The Hillsborough Disaster Files

[Famine]

5,000 people were walking somewhere where they shouldn't but were doing so because the police opened the gate and allowed them to do so.

The people at the front were then unable to turn around due to the inertia of the people behind them

Surely they'd need to do so with some force to generate the pressure required to crush other humans to death though. In my experience of crowds, people stop walking when they can walk no more and people at the back don't continue to force their way forwards - if they did, every Tube station would be a sea of mangled bodies in rush hour.

Once you've absolved the fans of any blame - particularly of the Sun's allegation of drunk fans without tickets forcing their way in - you're only left with someone or something compelling thousands of people to surge forward regardless of the crowd ahead.

I'm not sure we'll ever learn what that was - which is odd given how many witnesses there were.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Kettling or charging with horses would do it.

Again, why? And how do you explain the way those five thousand fans all made for the open gate in an apparently-ordered manner instead of dispersing?

But again, that would lead to some blame on the fans. 5000 people walking where they shouldn't, on purpose, sounds blameworthy to me.

There are theories in psychology that suggest that when large groups of people converge, individuals tend to lose their agency and start to behave as an extension of the mob. The larger the mob gets, the less power those at the periphery have to resist it. You can't blame any one person for it, because the mob takes on a life of its own and dissipates on its own time.

 

[Famine]

Again, why?

It was routine at the time, thanks to rampant hooliganism. You might want to look up how bad it was at the time. It was called the English Disease - though obviously there was no hooliganism at play at Hillsborough...

And how do you explain the way those five thousand fans all made for the open gate in an apparently-ordered manner instead of dispersing?

Well... the use of horses and kettling are police tactics intended to keep an unruly crowd where you want them and can control them, but that aside...

There are theories in psychology that suggest that when large groups of people converge, individuals tend to lose their agency and start to behave as an extension of the mob. The larger the mob gets, the less power those at the periphery have to resist it. You can't blame any one person for it, because the mob takes on a life of its own and dissipates on its own time.

That's all week and good, but the inquest says that the fans can shoulder no blame here. Even suggesting that a mob was culpable is enough to get you onto the same shortlist as a Sun journalist...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's all week and good, but the inquest says that the fans can shoulder no blame here. Even suggesting that a mob was culpable is enough to get you onto the same shortlist as a Sun journalist...

When did you stop reading posts in their entirety? My post made it pretty clear that the theory suggests no one individual in a mob can be held accountable for the actions of the mob. The mob itself takes on a life of its own, effectively acting like a hive mind with no one being controlling it. Once the mob dissipates, the entity that existed in its place is gone for good.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Surely they'd need to do so with some force to generate the pressure required to crush other humans to death though. In my experience of crowds, people stop walking when they can walk no more and people at the back don't continue to force their way forwards - if they did, every Tube station would be a sea of mangled bodies in rush hour.

Tube stations aren't funnels though, look at the scenes of most mass-crush events and you'll find a funnel effect.

you're only left with someone or something compelling thousands of people to surge forward regardless of the crowd ahead.

I'm not sure we'll ever learn what that was - which is odd given how many witnesses there were.

I thought we had learned what that was; an important FA Cup Soccerballing Semi-Final attending by lots of fans from both teams. Time was tight and SY Police had already rejected the idea of a delayed kick-off. That was the reason for the urgency in the crowd - they'd paid to see a big match and many were running late due to the limited number of entrances to the ground. They didn't know what lay ahead, there was no reason in any fan's experience to expect what was happening to be happening.

 

[Famine]

When did you stop reading posts in their entirety?

Right back at you:

That's all well and good, but the inquest says that the fans can shoulder no blame here. Even suggesting that a mob was culpable is enough to get you onto the same shortlist as a Sun journalist...

My post made it pretty clear that the theory suggests no one individual in a mob can be held accountable for the actions of the mob. The mob itself takes on a life of its own, effectively acting like a hive mind with no one being controlling it. Once the mob dissipates, the entity that existed in its place is gone for good.

I didn't say anything about individual fans. It looks like you're blaming a mob of Liverpool fans - like the Sun did. The inquest says they cannot be blamed.

I thought we had learned what that was; an important FA Cup Soccerballing Semi-Final attending by lots of fans from both teams. Time was tight and SY Police had already rejected the idea of a delayed kick-off. That was the reason for the urgency in the crowd - they'd paid to see a big match

Are you suggesting that the fans desperately wanted to be in the ground and, without any external force, surged in and crushed nearly 100 of their peers and friends?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are you suggesting that the fans desperately wanted to be in the ground and, without any external force, surged in and crushed nearly 100 of their peers and friends?

