Jeez, IJGrieve, and people complain about me quoting people instead of presenting my own arguments!
That’s a rather dishonest tactic. We aren’t “discarding” any evidence; how can we discard it if it has not been presented? I think that it is quite clear that implicit in all of our conclusion, there is the qualifier “based on what Biffer Spice has said, this is what we think about the event”. If Biffer Spice has been unable to explain why the fans are not at fault, that is her (his?) fault, not ours. You seems to be implying that since we do not have perfect knowledge, we should reserve judgement. Well, we’ll never have perfect knowledge, no one will ever have perfect knowledge, and that’s just not a legitimate criterion. Part of debate is convincing people that they are wrong by presenting evidence that disagrees with their conclusions, not simply declaring that this evidence exists, therefore they’re wrong.
There is a case at the moment that a little girl went to the dentists and died under anaesthetic. There were complications when coming round, and she allegedly died from a build-up of blood, tooth fragments, etc in her throat. The anaesthetist and dentist are being tried for manslaughter for providing an insufficient level of care. The anaesthetist did not weigh her and perform other preliminary checks before applying the anaesthetic, and also walked out of the room before the girl had come round. I can try and find a cite for this if anyone needs it, but it’s a current case, and I don’t know how successful it will be. It doesn’t matter. It can be taken as fact or fiction. The point is, should they be found guilty? I’m assuming you’ll think so.
They did not directly kill the girl. Their incompetence killed the girl. Their lack of action when action was most needed, their failure to abide by the rules created to look out for the girl’s safety, their irresponsible attitudes killed the girl. They counted on the girl coming round with no problems. They counted on the fact that nothing would go wrong.
At Hillsborough, the police force are there for several reasons. The main two are:
to prevent trouble between opposing fans
to ensure the safety of the fans by controlling the flow of the fans before, during and after the game.
They too counted on the fact that nothing would go wrong. Fans are advised to arrive half an hour before the game starts. The police have subsequently criticised the fans for arriving half an hour before the game started, saying it was too late for such a large number of fans to arrive. The fact is, the stadium was outdated, guidelines and recommendations had been ignored, and unless the crowd arrived in a steady stream throughout the day, the police were powerless to do anything. The number of mistakes made during that day showed the incompetence and lack of preparation of the police force. Their duty was to regulate the flow of fans, and their inability to do so is why those fans died. The fans were not violent, by the time people realised what was wrong, they were not able to move themselves out of the crush. People asking “why move forwards when there’s nowhere to go” are missing the point. They didn’t know there was nowhere to go, and by the time they did, they were powerless to avoid being swept into the pens.
Unbelievable. From a site designed to fight ignorance, there’s certainly a lot being displayed on this thread. Should the fans be able to see if the pens are already full, even if they can’t see the pens? Or is that the responsibility of the police, whose job was crowd control, ie controlling the flow of the crowd, cordoning off sections of terracing already full, etc? Have you ever witnessed the flow of a crowd? Confine that to a small setting, maybe a tunnel, and do you think that anyone in that tunnel can suddenly turn round and go back the other way? And you blame the fans? The problem is, the flow of the crowd, while very powerful, is also predictable. Especially to police charged with the responsibility of crowd control, who should be experts. If a bottleneck is the predictable result when thousands of people have to get through 7 turnstiles, then the police should introduce certain measures. There was no violence. There was no fighting. These were all supporters of the same team. It was a predictable outcome which the police failed to predict, and that lack of prediction is the reason the tragedy occurred. The way the crowd behaved is the way crowds behave at matches throughout the country throughout the year. Yet on this occasion 96 people died. The reason cannot be the fans, because fans would die consistently if that were the case. They do not.
The immediate cause of the Disaster was the failure to cut off access to the central pens once gate C had been opened. This caused the overcrowding which led to the Disaster.
The central pens (3 and 4) were already overfull because there was no numerical control of entry nor any effective visual monitoring of crowd density.
Under the strain of overcrowding in Pen 3, a barrier collapsed, exacerbated by what Taylor referred to as the “sluggish reaction and response when the crush occurred”. Lack of leadership and the small size and number of gates in the perimeter fencing hindered rescue attempts.
