Anyone who went to football matches in the 80's is now shaking their heads in disbelief at that.TynanWozGr8":s6fx0hqi said:Was Fans behaviour responsible - NO
X Isle":ijvj2y25 said:Anyone who went to football matches in the 80's is now shaking their heads in disbelief at that.TynanWozGr8":ijvj2y25 said:Was Fans behaviour responsible - NO
The rest of the verdicts, yes, absolutely, mistakes were definitely made. But to absolve late arriving and ticketless fans from ANY responsibility? deary me :roll:
What I hope doesn't happen once all this is digested is that further, retrospective, measures are imposed on fans going forwards. This inquest gets to the truth (well, apart from some fans that day it seems) of what happened that day, and it really shouldn't have taken this long. But the remedies to help prevent it happening again were taken up long ago.
Football culture has changed in the intervening years, stadia are far far safer than they were then. To bring in any recommendations now would be to slam the stable door shut after the horse has bolted.
LostPilgrim":1r1rks88 said:so you know better than the jury who have listened to 2 years worth of evidence?
X Isle":2781vw00 said:Not sure how old you guys are but if you didn't live through that period as a football supporter then you won't understand how nonsensical that one conclusion could be. I was a member of the FSA back then, an organisation that was at the forefront of campaigning to change the safety at stadia, not even they, a body OF football supporters buried their heads to how some fans behaved.
Yes, I do respect the validity of the outcome, I do not need to agree with it (and it's only that one conclusion I don't) to do so.
X Isle":3ietfuyi said:Not sure how old you guys are but if you didn't live through that period as a football supporter then you won't understand how nonsensical that one conclusion could be. I was a member of the FSA back then, an organisation that was at the forefront of campaigning to change the safety at stadia, not even they, a body OF football supporters buried their heads to how some fans behaved.
Yes, I do respect the validity of the outcome, I do not need to agree with it (and it's only that one conclusion I don't) to do so.
A really good analysis and summary of the various words used. The final sentence is particularly profound for my generation. Perhaps a very appropriate way to end this particular debate.IJN":3qogr4zv said:I sort of get where X'y is coming from.
I think the question was probably asked wrong, and in a way it was answered wrong, but when you see fans piling in like that at that time (from 1445 onwards) for a semi final, you have to doubt whether some didn't contribute surely.
However, the cover ups were vile and the tampering of evidence is certainly a criminal offence and now the criminal proceedings can proceed.
What is certain is none of the 96 did anything wrong, they were sadly in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If any good come out of this, it made the police and authorities not treat football fans like animals like they did during and before this game.
IJN":1adtdboq said:I don't think it is Peter, those that died are completely innocent.
I'm backing out of this debate, I was simply saying I understood what X'y meant.
Also, debating like this is perhaps not the cleverest thing to do on this day of all days.
Justice for the 96 has been served and rightly so.
What a tragedy that all of the member of the affected families didn't witness this momentous day.