GRcade

But that's how the hierarchy of responsibility works. Of course no one thinks he deliberately went out to think 'Damn I'd love to ruin 96 scousers today it'd be hilarious', but when you reach a certain level of management you become the guy at whose feet the buck stops. Of course he was in a terrible situation that was rapidly deteriorating and (presumably) unprecedented to a point that he basically had no point of reference, but making decisions in those situations is why he was given that job and presumably making more money than your average bobby on the beat.

And they didn't just say 'You made a wrong decision so now you're in prison', the jury, over the course of strawberry floating forever (or however long this has been going on for) established that his decision making was wrong to the point of representing negligence. It wasn't like he made sensible decisions that, unfortunately, with hindsight, didn't work out. The evidence suggests that he waited too long and then made decisions that actively caused more harm than good that a man in his position should have foreseen.

I accept that they represent negligence.

Who here has been in that position, out of his depth, situation going to gooseberry fool and having to make decisions in minutes that will be analysed for years. Yes he waited and yes he made bad calls but to say just because he was paid better means he is infallible is ridiculous. That events of that day had never happened before and so no one was prepared for it. It could have been anyone in charge that day and the outcome may have been the same.

I guess it's hard for me because it represents my greatest fear. Being criminalised for simply doing my job. It's a risk I run every single day and few other jobs carry similar burdens.

I know that one way or another every day could be my last.

Trying to do the right thing doesn't always lead to the right thing being done.

This thread will end well.

Glad to see what we have all known for a long time come to be confirmed.

Minto wrote:This thread will end well.

Glad to see what we have all known for a long time come to be confirmed.

Saddened at how we still have bickering. Having said that, compared to the past Hillsborough threads (which are vile), this is positive on the whole.

The Rag is the only paper that doesn't mention the inquest on its front page. Blatant.

I never said he was infallible, I'm saying that his job was to make hard choices under tough conditions (and that, likely, his pay reflected that). If the choices that he made under those tough conditions were a)wrong, b) led to the deaths of nearly 100 people which were c) more than just unavoidable and should have been preventable with better management that a person in his position should have been capable of then those failures are appropriately punishable.

I teach science, I have (a few) knobhead teenagers using chemicals that can kill or seriously injure them or those around them. I never go into work hoping or aiming for those students to hurt each other, but sometimes they do (again; knobheads). If they do so because of the sheer nature of them being knobheads, and I did everything in my power to prevent that, then I would (likely) not face any action. I had a kid burn himself with acid, but nothing happened (to me) because the kid was doing something I could evidence he'd been specifically told not to do. However, should a kid injure himself and it was demonstrable that I, in my position of teacher, hadn't done enough to communicate the danger, control the classroom etc etc and that directly contributed to the kid being hurt then I would (rightly) face action.

Being a police officer is hard, being a senior police officer is harder. If you can't face it then you shouldn't be one. If you do so and you get it wrong to a degree that you should have been able to handle then there's not much of a defence.

Tom Newton Dunn (The Sun) having a torrid time over this on Sky News at the moment. 'The worst mistake we ever made; the worst thing we've ever done.'

I don't think it's up to the current staff to apologise though, it's up to Kelvin McAnzie and the people on the paper at the time, which I believe he has done.

Not a peep about it on the front page of tomorrow's Sun

KK wrote:Tom Newton Dunn (The Sun) having a torrid time over this on Sky News at the moment. 'The worst mistake we ever made; the worst thing we've ever done.'

I don't think it's up to the current staff to apologise though, it's up to Kelvin McAnzie and the people on the paper at the time, which I believe he has done.

bear wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Is there any reason to read any newspaper? Picking on The Sun seems odd considering it is just as bad as all the others.

Just as bad?

twitter.com/scouser_andy/status/658176994882879488

They are in a league of their own when it comes to outright cuntery.

None of them give a flying strawberry float.

They've issued an apology in their editorial tomorrow, apparently. I don't think The Times has it either, so it may be a very high-up decision.

They have done a front page apology in the past though.

I do find it odd Kelvin McAnzie is still employed by The Sun as a columnist, making him the only remaining staff member from that period. I don't understand why they do - he moved to the Daily Mail for a while, and Sky News stopped having him on the press preview because everyone hates him.

