Unlawful Killing is a catch-all description which means someone unknown didn't have a lawful excuse to end someone's life.


I think it takes a particularly strong person to put their career, house, marriage, possibly even their welfare in jeopardy by standing up for what they believe is wrong. Even in the police.

I'm not sure if people saw this article on the BBC new site, but it debunks some of the myths started by the police in the aftermath and seemingly still believed by Newbury's finest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35473732

Myth 1: Liverpool fans arrived 'late and without tickets'
After the disaster, allegations emerged from "unnamed sources" - later established to be a Police Federation spokesman and the Sheffield Conservative MP, Irvine Patnick - claiming Liverpool supporters had "deliberately arrived late determined to force entry" to the ground.
What we know: While many Liverpool supporters did arrive after 14.30, evidence to the inquests suggested it was actually the police "failure to control the crowd" and "inadequate" turnstiles that led to the fatal crush.
The claim that fans had "deliberately arrived late" formed the basis of the "rock solid" defence South Yorkshire Police [SYP] sought to present at the 1989 Taylor inquiry into the disaster. The aim was to "deflect blame on to supporters" and exonerate the police.
The jury heard from former South Yorkshire Police inspector Clive Davis who recalled being told by former Ch Supt Terry Wain "to put the blame for this disaster where it belongs: on the drunken, ticketless Liverpool fans". This was denied in evidence by Mr Wain. However, he admitted a report he prepared had exaggerated claims that "several thousand" spectators had arrived at the ground within minutes of kick-off.
The inquests heard the 10,100 fans with standing tickets for the Leppings Lane end were expected to enter through just seven turnstiles, causing congestion outside the ground.
Lord Justice Taylor, in his 1990 report into the disaster, concluded fans were reasonable to arrive between 14.30 and 14.40 as match tickets only requested people be in their places "15 minutes before the game". He was also satisfied that the large concentration of fans who gathered Leppings Lane at 14.40 to 14.50 "did not arrive as a result of any concerted plan".
He concluded that police had "failed" to prepare for controlling the arrival of a large number of fans in a short period. Both the club and police "should have realised the turnstile area could not easily cope with the large numbers demanded of it" unless they arrived steadily over a lengthy period.
He accepted there were "small groups without tickets" looking to "exploit any chance of getting into the ground". But the main problem was simply one of "large numbers packed into the small area outside the turnstiles". He stated categorically that "fans' behaviour played no part in the disaster".
The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) report concluded crowd congestion outside the stadium was "not caused by fans arriving late" for the kick-off. The turnstiles, it said, were "inadequate to process the crowd safely" and the rate of entry insufficient to prevent a dangerous build-up outside the ground.
What the jury said: The behaviour of Liverpool supporters did not cause or contribute to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

What utter tripe..... 27 years later and the jury says "the behaviour of the fans did not Contribute to the dangerous situation...?'"

I don't think it debunks anything and I think some of the conclusions are flawed; it doesn't explain how these people think the fans played no part. If the fans had behaved with consideration and respect for each other there would be little chance of any injury, BUT I also think the fans behaviour was not extraordinary or excessive and the police could have prevented the tragedy had they properly organised themselves for the game. On top of that, the terrace was a tragedy waiting to happen.

What I think the reports fail to state is that the fans were jostling and pushing like football fans (or any other fans) would do under the circumstances.

If one, just one family says "we won't be seeking compensation, our son was worth more than money" then my faith in humankind will be truly restored.

Have you ever been to a big match? Thirty minutes before the start of the game it looks like the ground's half empty, then amazingly by the start the ground's full. That's the nature of these events.

Also, if you're being sent down a particular route en masse, it's impossible to do anything but go in the same direction. And of course entering one of these pens at the back, you'd have no idea what was going on at the front. An individual really has no control over what's happening.

The vast majority of football fans just want to watch the match. You just do as you're told at an "away" game. The idea that some sort of mass hooliganism was responsible or contributed is ridiculous.

Furthermore, time and time again, the police are caught out in covering up these situations and attempts to shift blame. The police officer in charge was out of his depth and made mistakes. Surely most of us on here would not lie about it? I genuinely feel for him. He is clearly now full of remorse, but why lie for 27 years?

Because he thought he might get away with it.

'Hooliganism' was never the issue here. I don't think there has ever been a suggestion that this was another example of 'The British Disease' which had infected our game at that time. This was however fans (some of them ticketless) rushing down a gate to get to part of the stadium which they weren't entitled to be in.