Gate C, an ‘exit’ gate between the inner concourse and the outside, was opened by the police because of the dangerous congestion at the turnstiles. There was no recognition, either by the club or the police, that unless fans arrived steadily over a long, drawn-out period the turnstiles would not be capable of coping with the large numbers involved. This was made worse by the fact that the operational order and police tactics did not consider the possibility of a large concentration of late arrivals. This situation, according to Taylor, was made worse by a drunken minority and the club’s confused and inadequate signs and ticketing.
[bolding mine]
OK, we have a dangerous situation that was made worse by a minority.
But there was a situation to begin with.
The site linked above is pretty good, with criticisms of the Taylor report included.
It does explain the situation very well.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, look before you leap.
By linking the deaths of these fans to crowd violence. The press made the same link early on, due to LIES (no other word for it) circulated by the police whose incompetence killed their loved ones. It is a stigma the relatives have been fighting to free themselves from ever since. They have, so far, not got the justice they have been fighting for for over a decade, and now a “documentary” on a global-selling DVD is making a definite and misleading connection between Hillsborough and violence in sport, in effect they are saying that the people who were there, both causing the violence, and dying from the violence, were hooligans and troublemakers. 1 second? one still photograph? If a loved one of yours (maybe your 10-year old son, maybe your brother, maybe your daughter, etc) died in horrific circumstances, caused by the negligence of others, and then an actual photograph of the scene was put on a global-selling DVD, linking their death with violence and hooliganism, would you think “Ah well, it’s only 1 photograph, it only lasts a second. I’ll fast forward over it next time”? That kind of crass insensitivity amazes me.
Hooliganism is prevalent in South American football, as was the case in England in the 70’s and early 80’s. It is certainly overstated now. Hooliganism in England is very much a thing of the past (it still exists in a certain form, but any violence takes place between the people who want it, and in places far away from the grounds. Violence in stadiums is very rare in England, and is more commonly found in Italy, Turkey and South America. Soccer fans are, by and large, very well behaved, as was the case here. So there you go, I am informing you that this level over coverage IS grossly overstated, and English soccer fans are actually among the most well-behaved to be found.
Rubbish. That is wrong. Ever been caught up in a crowd? No violence, just in a large crowd in a small area? All moving in one direction? If so, and you think you have free will about where you end up, you’re mistaken or you’re Shacquille O’Neal.
So how does this tie in with the fighting at Maine Road last saturday in the Man City vs Coventry game? It is much less prevalent, but still happens.
One key point: many of the fans who turned up for this game had no tickets (all tickets had been sold). They must share some of the blame.
I think I’m not the only person in the UK who feels that after this tragic event (yes there was poor handling of the situation), many of the victims relatives could not and have not accepted that the events which caused this accident were human stupidity (the fans) and poor judgement by the police. It appears they still want someone to hang (metaphorically) for what they see was a crime and will not accept that it was mistakes and human errors which cost lives.
No, but even the smallest amount of common sense tells you that if the crowd isn’t moving, it’s because there’s no place to go. It’s really not that difficult a conclusion to come to.
Were the police negligent? No doubt that they were. Is the crowd at the back who kept pushing, without any consideration of human life, just to see a goddamned game, completely free of responsibility? Not a chance in hell.
Thanks for the generalisations.
I’m not one for Pit culture really, but who is the arrogant fuck here? I know this is an emotive issue, so I’ll assume you made that comment without really thinking it through.
It’s not hard to come up with comments like that. For example
See?
If some posters offended a nation, you just embarrased it.
I wonder if some of the American posters are under a misapprehension about how stadiums in the UK worked at that time.
This was not a seated arena, it was a large open standing room only terrace running the width of the pitch and divided into two (or was it three) ‘pens’. The pens (fenced in areas) ran from the bottom of the terrace to the top – effectively three boxed areas, stepped and also with crash barriers positioned periodically within each pen to prevent those at the top crushing those further down during the games more exciting moments. That arrangement was a version of what every soccer stadium in the country was like – then.