"I was not sorry then and I'm not sorry now," Mr MacKenzie told his audience. "All I did wrong there was [to] tell the truth."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/mackenzies-hillsborough-the-sun-told-the-truth-426674.html

Question Time host David Dimbleby raised the issue during last night's programme.

He asked MacKenzie: "When you were editor of the Sun you've said you apologised to Liverpool because you were told to by Murdoch and you didn't mean it."

"That's true", replied MacKenzie.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jan/12/broadcasting.pressandpublishing

Ex-Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie wants an apology from police, arguing their Hillsborough lies led him to publish his notorious The Truth front page.

In a move that has infuriated the families of some of those who died, the former tabloid boss has told his solicitors to write to South Yorkshire Police demanding they say sorry.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/former-sun-editor-kelvin-mackenzie-1344852

He is an awful human being.

KK wrote:Tom Newton Dunn (The Sun) having a torrid time over this on Sky News at the moment. 'The worst mistake we ever made; the worst thing we've ever done.'

I don't think it's up to the current staff to apologise though, it's up to Kelvin McAnzie and the people on the paper at the time, which I believe he has done.

Mackenzie apologised and then retracted the apology shortly after.

Just thinking about that lizard makes my blood boil. I honestly wish he'd just strawberry floating die.

Doesn't he still work for the Sun?

I think the real horror of today is that this demonstrates what it takes to uncover police corruption. A quarter of a century, millions of pounds and hundreds of people who just won't give up on trying to uncover the truth.

How many other instances of corruption are there where it's just not possible for the public to uncover the truth?

The Times have no mention of this on their front page either. Some of their writers are less than pleased.

twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320

twitter.com/OliverKayTimes/status/725079795818717185

Barrett should resign.

Shadow wrote:I think the real horror of today is that this demonstrates what it takes to uncover police corruption. A quarter of a century, millions of pounds and hundreds of people who just won't give up on trying to uncover the truth.

How many other instances of corruption are there where it's just not possible for the public to uncover the truth?

Reminds me of the reaction after the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Took so long to figure out what happened.

bear wrote:The Times have no mention of this on their front page either. Some of their writers are less than pleased.

twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320

twitter.com/OliverKayTimes/status/725079795818717185

May be a decision that's been made by those right at the top of News International and passed down. To not even be given a small box somewhere is highly unusual. Murdoch doesn't tend to interfere that much with The Times; it's why 'The Times of London' is still renown worldwide. Shame.

Will have to see how much prominence it has been given within the paper. The Sun have given it 2 pages and an editorial comment.

The Times do a digital only "Ireland Edition" over here. Anyone want to guess what takes up almost half the front page?

http://buzz.ie/wednesdays-newspaper-front-pages-5/

They've let themselves down badly with that shite.

twitter.com/TimesPictures/status/725104360590598144

Wonder why they changed it? Internal or external pressure?

Was at work following the coverage to this when the decisions were announced and found myself getting quite emotional over it. Brilliant news. Nothing can be done to erase the past for the families of the 96 but to have this outcome after 27 years must be incredibly overwhelming.

The real tragedy is obviously Sir Philip Green's knighthood being at risk.

For me, the result wasn't a surprise. Whilst I am biased as I am a working class Northern football fan, I always felt that there was a blatant effort by establishment figures to paint those at the game as thugs or hooligans.

From what I understand of the 80s, the cover up was typical of authority figures disregard to football fans and the working class in general - often seen as loutish, unruly and prone to violence.

However even if we disregard that the Liverpool fans were blameless, IF the crowd had been drunk and rowdy, it was STILL the police's duty to ensure the safety of those attending the event. That is why we have them there, and if those in charge are incapable of handling large numbers of people - drunk or sober, orderly or in a scramble - then they shouldn't be given that responsibility. Those in charge should be able to handle such circumstances, even IF the crowd was drunk.

But we obviously know that the fans themselves weren't the baying mob some tried to portray them as, which makes it even more of a tragedy. They were simply fans going to watch sport and it's beyond scandalous that people tried to portray these people as anything but football fans out for the day.

It may just be the chip on my shoulder, but had this happened at a ground in London, or at Twickenham or Lords, we wouldn't have seen such slurs happen, or waited so long for the truth.