I have every sympathy with the grieving relatives, and can probably understand the motivation of (at least some of) them, but this is a juggernaut/bandwagon which has rolled too far.
Any charges concerned with judgement/culpability will now be brought in a completely different atmosphere to that which prevailed at the time, both generally in wider life and specifically in football. If they were to be validly brought, it should have been shortly after the event, but of course, they weren't, at least partially because they were originally considered in a contemporaneous light, and the idea dismissed.
There is, however, another factor playing on the edge of that, and that is the alleged re-writing of the truth. (The "cover-up"). Even at this later stage, should the evidence now be there to proceed with charges, then this patently should be pursued; perjury/conspiracy to pervert..., etc. are absolute crimes irrespective of the prevailing Zeitgeist. In reality, I'm not sure how much traction the later enquiries would have achieved without further evidence of malpractice in this particular respect.
Though I long ago became disillusioned with professional football, I've spent many occasions in crushes (up to a point not long before Hillsborough) that were considered fairly normal at the time, but wouldn't have required much change in crowd dynamic to make them b***** dangerous.This includes a good few spells at Hillsborough itself, on both the Kop and Leppings Lane ends (and no, I'm not a Wednesday supporter, but have a good few friends who are/were). The reality is that, until it all went t*ts-up, it was probably "just another day at the office" for those concerned, and then it rapidly turned into "a bad day at the office".
I think, however, the factor that concerns me most is the one already alluded to by some above, that the bandwagon has not only largely exonerated all the fans, and in particular the Liverpool ones, but it appears almost to have beatified them. Given the history, including Heysel, I find that both perplexing and an insult to the intelligence.
As I've said, I know a fair few people in Sheffield, and had family that lived at the time in the shadow of Hillsborough. Contemporaneous reports (second, but not third hand, from people I believed and trusted) was that the behaviour of many fans before the match was appalling. Drunken brawling, urinating in shop doorways and front gardens, etc.... I was certainly told that numbers of shops in the Wadsley Bridge area had to close their doors. Large numbers were certainly late to arrive at the ground, many of them reputedly through maximising their time in the pubs. There is no doubt that this late arrival, innocent or not, played a significant role that day (and in hindsight, I've also little doubt that those controlling the match wish they had agreed to postpone kick-off time).
It has, however, in face of the bandwagon, become "unfashionable" if not dangerous to share such views (a bit like being shouted down after the referendum for voting Remain), and it certainly seemed to me that the later enquiries skated over this somewhat. I'm not at all sure that, this far down the line, any great number of people will be able to be located to fill in such a background, or that they could be *rsed ti if the were. (water under the bridge;no skin off my nose;not a fashionable view, etc).
So, IMO the culpability issues will probably, somewhat unsatisfactorily, result in the conviction of scapegoat(s). (I wouldn't like to be on the jury for that one). The issues of falsification of evidence, however, are probably safe to pursue even at this late stage, reaching a satisfactory conclusion either way based on irrefutable evidence.
|