When you entered a stadium, you walked up to the top of the terrace and then down it again to watch the game. The dynamics of a crowd standing shoulder to shoulder (whether it’s on a train, tube – those guys in Tokyo employed to push people further down a train carriage ?) mean that the existing crowd generally displaces itself more tightly as more people try to join because people tend to preserve the space around them while they can.
All of that was standard acceptable practice both for the police and the soccer watching public – in fact, standing tightly packed in that way was an integral part of the whole tradition. And I mean ‘tightly packed’ in the sense that I-can-hardly-breathe-my-feet-aren’t-touching-the-floor (there are many examples, for example, of people who fainted being passed over the heads of the crowd to the front)
However, it was never possible to know how crowded any particular pen was because you could never see (either walking into the stadium or from the top of the terrace looking down over the heads of those below you) how dense the crowd was below.
The people at the back at Hillsborough pushed down as soccer crowds always had done, expecting the existing crowd to displace itself more tightly. One of the difference’s on this occasion was that the police weren’t there to marshal / funnel the arriving crowd into less crowded pens so everyone just headed for the nearest. There was no way for them to know just how crowded that particular pen had become.
As a direct result of Hillsborough, all-seater stadia were mandated in the top league of English soccer
The events of Hillsboro’ were a tragedy for all British football fans, resulting in the deaths of 96 people who went to watch a game of football.
It had nothing to do with violence, the Liverpool fans were a credit in the way they tried to deal with the disaster as it happened.
This is still a VERY emotive subject to all British football fans and regardless of whatever opinions people may have, using footage is disrespectful and is a major blunder. Think about it, would you like to see a DVD that included footage of an event that depicted an American tragedy - these are real families!!
Hopefully it is a unwitting mistake, please sort it out!!
[look of dumbfounded disbelief]
You mean that mosh pits are this hallowed tradition you guys are talking about? Sorry, but general human stupidity is still the causative factor. There seems to be plenty of blame to spread around.
[/look of dumbfounded disbelief]
Glad the league is coming to its senses. And that DVD would not be damaged by the excision of the offensive seconds.
The reason the police were at fault at Hillsborough was not just that they failed to control the crowd properly, but that they opened a gate which should have been kept closed, which was never intended to be used as an entrance to the Stadium, in order to admit a large crowd of people who had gathered outside, some of whom had tickets and some of whom did not.
The crowd was then disgorged very quickly into pens which were already full. Anybody who thinks that any individual person in that crowd could have stopped it from going forwards once it got going has obviously never been in a crowd of that kind.
The thing is, the crowd dynamics at Hillsborough were not that different from crowd dyamics in general. I have seen very similar things happen in Tube stations; where the gate leading to a platform has had to be closed because the influx of people onto the platform was threatening to push those people already there off the edge. It’s a regular occurrence at Camden Town, for example, and at West End stations like Leicester Square during peak tourist season. If an LU employee were to open one of those gates, no doubt a similar situation would arise. And these are not drunken football fans, but commuters travelling home from work.
A few weeks after the Hillsborough disaster, a piece of graffiti appeared in a prominent position on a main road a mile or so from the Ground which said “Police were not 100% to blame”. It stayed there for a number of years without being removed or defaced and I think it probably sums up the way many people in Sheffield feel about it.
Many Liverpudlians, on the other hand (Phil Scraton, who is referred to in the OP, included) seem to take the view that it was entirely the police’s fault and that it was incumbent upon them to anticipate the kind of crowd behaviour which actually occurred. This may sound absurd, but in the context of the known behaviour of English football crowds at the time it makes some kind of sense.
What happened at Hillsborough was down to a number of causes, inlcuding:
[list]
[li]the installation of the pens in the first place which was, in turn, a response to fans’ beahviour over a number of years;[/li][li]the decision to send the Liverpool fans roud to the Leppings Lane end of the ground, which appears to have been a simple mistake (Leppings Lane was the opposite end from the direction most Liverpool fans were coming from);[/li][li]the late arrival of a large number of Liverpool fans, some of whom did not have tickets and some of whom were drunk; and[/li]the decision to open the gate.
