Don't show up late.

I'm pretty certain that perimeter fences were a pre-requisite for any stadium that hosted a semi-final. Highbury was certainly a regular venue but pitch invasions one year led to the FA stating that they would not host them again unless they were erected.

177. The Green Guide sought to improve safety and comfort by laying down criteria for maximum
capacity, ie defining what is "full". The standard set was 54 persons per 10 square metres in favourable
conditions but fewer, down to 27, in less favourable conditions. The tendency may have been to aim off too
little from the higher figure for shortcomings in the layout. Certainly the figures considered appropriate in
pens 3 and 4 at Hillsborough were too high, as already indicated.
178. Even taking the highest figure suggested in the Green Guide, the problem remained that those
supposed to be monitoring pens visually had and have little idea of what 54 persons per 10 square metres look
like. Mr Duckenfield's opinion was that when a pen was full to capacity, the spectators would be "shoulder to
shoulder and chest to back". That view may derive from seeing the sort of density crowds regularly endure
without injury resulting. But it is much more dense than the Green Guide maximum.

Previous Experience
213. The senior police officers said it had never happened before so there was no reason to foresee it. In fact,
the only two previous occasions when the Leppings Lane terraces had been used to fill the whole of the north
and west sides of the ground were at the two semi-finals, in 1987 and 1988. In 1987, the match was on a Sunday,
scheduled for 12 noon, and kick-off was postponed for a quarter of an hour because of late arrivals.
Policing in 1988
214. As to 1988, there was a very large and consistent body of evidence that, on the day, the police in
Leppings Lane conducted an efficient filtering exercise designed to keep away those without tickets and
control the flow of fans towards the ground. I do not believe that so many witnesses without either opportunity
or reason to put their heads together could be mistaken about what they experienced on that occasion. Yet, the
police maintain that no filtering exercise other than on a random basis was conducted in 1988 and that their
policy and practice then were no different from those of 1989.

271. However, it was not suggested that the choice of venue was causative of this disaster. The only basis on
which that could be said would be that, because of its layout, the Leppings Lane end was incapable of being
successfully policed for this semi-final. I do not believe that to be so.

279. In all some 65 police officers gave oral evidence at the Inquiry. Sadly I must report that for the most
part the quality of their evidence was in inverse proportion to their rank. There were many young Constables
who as witnesses were alert, intelligent and open. On the day, they and many others strove heroically in ghastly
circumstances aggravated by hostility to rescue and succour victims. They inspired confidence and hope.
280. By contrast, with some notable exceptions, the senior officers in command were defensive and evasive
witnesses. Their feelings of grief and sorrow were obvious and genuine. No doubt those feelings were
intensified by the knowledge that such a disaster had occurred under their management. But, neither their
handling of problems on the day nor their account of it in evidence showed the qualities of leadership to be
expected of their rank.

...

285. It is a matter of regret that at the hearing, and in their submissions, the South Yorkshire Police were not
prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what occurred. Mr Duckenfield, under pressure of
cross-examination, apologised for blaming the Liverpool fans for causing the deaths. But, that apart, the police
case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk, and to blame the Club for failing to monitor the pens. It was
argued that the fatal crush was not caused by the influx through gate C but was due to barrier 124a being
defective. Such an unrealistic approach gives cause for anxiety as to whether lessons have been learnt. It would
have been more seemly and encouraging for the future if responsibility had been faced.

Reed, Wednesday's average attendance in that season was under 21,000, whereas the semi-final drew in excess of 50,000.

Thomson's blog entry on his visit with Kelvin.

the Hillsborough families reiterate (as well they might, but without seeming to acknowledge the difference between the German model and what caused them so much pain and heartache) their opposition to the return of terracing.

First, South Yorkshire police behaved abominably leading up to the Taylor inquiry. They orchestrated what can only be described as a black propaganda campaign which aimed to deflect the blame for what had happened on to any one other than themselves. They were not preparing a case for the inquiry; they were preparing a defence, and there is a subtle psychological difference between the two. The fans—who include the victims and the club—were the main target. If one re-reads Lord Taylor's interim report, it is clear that he implicitly agrees with that assessment.

Secondly, I discovered that there was a liaison unit, which appears to have consisted of the chief constable, the deputy chief constable, Chief Superintendent Wain, Chief Superintendent Mountain, Superintendent Bettison and Detective Chief Inspector Brooke. The role of the liaison unit appears to have been to orchestrate that campaign.

Thirdly, there was a systematic attempt to change police statements to emphasise the slant on the defence that the police wanted to develop. It failed because of the sheer volume of self-serving statements and the shortage of time in which they had to get them to the Taylor inquiry. The attempt became impractical and thus most of the alterations to the statements were not significant, although Lord Justice Stuart-Smith accepts that some were not insignificant. More tellingly, one can see the intention of the police from solicitors' annotations on the 956 unamended statements. That attempt to put a slant on evidence failed also because Lord Taylor saw through it. His report condemned in the strongest possible terms the strategy and tactics of the senior management and legal team of the South Yorkshire police. When reading the report, one cannot but be impressed by the strength of his condemnation.