supposed to keep us safe.
I agree. Hillsborough had a huge effect on me for all sorts of reasons.
-
There have been serious criticisms of the FA. For example, they were asked by Liverpool to switch the game to another ground, because of previous problems. In fact, there had been a game in 1988, where crushing was experienced by fans, some of whom complained. Of course, the response was a magisterial silence by the FA.
Also relevant is the fact that the ground didn't have a valid safety certificate. You would think that the FA would have led an investigation into what happened, but I guess, they couldn't care less, and were quite happy that fans were blamed, and after all, where's the money in it?
That is all true, but I we know this because of the inquest. How many other stadiums at the time had the same problems - while I have no idea about the safety certificate situation for other stadiums, serious crushing incidents (fortunately not quite as bad as those in 1989) were pretty common at grounds and leading into and out of grounds, because the design and the stewarding was inadequate. I've been in crowds around that kind of time that scared me, those I remember most being times at Stanford Bridge and the old Highbury.
-
The lies shocked me. Until Hillsborough I was so naive in trusting the authorities. The greatest betrayal was of those involved and their families and friends, but it was also a betrayal of the trust that we all have no option but to have in those who are supposed to keep us safe.
They weren't just lies, they were official lies - that is the really scary part.
-
That is all true, but I we know this because of the inquest. How many other stadiums at the time had the same problems - while I have no idea about the safety certificate situation for other stadiums, serious crushing incidents (fortunately not quite as bad as those in 1989) were pretty common at grounds and leading into and out of grounds, because the design and the stewarding was inadequate. I've been in crowds around that kind of time that scared me, those I remember most being times at Stanford Bridge and the old Highbury.
Yes, I remember scary times, when people in the crowd joked that if you lifted your feet up, the crowd would carry you along anyway. Not very funny.
Well, the jury weren't asked to comment on the FA, probably for reasons you have given. But there is a strong sense of them looking the other way.
-
Well, the jury weren't asked to comment on the FA, probably for reasons you have given. But there is a strong sense of them looking the other way.
I disagree. There were several factors that contributed to the tragedy. Most of the ones that the FA had any control over were dealt with years ago. For example, go to a football ground now and you won't see fences separating the crowd from the pitch. They were taken down years ago, partly in response to Hillsborough.