It is difficult to understand the culture of that time if you weren’t exposed to it.
Thing is: soccer came out of a very strong working-class (as it was once called) tradition. Almost entirely male, very tribal, very boisterous. Stadiums had always been predominately without seats so working people could afford to watch the game – no point in having a stadium full of empty seats. Going way back, working men weren’t used to ‘luxuries’ like decent toilet facilities, seats, etc. and for most of the 20th century, the men on the soccer terraces were the same people who learned group discipline by service as foot soldiers in the world wars. There was a group ethos that permeated down to their sons.
Out of all of that came incredible passion – any non-Briton who ever played in the English league would say they’ve never experienced anything like the noise and the general spectacle. The crowd played a vital role in intimidating the opposition so their team had an edge. Also, the stands came right down to the pitch side (like 6’ away) so people were screaming at you from extremely close – I said it was tribal. People, generally, liked the tradition of standing, the tribal-ness and the spectacle – a very masculine thing and even a kind of a passage of rites for the sons.
Hiilsborough wasn’t the first time this had happened – Ibrox Park is another example – but the timing of Hillborough (a more affluent society) meant that the money was there to rebuild the stadiums and, also, working-class people could better afford the financial costs associated with a seated stadium. The ‘tribal’ and traditional aspects were also overtaken by the need to prevent Hillsborough happening again.
I freely admit the description of viewing conditions is unlike anything I have experienced in the US. Following the Cincinnati Who concert someone else referred to (hmmm, should we investigate the British link? JK!) certain actions were taken to ban “festival” seating (no reserved seats, large areas of standing room).
I’ve been in some large crowds, most notably at rock concerts. But nothing to equate with what apparently was accepted as common, if not desired practice at soccer stadia. Perhaps that aspect of your culture will have to remain as baffling to us Yanks as cricket and rhyming slang.
[guy personality]
Okay, it sounds kinda cool.
[/guy personality]
[disapproving parent personality]
But that still doesn’t make it any less stupid.
[/disapproving parent personality]
Thanks for being your usual intermediary, peacemaking, explaining the vagaries of British life self, LC. I assume the folks at The Learning Channel probably regret having used that footage. (I also assume the folks who made “Gladiator” are incapable of any such introspection.)
Scratch, I feel that you’re going to hate that I’ve quoted you here, but I vehemently agree- and wish to add to your thoughts.
There is no such thing as a true documentary of an event. One aims a camera, and records only what the lens sees. While that limits the truth of coverage on an overall event like this tragedy, it doesn’t alter the verisimilitude of what the camera captures.
The studio that released “Gladiator” is capitalizing on the tragedy. They’re so far removed, that it’s a bit like saying, " those bastards, my grandfather fell to his death from the Hindenberg, how can the History Channel DARE to show that heartrending footage endlessly?".
The Maysles Brothers didn’t know they would be filming a murder when they shot the Altamont Concert with the Rolling Stones. It happened in front of a camera that was turned on. Are they ghouls? Nope. Nor were they, for including the footage in the final cut. It was an unplanned moment, that just happened to define so much in terms of that time, that place, that crowd, the Stones and the Angels.
I’d not even indict the Learning Channel here. I’d be focusing my anger ( were I emotionally involved ) on the alledgedly destroyed evidence. THIS kind of thing is an atrocity, the cover-ups. The lying. If proven, I’d hope the officers would pay dearly.
And, mob mentality is- as pointed out here- a singular thing. You can’t lay blame at the lines closest to the door, or anything like that. When the numbers get big enough, people do indeed respond with animal-like adrenaline, moving en masse.
I’m sorry for those who had to suffer such a tragedy, but placing blame on a movie studio, or a television network is too easy. Blame the irresponsible lack of planning on mass crowd control that led to the tragedy.
( There was a spot here for a huge Hijack on the topic of people committing acts, or speaking word ONLY because a camera is aimed at them. Interesting G.D. thread, but that isn’t what happened here.)