Are you suggesting that this is somehow less likely than police mounting a cavalry charge to force five thousand people into the stadium for no apparent reason and that those five thousand people walked in in an ordered manner despite attempts to disperse them?

Putting that aside for a moment, you have suggested that someone or something forced or otherwise coerced the people into the stadium. How, then, is it possible that nobody has testified to this?

 

[Famine]

Are you suggesting that this is somehow less likely than police mounting a cavalry charge to force five thousand people into the stadium for no apparent reason and that those five thousand people walked in in an ordered manner despite attempts to disperse them?

More that some external force of some kind forced people indigo with so much speed that they ended up crushing nearly a hundred people to death.

That's more likely than your version of a mob of Liverpool fans going where they shouldn't on purpose, because the inquiry said your version categorically did not happen.

Putting that aside for a moment, you have suggested that someone or something forced or otherwise coerced the people into the stadium. How, then, is it possible that nobody has testified to this?

As I said earlier, I find that odd too - but since we know it wasn't anything to do with the fans, and certainly nothing to do with drunk hooligans forcing their way in as per the scurrilous allegations from the Sun, what else remains?

The verdict yesterday said that the stadium design, Sheffield Wednesday FC, the South Yorkshire Police and the ambulance service were all to blame for their parts in the disaster, but absolutely no blame could be placed at the feet of the innocent Liverpool fans inside or outside the stadium.

So what forced them in?

 

[Stotty]

the subsequent version of events put out by South Yorkshire Police has been found unreliable

Not only did the Police lie about their role at the time and the actions of the fans, but they subsequently destroyed and changed evidence, and then lied again (including pressurising witnesses in to changing their statements) in the following investigation.

And you use the term 'unreliable'

That's not quite true. The West Stand of Hillsborough had a capacity of 10,000 and there were 5,000 fans already inside the ground by 2:45. The police opened Gate C to alleviate the pressure outside the ground because there was another 5,000 fans still trying to get in via too few turnstiles (Liverpool had 20 whilst Forest had 60) and turnstiles which were dilapidated and not fit-for-purpose even in 1989.

A significant factor is that the 5,000 fans still outside the ground came as one large hoard rather than a continuous, but steady, stream. This is what the police were not prepared for and ultimately lost control over by opening a Gate which led to two individual pens which were already at full capacity with no staff or police to direct fans to safer areas.

This.

The FA surely have to take some blame for using stadiums without valid safety certificates? And this is to explicitly disregard any rose tinted idea that that was how it was at the time and Hillsborough probably wasn't the only major stadium with an expired safety certificate and that is how football culture was.

The same nearly happened to Spurs fans at the 1981 FA semi. Even without the **** policing, Hillsborough simply wasn't fit for purpose.

 

[Famine]

Not only did the Police lie about their role at the time and the actions of the fans, but they subsequently destroyed and changed evidence, and then lied again (including pressurising witnesses in to changing their statements) in the following investigation.

And you use the term 'unreliable'

That being the appropriate legal term for people who make stuff up, yes.

This.

Except it can't be the case. Any suggestion that the police lost control of the fans is a suggestion that the fans were in some way to blame, with Liverpool fans deliberately going where they shouldn't and killing other Liverpool fans.

We know they aren't to blame because after 27 years the inquiry says that they weren't and we finally have justice for the 96.

With talk of criminal prosecutions I think it's vital to find out what forced these people into the stadium as it clearly wasn't of their own volition - and it has been pointed out many times in the last 27 years that the suggestion that they were a mindless mob is just insulting tabloid journalism.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's more likely than your version of a mob of Liverpool fans going where they shouldn't on purpose, because the inquiry said your version categorically did not happen.

Who said that it was on purpose?

You've got the police trying to control things on two fronts - inside and outside the stadium. Communication between the two groups is pretty poor to begin with, and communication between the police and fans outside is likely to be non-existant. There's a crowd of five thousand people eager to get into the stadium, and most likely unaware of what is happening in there. A gate opens, and with no reason to believe otherwise, people in the crowd think that it has been open to let them in, and so they move toward it. The people behind them see this, and - again with no reason to think anything differently - move toward it. The people behind them do exactly the same thing. By now, several hundred people are moving to the gate, completely unaware of what is on the other side, but the idea has taken hold - the gates are open, so they are being let in. With no staff or officers in the immediate vicinity, the police have lost control of the situation, though they probably don't realise it yet.

There is no rush of an angry mob or people looking to cause trouble. The lines of communication have broken down - if they were ever working in the first place - and things have spiralled out of control. There are thousands of people already in the pens, which are already past capacity, and thousands more trying to get in. Now a new idea takes over: that there is a serious problem, and they need to get out. The people in the pens are feeling overwhelmed, but the people outside still have no idea what is going on and are trying to get in. They start pushing against one another, in an already-confined space, and when nothing happens, they push harder. When they get the same result, panic starts to take over. They're no longer acting as a group, but as individuals driven by the same impulse: the need to get out.

There's no malice. No ill will or criminal intent. There's just a group of people assessing a situation and making a decision based on what they know at the time. They had no reason to believe that there was a problem in the stadium.

 

[Liquid]

Any suggestion that the police lost control of the fans is a suggestion that the fans were in some way to blame

Or that the police were ill-equipped and/or unprepared due to outdated procedures combined with a stadium not fit for purpose.

 

[Famine]

Who said that it was on purpose?

You've got the police trying to control things on two fronts - inside and outside the stadium. Communication between the two groups is pretty poor to begin with, and communication between the police and fans outside is likely to be non-existant. There's a crowd of five thousand people eager to get into the stadium, and most likely unaware of what is happening in there. A gate opens, and with no reason to believe otherwise, people in the crowd think that it has been open to let them in, and so they move toward it. The people behind them see this, and - again with no reason to think anything differently - move toward it. The people behind them do exactly the same thing. By now, several hundred people are moving to the gate, completely unaware of what is on the other side, but the idea has taken hold - the gates are open, so they are being let in. With no staff or officers in the immediate vicinity, the police have lost control of the situation, though they probably don't realise it yet.

There is no rush of an angry mob or people looking to cause trouble. The lines of communication have broken down - if they were ever working in the first place - and things have spiralled out of control. There are thousands of people already in the pens, which are already past capacity, and thousands more trying to get in. Now a new idea takes over: that there is a serious problem, and they need to get out. The people in the pens are feeling overwhelmed, but the people outside still have no idea what is going on and are trying to get in. They start pushing against one another, in an already-confined space, and when nothing happens, they push harder. When they get the same result, panic starts to take over. They're no longer acting as a group, but as individuals driven by the same impulse: the need to get out.

There's no malice. No ill will or criminal intent. There's just a group of people assessing a situation and making a decision based on what they know at the time. They had no reason to believe that there was a problem in the stadium.

Who said anything about malice, ill will or criminal intent?

What you've posted there is a suggestion that 5000 Liverpool fans wanted to be inside the stadium and went in through an exit that had been opened, continuing to walk forward even when there was no room for them to do so - killing 96 of their own without any external help.

The inquiry says the fans are blameless, so that can't be the case...

That aside, if that's how crowds behave, morning rush hour would be hellish as people fall onto the tracks from pressure from behind. I'm also not sure where the incredible force required to crush a hundred people to death comes from.

I've been happy for over a quarter of a century to say that the crowd played its part, but the inquiry said that I was wrong, so I have to change my mind and abandon any such notion. The only mechanism I can come up with for 5000 people going somewhere they didn't necessarily want to go with enough momentum to kill a hundred is an external force.

Or that the police were ill-equipped and/or unprepared due to outdated procedures combined with a stadium not fit for purpose.

That's also clearly the case - but the fans have been found to be blameless, so we can't entertain any suggestion that their actions were voluntary and resulted in deaths.

 

[Liquid]

Have fans been exonerated from all parts of the incident or just the cause of the crush or leading up to the crush?

I think there is a critical distinction to be made there. The cause of the crush was not fans hooliganing the gate open and storming the ground. But it can't be denied that far too many fans entering an unstaffed stand via narrow tunnel into overcrowded pens is what the crush was.

Fans were, in good faith, following the instructions of the police. The police were responsible for the safe entry of fans into the stand and there was no reason for fans to distrust them. That the police did not see the disaster unfolding (or did and didn't stop it) is a tragic consequence.

And that's before you even talk about the cover-ups, evidence tampering, police contradictions and inactions. That is where a lot of criminal prosecutions potentially lie; as has been stated already, David Duckenfield lied about the incident as early as 3:15 on the day and the West Midlands Police were pressured to reach a pre-determined conclusion in their independent investigation.

The FA are certainly at risk of prosecution if it can be proven that they willingly allowed fans to enter dangerous situations in unlicenced stadia. Their level of true involvment in cover-ups is not known. Yet.

 

[Stotty]

Except it can't be the case. Any suggestion that the police lost control of the fans is a suggestion that the fans were in some way to blame, with Liverpool fans deliberately going where they shouldn't and killing other Liverpool fans.

Despite there being thousands of fans, all trying to get in, no one died outside the ground. The Police took the decision to open an exit gate, not to relieve pressure inside the ground, but as a way to get fans in to the ground quicker.

The Police didn't lose control - The fans went exactly where they were directed.

Had the Police not opened the exit gate, no one would have died. Fans would have entered the ground at a steady rate, and would have dispersed to the different pens within the stand. Some would likely have missed the kick-off, but this could have been avoided by delaying the kick-off by 15 or 30 minutes.

Instead, the Police directed them through an exit gate that, which, rather than dispersing the fans in to all parts of the stand, led to a narrow tunnel leading in to one pen - which disproportionately increased the pressure ahead of them.

Again, the Police didn't lose control of the fans. They just made a bad decision that directly led to the deaths of 96 people. If they had admitted this at the time a few officers would likely have gone to jail (or more likely, been forced to retire on a full pension) and this event would have been put to bed (other than an annual remembrance for the 96).

But afterwards, rather than putting their hands up and accepting they had got it wrong, they tried to cover it up by blaming the fans. They added insult to injury by also claiming fans were drunk, had robbed the dead, had fought with Police trying to save the dying and had urinated on Police officers (all claims the Sun subsequently printed). They then destroyed evidence that supported the truth. They changed witness statements. They lied in the subsequent inquiry (fully supported by the investigating force).

Whatever the general behavior of football fans at the time (I grew up through the era of Football hooliganism, I know fully what is was like), there is zero evidence of any poor behavior by either set of fans at this match.

So you can continue to throw mud in the vane hope some will stick, but the fans have been proven blameless.

You are, as you have already said yourself in several posts, wrong.

 

[Famine]

Have fans been exonerated from all parts of the incident or just the cause of the crush or leading up to the crush?

As far as I'm aware, the fans have been found totally blameless.

So you can continue to throw mud in the vane hope some will stick, but the fans have been proven blameless.

You are, as you have already said yourself in several posts, wrong.

These two sentences disagree with each other so much I'm amazed you could post them.

I've posted over and over again to say that the fans are blameless but you've just made a long post to disagree with me... then say that the fans are blameless... So who am I throwing mud at?

Bewildering how you want to object to me saying fans are blameless but not the posts talking about mobs of mindless fans...


I want to know what forced them into the pens so hard that it resulted in deaths. This has never been addressed to my knowledge.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you suggesting that the fans desperately wanted to be in the ground and, without any external force, surged in and crushed nearly 100 of their peers and friends?

We know that that's exactly what happened. There was clearly no intention or aforethought - they were acting as directed. As more and more fans moved into the space the crush developed at the front.

I admit that it's hard to conceive of the exact kinetic events at the crush point but nonetheless there are many such incidents on record that show exactly this kind of thing happening. That's why the police were given (and still are) crowd management duties, duties in which they were found to be remiss.

So what forced them in?

Desire, surely?

 

[Famine]

We know that that's exactly what happened.


Desire, surely?

I always thought this but it is apparently not the case.

 

[Stotty]

As far as I'm aware, the fans have been found totally blameless.

These two sentences disagree with each other so much I'm amazed you could post them.

I've posted over and over again to say that the fans are blameless but you've just made a long post to disagree with me... then say that the fans are blameless... So who am I throwing mud at?

Bewildering how you want to object to me saying fans are blameless but not the posts talking about mobs of mindless fans...

You, and anyone else who has read the last couple of pages of this thread can see the game you've been playing.

Insinuating the fans were to blame, then hiding behind 'but the inquiry said they weren't so I must be wrong'.

So which is it? Are you saying you believe they were to blame? Or do you believe the outcome of the inquiry?

You can't believe both.

 

[Nessy]

Maybe people (in general), are more adverse to moving towards things they want, than moving away from things they fear.

 

[Famine]

You, and anyone else who has read the last couple of pages of this thread can see the game you've been playing.

Insinuating the fans were to blame, then hiding behind 'but the inquiry said they weren't so I must be wrong'.

