Talk:Hillsborough disaster

Input sought regarding SYMAS response wording

In editing a section of the article under the 'Crush' subheading, I noticed a point of confusion re: SYMAS's response (South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service). It states that police kept ambulances from "entering the stadium" (the pitch) but according to TROFHIP's findings the area behind the gymnasium was an already-agreed-upon loading point for SYMAS. How it's worded now, it implies that ambulances ought to have been brought onto the pitch -- and yet that was never meant to be part of the disaster protocol (e.g., ambulances inside the stadium as opposed to parked outside the gymnasium).

• QUERY: I intend to change how this is worded in order to clarify the difference between unfollowed policies and unavoided practices. Stating that the police didn't let ambulances through seems at best vague and at worst a non sequitur. I pause here, briefly, for any input. Thx —— Spintendo^Talk 21:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• RESOLUTION: I've revised the section's language accordingly. Previously, the police were described as "keeping ambulances off of the pitch." This was incorrect. Rather, it was the collective police/SYMAS confusion which kept ambulances off of the pitch — confusion over where exactly injured people were to be moved to. In any event, the disaster protocol laid out at the time never proscribed situations where ambulances were to be brought onto the pitch, as this was thought at the time to be slow and ineffective on a mass scale (and later proven to be so, by the disaster). Spintendo^Talk 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I haven't formed an opinion on the 'main change' yet, but think that moving "BBC television cameras were at the ground to record the game for ... " to 'pole position' is a very bad idea. That the event was televised live is incidental to what happened. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillsborough disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721090718/http://www.espnstar.com/football/fa-cup/news/detail/item247176/Reds-united-in-demanding-justice/ to http://www.espnstar.com/football/fa-cup/news/detail/item247176/Reds-united-in-demanding-justice/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616185839/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=21703&sectioncode=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=21703&sectioncode=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Where to put 2016 doctor's testimony

User:Limhey, [1] why do you prefer to describe doctors as "medically qualified fans" (St John's Ambulance men?), why do you prefer to remove the information that they were actually INSIDE the stadium on the day? Why do you remove a ref which links to detailed testimony both gave in 2016 and which is quite forensic in its criticism of the emergency response? Most importantly of all, why is it better to put their testimony in a section about an inquiry which they did not attend and with text which refers to a second inquest which the reader has not even yet been informed of?

The whole Hillsborough story, including that of these two men, is a story of evidence coming fully to light, or acquiring further ramifications, or being fully endorsed, many years after the event. If we 'fast-forward' every time an event has repercussions further down the line, the chronology (which is already fiendishly complicated), will be completely lost. I cannot see any advantage except to discredit Popper at the first opportunity, as opposed to advancing the whole narrative in sequence, which - at the very least - has the effect of questioning how thorough/neutral Popper was.

BTW Phillips, does not quite say "the exclusion of their evidence demonstrated that the original inquest was 'coloured and flawed' from the outset", what he actually says is "I cannot fathom why he didn’t call us, other than he specifically did not want to hear our evidence, in which case the first inquests were coloured and flawed before they even started.” ie IF he just didn't want to hear the evidence - the inquest was flawed from the start. Also the coroner's letter does not say that the doctor's were 'specifically excluded', it says Popper did not intend to call them. It's bad enough that Popper failed to call two highly knowledgable key witnesses, we don't have to 'beef it up'. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete Apols for removing those links - that was not intended.

The term 'medically qualified' is entirely appropriate as it means medical practitioners registered with the GMC. 'Doctors' is a more generic term and could describe someone with a PhD, or these days a dentist. Being a St Johns ambulance man does not describe being a medical practitioner - far from it; unless of course he/she was additionally registered with the GMC. Ironic that you mention St Johns ambulance men. If you read all the documents they show that Taylor rejected Phillips's claim about an empty oxygen cylinder on the basis of the statement and testimony of Peter Wells, the StJ divisional officer. At Warrington, Phillips, with video evidence (not presented at the Taylor inquiry), successfully refuted Wells's false claims. Additionally he stated that he disagreed with almost everything Wells had stated including his untrue claim that he had assisted Phillips.

The timeline concept is interesting, however the fact that Popper excluded them should be in the paragraph about him and his inquest, not potentially hidden in another following section. Mr and Mrs Jones's question of his intentions, and his cited reply are clearly in the correct place in terms of the narrative. It follows that further comment on them follows directly from this. I clearly edited Phillips's comments but the words in quotes were as stated. In my view the fact that he confirmed that he was not calling two individuals specifically in reply to the letter from Mr & Mrs Jones equates to him specifically excluding them.

Also in connection with the timeline is the fact that although the Popper inquests were opened after the disaster they were adjourned immediately. They recommenced in 1990 after the Taylor report had been published.

As for 'beefing up' Popper's incompetence I feel that would be entirely justified as it is entirely so. I suspect the families of victims would endorse this. However I do not feel that reporting demonstrable fact amounts to 'beefing up'.

It would be appropriate to add their testimony in other sections. (Limhey (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC))

The exclusion of the evidence of these two medical practitioners perhaps provides a small snapshot of the dubious motives of the various authorities in Sheffield in 1989. Both had their opinions regarding the emergency response rejected (wrongly) by Taylor. This should not have led Popper to not call them. His duty was to examine what had happened to each individual victim. He should have separated the issues and called them as directly involved clinicians with important first hand evidence of the circumstances of some of the deaths. There is an interesting paradox with regard to Phillips not being called. At the approximately the same time he was thanked personally by Mervyn Jones, Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, for his assistance with the investigation. (Limhey (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC))

I disagree on quite a number of details ... regardless of one's feelings (and it is difficult to not be deeply shocked by both the incompetence on the day by police, and appalled at the subsequent 'dirty tricks' to evade responsibility), regardless of all this, it is our job to present a calm coherent account to readers who - we should assume - have never heard of Hillsborough. For reasons which I don't need to go into, I was probably the last person in the UK to hear about the event - I'm not a football fan of any kind but picked up updates over the years, and relatively recently, saw a number of very detailed documentaries. I was curious about what WP had to say, but when I came to the article, I found a relatively muddled narrative, which was difficult for me to follow - a UK person, familiar with the outline of the story, and aware of the depth of anger, even if I did not know/remember all the details. Part of the problem is seemed to me was that every new detail had been added in 'pole position', as the story unfolded, and overall structure had been lost. When everything tries to be prominent - nothing is.

I agree that the doctors were 'excluded' (opposite of 'included'), but we can't pass comment on that exclusion, even implicitly. We can't say that Taylor 'wrongly' dismissed their testimony because that is passing a judgement - which no authorative source has made - it's our private judgement (and probably one the reader will come to unaided anyway). There is a subtle difference between what the doctor said and what we quote. There is another quote which might serve better anyway, since the Dr says "I cannot fathom why he didn’t call us, other than he specifically did not want to hear our evidence".

I've changed 'medically qualified' to 'qualified doctors' - since I think your term is actually vague, it could mean a nurse, a paramedic, anyone with some sort of training, whereas these guys knew what they were talking about medically. I'm not going to get into an edit war about this, but don't agree with many of the details of what you say - and don't think that it is our job to pass judgement or 'speak up for' the relatives. The bare fscts expressed neutrally do a pretty good job of damning some of those involved in this depressing saga IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete I do think we can state the Taylor was wrong regarding his ruling against their criticism of the emergency services. They were the only two 'qualified doctors' to go publicly on the record immediately after the event criticising the emergency services response. Taylor exonerated the services. The outcome of the HIP report and the Warrington inquests - authoritative sources, the latter carrying superseding legal precedence over Taylor's ruling - demonstrated clearly that his judgment on that matter had been wrong and their views were in the main vindicated. I think any version of Phillips's quote should include the clear implications that he felt Popper's decision was a 'serious error of judgement' and the inquests were 'coloured and flawed'.

Which details do you disagree with? What is not neutral? (Limhey (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

Pincrete I too do not wish to enter an edit war; however I disagree with your removal of the fact that both Drs Ashton and Phillips were Liverpool fans. I feel you demonstrate that you have possibly not yet grasped the enormity of the antipathy of the various Sheffield authorities towards Liverpool fans in the aftermath. If so you are missing the very important 'us and them' mood of the time and for many years that followed. It is likely that their being from Merseyside contributed to their exclusion but we cannot prove it. In the news at the time and after the verdicts, in papers, TV, and radio, emphasis was placed on them being Liverpool fans. As a compromise I shall add that they were 'Merseyside doctors' as in the cited article.(Limhey (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

I didn't understand your logic for including that the Drs were 'Scousers', nor do I think the ordinary reader would understand it, nor is it appropriate for us to seek to imply that thia was the reason for their being excluded. AFAI can see, the exclusion of two medical experts, who had been there and actually taken part in the 'rescue effort' and seen how chaotic it was, would be odd - even if they were from Watford. However your compromise - 'Merseyside doctors' - is a good one and I am happy with it. If someone - such as the families group, or panel - believes that testimony was excluded solely/mainly because they were Liverpudlians - we can state it as their opinion, but shouldn't try to imply it ourselves. Personally, I had always assumed that anyone who didn't endorse the 'official position', was likely to be excluded or marginalised or discredited - wherever they were from - including some junior police, though I understand why feelings are/were so intense in Merseyside.

We can't say Taylor was wrong to dismiss the Drs, we can say person X/ body Y concluded he was wrong, but on the whole I don't think it necessary or worthwhile. If I remember correctly, Taylor dismissed their evidence because he thought they were too emotionally involved. It may be obvious to you and I that this is a fairly patronising/dismissive judgement to make of the two people best equipped to give evidence, but I think the reader will probably come to the decision unaided by us that - at the very least - it was an odd thing for Taylor to conclude.

I may have been wrong to try to move your additions - because of the muddled state of the article when I first came to it, my instinct was to put everything in time order, I don't now think that your additions 'muddle' the chronology - but perhaps fresh eyes are needed. BTW, there is no need to 'name' me, the article is on my watchlist so I see any changes/messages fairly quickly. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Taylor made no mention of them being 'too emotionally involved'. Taylor was subsequently proven wrong about his criticism and dismissal of Ashton's opinions. In the cited Liverpool Echo 'vindication' article we read how damaging that criticism was to him personally and his career in public health. Taylor disagreed with Phillips on the matter of defibrillators. This was a matter of opinion rather than fact. The immediate growth in availability and use of such equipment in public places tends to suggest that Taylor was wrong. In an organised speedy response they may have been useful. In fact some were used unsuccessfully (other than as 'paddle checks') by ambulance crews outside the stadium. Taylor perversely rules that they would have been dangerous in the 'chaos' of the response but then excuses that chaos in his emergency service no fault ruling. On the subject of Phillips's claim that he was provided with an empty oxygen cylinder, Taylor ruled against him entirely upon the statements and testimony (later totally disproved at Warrington) of St J Amb Div. Officer Wells; he also remarked that Phillips 'may have been mistaken as to the cylinder of which he complains being empty. He agreed he was under great pressure, in an awkward situation; his head was injured and he became very angry at what he regarded then as wholly the fault of the police'. For 'may' read 'may not'.

Thanks for your continuing interest in and contributions to this important topic (Limhey (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

It is astonishing even now that Popper only called ONE of the many Drs present that day to his resumed inquests - the SWFC club doctor.

There were many more Drs present including a Professor of Surgery, Tim Cooke (another Liverpool fan) who also made criticisms of the response in their statements to Taylor. Why would a medically qualified coroner not want to hear all of the medical witness testimony available? What possible motive would he have for excluding such important and valid evidence? Ashton and Phillips were not mavericks - they concurred with the majority view of their profession. His witness list is a disgrace. Part of the cover up? Little (no) doubt here. (Limhey (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

Popper was aware in June 1989 that Dr Ashton had phoned his office requesting to be called to the inquests. (Limhey (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC))

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

Under Prosecutions add in information from 29/6/2018 about a judge lifting the historical stay on further prosecutions. The result of this is that David Duckenfield - the Hillsborough Match Commander at the disaster - is to face troel for the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 Liverpool supporters.

Reference:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hillsborough-police-manslaughter-charges-david-duckenfield-liverpool-fans-death-preston-court-a8422666.html Adampr89 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is already included "On 29 June 2018, a ruling was made that Duckenfield would be prosecuted on the manslaughter charges".Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

ElHef a reliable source was included with the request. Adampr89, it's currently ref [186], which I added. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Important radio programme?

Shouldn't a link to this BBC Reunion programme from 2009 be included (I suggest changing the current televison and theatre section to "radio, television and theatre"):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jlxjp