THE verdict by the Jury at the Hillsborough disaster inquiry (“Justice for Hillsborough families”, The Herald, April 27) absolves the fans, and I share their joy in that. Instead the inquest apportions the responsibility mainly between the match day police commander and the football club, Sheffield Wednesday. But why not wider? Why not also the FA? Did it really not know about the limitations of Hillsborough? And why not the government of the day which had legislated on crowd control at football, but with too little regard to the safety of fans? If one examines the 14 questions put to the inquest jury, those two organisations are simply not mentioned and thus excluded from any consideration.

The role played by David Duckenfield, in opening the Leppings Lane exit gate is well known, and he bears a terrible responsibility. But what is not so well known is that this was a man appointed to the job only three weeks before, and with no experience of crowd control. And in any event, he opened that gate to avoid crushing outside the stadium. What if he had not done so and people had been injured or worse there? He was an inexperienced officer in an impossible situation.

Much of his difficulty can be laid at the door of Sheffield Wednesday. The club not only knew about the safety issues at their ground, but had known for some time. Richard Chester, their secretary between January 1984 and October 1986 (from more than five years before the disaster), told the inquest that he was aware that the lack of up-to-date, drawn plans meant their safety certificate was not valid, and that breaching the certificate's conditions was a matter of potential criminal liability.

However, the series of questions put to the jury effectively removed both the FA and the Government out of their consideration.

Health and safety law is quite clear that the fundamental responsibility for premises lies with the landlord, which in this case was Sheffield Wednesday. However, that never totally absolves the occupant – in this case the FA – of responsibility. Are we really to believe that the FA really knew nothing, nothing at all about safety concerns at Hillsborough, particularly when its new chief executive, Graham Kelly, had only joined the organisation the previous February from the Football League?

Secondly, safe access and egress are axiomatic to health and safety law. If you have the stomach for it, look at the pictures of the fans crushed against the front of the fences that day, and ask yourself why the state permitted even the possibility of such a risk to be endured by football fans? Why was there no legislation to promote their safety? Of course the obvious reason is that the bigger issue at the time was control, to prevent match-day disorder by fans. But was there not a need for a more appropriate balance to be struck between these two laudable aims, even without the benefit of hindsight?

But neither question was ever asked. Instead the entire responsibility has been laid at the door of a police officer and the host club, both of whom bear a very substantial degree of blame. But should we not be looking more widely?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

TIM Bell (Letters, April 27) bemoans that “instead of joining forces with a broad left" the SNP has become “Scotland's tragedy”. Despite this painful hyperbole, one need only reflect upon the last General Election where the hand of friendship was repeatedly held out by Nicola Sturgeon in order to coalesce around an anti-austerity campaign only to have it invariably rejected by the Labour Party. Often this was accompanied with a degree of vitriol that reminds many of us of the petty and vindictive nature of the Labour Party that, indeed, renders it currently unelectable.

Perhaps Mr Bell may care to consider his own analysis more carefully when he agrees that "over recent decades the GOP sold its soul variously to the neo-cons, the gun lobby, the ‘Christian’ right, the corporations, and the racists, leaving it with no core belief". With minor adjustments, could one not apply this conclusion to New Labour and the detritus it has left within its soul?

More irrefutable proof that corruption engendered by Westminster is willing to sacrifice its own people to protect careers has been offered this week. It took 27 years to peel back one layer of the truth about a media, police and political cover-up designed to blame Liverpool fans for the 96 unlawful killings of their fellow fans. This, not a minor debate about politics as perceived by Mr Bell, is a real tragedy. Beyond the 96 immediate victims, families and businesses were destroyed on the altar of the perceived police narrative ¬- this is the price that Westminster is prepared to pay to protect and serve. Maybe one can conclude that having the “sole aim of separating Scotland from the UK” is not such a bad idea after all?

Paul Cochrane, 10 Grants Way, Paisley.