Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Hillsborough...

  1. #1
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,572
    Thanks
    664
    Thanked 672 Times in 429 Posts
    Rep Power
    5

    Exclamation Hillsborough...

    So i heard on the radio this morning, someone saying that despite the acquittal of the police officer ultimately responsible for public safety on the occasion of the Hillsborough disaster - "lessons needed to be learned"...

    sorry, what?!

    Hillsborough, Grenfell, the Titanic, the Victoria Hall Disaster... how many other avoidable mass casualty incidents?

    Situations like these are well past the time for 'lessons learned'; why are we not applying 'strict liability' in such cases? This shouldn't be a matter of trial, inquest, or enquiry - named individuals should have a defined duty of care and should be held criminally responsible when serious harm or death occurs, without exception and in a timely manner.

    What example are we giving to business operators and persons in positions of public reposibility - that they can get away with something as near as, if not in name, murder?
    As much as some quarters may like to criticise certain states' governments, i'm fairly sure i know how China or North Korea would dispose of such 'traitors' as David Duckenfield et al.

    The owners of Hillsborough (and Grenfell, and the Titanic...), the police, and the FA, were in charge of ensuring public safety at an event they held, advertised, promoted, regulated, and inspected - - - people died as a result of their actions and inactions... in the absence of justifiable excuse they should of all have been sentenced to life imprisonment (if not death) within weeks of the event.

  2. #2
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked 475 Times in 209 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Hillsborough...

    Itís a complicated topic, and I think hinges on the concepts of hindsight being 20/20 and that humans arenít infallible. Car accidents still happen, toddlers drown in toilets, etc... We havenít managed to eliminate risk from existence, and I donít see it happening anytime soon.

    As for culpability, I really think you have to look for whether or not malicious intent or gross/intentional negligence was present. Did the captain of the Titanic intend to hit the iceberg? Did the designers of the ship intend for a certain portion of passengers to drown given the number of lifeboats?

    Looking at the issue of lifeboats on the Titanic, for example, seems perfectly reasonable without the benefit of hindsight. The number of them was to shuttle passengers to a rescue craft, not to carry the entire manifest at once.

    Too often the mob clamors for someoneís head.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •