David Duckenfield

[#1]

I see that David Duckenfield has been cleared of manslaughter over the Hillsborough tragedy.Probably the right verdict as maybe having that hanging over you for the last 30 years is punishment enough.

[#2]

If he is not guilty why do you imply an element of merit to 30 years of "punishment"?

[#3]

I would guess because although he has been found innocent in law he is still morally guilty and responsible for that day.

[#4]

Watching this on the news earlier and to be fair he did hold his hands up to it and I find it hard to understand why all the blame has been heaped onto just one man - although the report was cut short when one of those being interviewed after the judgement said he was missing from his post for several hours and that she "knew where he was".

Curious to say the least, bit even so....  

[#5]

Missing for several hours : I should think the ‘Red Tops’ are now chasing this story....

[#6]

The point was made on Today about the delays in enquiries such as Hillsborough and Grenfell; how witnesses and the investigated die off, memories fade, or can be influenced by seen media coverage, even if rejected at the time can be in the subconscious.( NB all my interpretation of what I heard). Taking all that in to consideration, I consider that a guilty verdict against anyone for alleged conduct three decades earlier carries a great risk of injustice. How, also, can 'beyond reasonable doubt' be truly applied?

Police attend football matches ( I assume other crowd events too) and are paid by the event organiser or site owner for the service. I believe this does not cover the streets around?

They are paid, but are they obligated to provide the within site services? Lean on them too heavily, and with their greatly stretched manpower could  the risk not arise that the safety of customers is wholly the responsibility of the organisers and site owners?

The public, and, even more, warriors need to be careful, I think.

[#7]

@Luzern Would you class these events as tragic accidents ?

[#8]

I think you will find that the direction of "reasonable doubt" is no longer applied in British courts and if any judge were to instruct a jury to take it into consideration then they themselves would be held to account.

If the guy in this case is guilty of manslaughter (and we should all take issue with that) then there should be no limit of years for a prosecution. That would not be justice.

Sure memories fade, but when it's the death of a loved one, rape, or something equally or even more dramatic and destroying, then they most certainly do not.  

[#9]

@Champnet I'm not sure that 'accident' is a wise description of the event(s) under discussion. I am reminded that police no longer refer to RTA but to RTC. the events are collisions, as there must be prior conditions that set off the sequences that caused the final outcome.

ISTM, that 'accident' is a convenient shorthand for something inexplicable to gen pub, neutral and not with blame.

In cases like Hillsborough I'd had far preferred that attention had been exercised on cause, not blame finding.

[#10]

---

@Minivanman wrote:

I think you will find that the direction of "reasonable doubt" is no longer applied in British courts and if any judge were to instruct a jury to take it into consideration then they themselves would be held to account.

If the guy in this case is guilty of manslaughter (and we should all take issue with that) then there should be no limit of years for a prosecution. That would not be justice.

Sure memories fade, but when it's the death of a loved one, rape, or something equally or even more dramatic and destroying, then they most certainly do not.  

---

@Minivanman  On your final paragraph, I believe that generally memories fade, but also the opposite may occur in the type of event you cite, which is just as dangerous to justice: they become inflamed and exaggerated.

[#11]

@Luzern 

You may be right, but I would not be the first or even in line to say the same to any of those that lost family and friends - even though it was thirty years ago.

Not that it makes matter easier, but it's a sad fact of life and of death that justice is not always served.

[#12]

---

@billnotben wrote:

I would guess because although he has been found innocent in law he is still morally guilty and responsible for that day.

---

I think the report indicates that there were quite a few "morally guilty" but not put on trial for manslaughter. In simple terms his actions and decisions neither intended nor could have foreseen consequent deaths.  The particular circumstances necessitated somebody to be responsible to facilitate "closure".  A morally guilty verdict was not an option.

A little (actually a lot) off topic but I wonder where the Directors of the Boeing Aircraft Corporation stand in this regard, and even on a smaller scale the designers of Smart  motorways?  Many others too. A correct legal verdict does not necessarily deliver the "justice" anticipated by victims families.

[#13]

I like the way that nobody blames the crowd for acting the way they did and causing this incident, what would have happened if nobody had opened the gates and people had still been crushed by the people behind ?  They would have said 'if the police had opened the gates this wouldn't have happened' ...  problem is when things like this happen it is great when someone can be blamed and then damages can be claimed - and the only ones that win really are the lawyers - every time.

[#14]

Based on previous experience had no one any idea of how long it would take for the stadium to fill based on the number of gates and the time it took each person to get through ?

Using that knowledge from previous matches fans could have been encouraged to get tickets in advance and turn up at least one hour before the match.

This could have also been linked with the police being given the power to delay the start of any match until those still waiting to get in due to late arrival would not cause any personal risk.

Much could have been done to prevent this incident and steps have been taken to prevent a repeat....many people were responsible for what happened on that day but it was wrong to try and blame one man.

Had the jury found him guilty, what then ? Would he have gone to jail ? What would have been gained considering his age and health....

Lets hope there is no appeal to the high court

[#15]

---

@wotsup wrote:

I like the way that nobody blames the crowd for acting the way they did and causing this incident, what would have happened if nobody had opened the gates and people had still been crushed by the people behind ?  They would have said 'if the police had opened the gates this wouldn't have happened' ...  problem is when things like this happen it is great when someone can be blamed and then damages can be claimed - and the only ones that win really are the lawyers - every time.

---

@wotsup I'm sure you don't mean to play it, but the blame game is unworthy of the tragedy. In such situations does the crowd exist? Surely it's "se sauve qui peut", that generates into a panic for which most are blameless.

As it is, I am not a sports aficionado, so am not au fait with the development of crowd safety since, but I believe lessons learned and acted upon are of greater and more enduring importance than finding someone to blame/