I think you're reading something that just isn't there. I understand it's an emotional affair for Liverpool fans, but leave your emotion at the door and read what is actually there.

So which is it? Are you saying you believe they were to blame? Or do you believe the outcome of the inquiry?

You can't believe both.

What I believe (and it's neither) is neither here nor there.

A 27 year independent inquiry says that the stadium, club, police and ambulance service are to blame for the crush and deaths and the fans involved are blameless. They are the facts.

With that as the backdrop of a criminal investigation surely we should know what caused a movement of people with that much energy?

 

[TenEightyOne]

With that as the backdrop of a criminal investigation surely we should know what caused a movement of people with that much energy?

The desire to move to a position from which to see the match. Are you saying that we don't know that, are you saying that you don't believe that to be the case?

The reason that crowd management is complicated and carries a high responsibility is that no one section of a crowd can have a good overview of the entire mass.

Maybe people (in general), are more adverse to moving towards things they want, than moving away from things they fear.

True. In this case, however, none of the fans moving towards the crush had any idea that they were doing so - there were no indications of emergencies or problems from any fans around them or from the people whose job it was to safely manage the crowd.

 

[Famine]

The desire to move to a position from which to see the match. Are you saying that we don't know that, are you saying that you don't believe that to be the case?

That has two innate problems.

First, that doesn't generate the right amount of force necessary. Again, if simply being here but wanting to be there caused crush injuries, Tube travel would be impossible - rather than just deeply unpleasant.

Secondly it implies that the fans themselves have to be, en masse, at least partially culpable in that it was their wholly voluntary movements as a group that caused the deaths. The inquiry has, to my knowledge, found them entirely without blame.


Given how police treated football fans - particularly those from known troublesome clubs in that era - it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they had been kettled towards that exit, but then I would also expect that to be known by now.

 

[Stotty]

I think you're reading something that just isn't there.

Really?

And yet you're 1st post on this thread, 4 years ago, when asked for your opinion was...

I think that'd be unwise.

I can relate that a friend of mine was a junior officer at the time and that he personally laid the dead out on advertising boards and... observed one of the allegations laid by the Sun against some Liverpool fans (nothing to do with urine though - that one's all fabrication).

He never really talked about it much between then and his death. That's pretty much the sum total of what I'm going to say too.

In all the years I've been a member here I've not known you not be prepared to share your opinion.

If you didn't think the fans were to blame in 2012, why would you not 'think it wise' to share your opinion?

A 27 year independent inquiry says that the stadium, club, police and ambulance service are to blame for the crush and deaths and the fans involved are blameless. They are the facts.

Well there you go. They are indeed the facts.

So why do you keep trying to stir up doubt?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course it's an emotional subject. 96 people, including a number of children, died because of the negligence of the Police. You don't have to be a Liverpool supporter to feel the anger and sadness. You just have to be a human being.

 

[Nessy]

The ripple effect of someone tripping over an untied shoelace, could possibly cause a crowd crush, if the crowd density was high enough.

 

[Famine]

Really?

Yes.

And yet you're 1st post on this thread, 4 years ago, when asked for your opinion was...

In all the years I've been a member here I've not known you not be prepared to share your opinion.

If you didn't think the fans were to blame in 2012, why would you not 'think it wise' to share your opinion?

Two reasons. I did think that (as I stated an hour ago) and it's a ludicrously emotive issue. After all, just look at how you're reacting to me agreeing that the fans aren't to blame and imagine how you would react if I said that they were a mob intent on getting in.

Well there you go. They are indeed the facts.

So why do you keep trying to stir up doubt?

I'm not. How many posts do I have to make saying that the fans aren't to blame before you stop making things up?

And of course it's an emotional subject. 96 people, including a number of children, died because of the negligence of the Police. You don't have to be a Liverpool supporter to feel the anger and sadness. You just have to be a human being.

That doesn't mean that you must discuss it in an emotional fashion. You don't have to be inhuman to avoid the trap of letting emotions cloud judgement...

 

[Samus]

Reading the whole report from 2012 is highly recommended but here are some key points:

Over preceding years, police custom and practice had evolved in response to crowd
management issues unique to FA Cup semi-finals, particularly filtering access to the
concourse through ticket-checking on the approaches, directing incoming spectators away
from the central pens when they were estimated to be near capacity, and closing the tunnel
when capacity was estimated to have been reached.
None of these practices appear to have been recorded and none formed part of the
Operational Order or the police briefings before the 1989 Semi-Final.