Got tickets for the top tier in the corner?,...... furthest from the pitch at the Hillsborough ground? .....a gate opens to the part where you might get to stand right behind the goals... What are you going to do? "Rush that gate!!"

To say that the fans pushing at the back had nothing to do with the events that resulted from their charge through the gate is ridiculous. They may not have realised the consequences but they just cannot be dismissed as being 'blameless'

As for "Just do what you're told at an away game" have a look at the youtube "jibbing into Wembley". Man United fans rushing an open gate and to **** with the consequences. Nobody is going to be killed in the rush but the principle's the same and the scale factor needs to be upped a bit

Well the jury who saw ALL the evidence without prejudice did not agree with you.

This interpretation is what I hate - it implies that there was some intention to end a life.

Simon posted the official meaning, which includes 'gross negligence'; which I assume to be the current verdict comes in.

Whereas I would have thought that gross negligence would imply that the outcome was predicatable at the time the catastrophic decision was taken and that the man/men taking the decision could reasonably be expected to have understood that there was a high risk that the catastrophe would happen as a result of their action. With 20/20 hindsight we can see how this decision came to end peoples lives - but the police at the time did not have this.

I guess the Ibrox disaster is the nearest equivalent, but the circumstances were different. I would also be interested to hear if the decision to open the gates was a one off - or had it been done on other occasions?

I think that the subsequent cover-up influenced the verdict, which it shouldn't. The cover up was appalling - for many reasons, but I remain unconvinced that the verdict is a fair one in terms of the original tragic incident.

Ignorance is no defence in law. One can have blame without intention. No-one I know think supporters deliberately killed anyone, but that isn't the point being made.


Again, I don't think anyone is stating this was an example of hoolaganism. As far as I know, a door was opened and then it was then up to the supporters.


Sadly, this is something inherent in organisations like the police, the NHS, the armed forces.

This was a huge stitch-up and while the police, FA, Sheffield Wednesday made big mistakes and were, I believe, criminally negligent, they too were also victims of the times and the behaviour of some football fans.

For me, the only creditable thing that came out of this sorry saga is the tenacity of those who fought for the truth for all those years. Sadly. our society no longer respects integrity and so much valued precepts from our past are now mere ceremonial. The office of constable used to live by its oath to the Crown to keep the peace without fear or favour. Certainly in our own neighbourhood, we know exactly what happens to honourable people who ask the wrong questions, so ignoring the pleas of their peers. I think it was said in an earlier post, could anyone honestly see the newly promoted Police Officer concerned here, giving in to such peer pressure? It's this now very clear and demonstrable lack of institutional integrity (and not only in the Police) which is the most shocking and devastating aspect of this case

Imagine what it was like before forensics. They used to beat confessions out of people. And that was not so long ago....
Things are better than they were. U just used to "trust" the police....

Yes, of course, now and again we had bent coppers; discovery was reasonably quick though. Just as we had a few disreputable MP's and public servants. That's why it really was a scandal when such news broke. Sadly, over the past few decades, the infection has spread. It's got far worse. Put it another way, not too far back, most people wouldn't dream of larding an insurance claim, let alone trying to claim compensation for some minor wrong. Love your neighbour, stuff him more like. What a vile society we have become.

I don't understand why the police are the scapegoats of this whole sorry story. They were pawns and stupidly lied about what happened but, my understanding, reading some of the reports, was that this was not the only time this happened but previously, without a deadly result. Should not the football club who owned the stadium also be in the dock for not taking steps to prevent such a disaster when they knew that it might and it did happen again. Today, risk assessments are carried out as part of life in all areas but one would have thought that even without a formal assessment, someone might have thought that there was a problem with the design of the stadium and taken appropriate steps. The football clubs were financially well situated in those days so poverty was not an excuse.

The Police lied, the Football Clubs sacrificed public safety for profit, the fans thought someone else is responsible and on and on and on.

Sure, 'risk assessments' might have highlighted an issue; but then again, we don't like elf n'safety do we? It's all nanny state stuff.

So, then, the Police were scared of having to pay out big damages, the Clubs needed the cash to overpay the underperforming British footballers, the fans wanted cheap entrance prices.

All down to worshipping the money god.

Don't even get me started on Philip Green... Talk about Robert Maxwell the 2nd. Sorry a bit off track.

Not off track at all. Both are classic examples.