For FA Cup semi-final matches fans were in unfamiliar surroundings and relied on the police for direction to the appropriate turnstiles.

Having requested the opening of the exit gates, Supt Marshall stated that it
did not occur to him to inform Supt Greenwood of his actions. He assumed there was
considerable space on the terraces. After the gates were opened, the pressure was relieved,
the crowd outside was under control and fans continued to use the turnstiles.

At the time the gates were opened, Supt Murray was aware the pens were not
evenly filled. Yet he stated that it did not occur to him to attempt to redistribute fans. In his
1990 interview with WMP for the criminal investigation he stated that he consider
ed this would have been a dangerous strategy as the numbers were so high. Further, closing the
tunnel entrance to the packed central pens did not cross his mind.

On opening Gate C there was no instruction given to the SYP officers inside the stadium
to manage the flow and direction of the incoming crowd.

In short, the fans were directed into the pens and had no idea they were already too full. They could not see to the front of the pen to see how crushed people were getting, I don't think anyone could suggest fans would purposely have endangered others by entering the pen knowing those at the front were getting fatally crushed. They simply did not know and once they did the domino effect took place, as those further behind continued to enter, not knowing what was going on ahead, and so on. As a result of the outside gate being opened and the tunnel not being closed too many people were directed into the pen, it's really as simple as that.

The people at the back have no knowledge of the situation at the front until its too late, what is a minor inconvenience for someone 50 rows back it is getting worse for someone 20 rows back and terrible for those in the first two rows.

It is entirely the job of those in charge to control the crowd. They catastrophically failed on that day.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf

 

[Stotty]

Two reasons. I did think that (as I stated an hour ago) and it's a ludicrously emotive issue. After all, just look at how you're reacting to me agreeing that the fans aren't to blame and imagine how you would react if I said that they were a mob intent on getting in.

So what are these two reasons?

After all, if you didn't think the fans were to blame why would your opinion cause an emotional reaction?

I'm not. How many posts do I have to make saying that the fans aren't to blame before you stop making things up?

1. Answer the question above (in regard to the meaning of you're first post in this thread)
2. If you don't think the fans are to blame, why are you repeatedly posting about fans being 'forced in to the stadium'?

That doesn't mean that you must discuss it in an emotional fashion. You don't have to be inhuman to avoid the trap of letting emotions cloud judgement...

Although this might be an emotional subject for me, my judgement is fine, thanks.

 

[Famine]

So what are these two reasons?

I literally stated them in the post you just quoted...

Two reasons. I did think that (as I stated an hour ago) and it's a ludicrously emotive issue.

After all, if you didn't think the fans were to blame why would you're opinion cause an emotional reaction?

Two reasons. I did think that (as I stated an hour ago) and it's a ludicrously emotive issue.

1. Answer the question above (in regard to the meaning of you're first post in this thread)

Two reasons. I did think that (as I stated an hour ago) and it's a ludicrously emotive issue.

2. If you don't think the fans are to blame, why are you repeatedly posting about fans being 'forced in to the stadium'?

If they went in under their own free will, they could be held accountable.

Surely it follows that, as they are blameless they could not have gone in under their own free will.

It also doesn't seem reasonable to me that the crowd wouldn't stop upon reaching the closed pens and could generate enough force to kill at mere walking pace. It seems more reasonable that they wouldn't stop if they were being forced.

Although this might be an emotional subject for me, my judgement is fine, thanks.

You're making things up so you can argue the toss with someone who agrees with you simply because you don't like them...

 

[Stotty]

So just so I'm clear... at least up to September 2012, you did think the fans were to blame. But sometime between then and now you changed your mind, and you now believe they are 100% blameless?

Which would be fair enough - I suspect a lot of people would be in a similar position.

But then you go spoil it all by spending several hours arguing the toss with me, Prisonermonkey, Liquid, TenEightOne (and others), questioning why the fans aren't at least partially responsible because they hadn't been physically 'forced in to the ground'.

Why would you even ask this question in the first place if you truly believed the fans were blameless? And why would you then continue to repeatedly dissect (in your usual manner) replies from other members?

Your posts might be obscure enough that you think you can hide behind 'that's not what I meant', 'you're making it all up', but the true meaning is there for anyone to see.

I await the 'you're emotional', 'it's all in your mind' reply, but I've said my last on this subject, so I won't respond.

RIP the 96. YNWA.