Thread: Justice for the 96? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023865
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
So the actual truth about the Hillsborough disaster is out. Finally.

BBC Summary here

Should we be shocked at the lies by our Police force, to cover up their failings?

quote:
From the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report [SYP=South Yorkshire Police]:

They also demonstrate how the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP chief constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused on several police officers' allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament.

Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the panel there is no evidence to support these allegations other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation.
I know there are some of the Ship who feel very strongly about this issue. I remain very sad at the horrendous loss of life but should I be angry that our government covered up the truth of this situation?

[Votive] [x 96]

AFZ
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
I feel very angry about the cover-up. For 23 years, Liverpool fans have been wrongly blamed for contributing the disaster, if not actually causing it. I am so very glad for the families that the truth has finally come out. It stinks to high Heaven that 41 people could have been saved if the ambulances had been allowed into the ground.

I will hold my hands up and admit that I beleived the Sun's lies when they were first published. However, over the years, I realised they weren't true.I was 23 when Hillsborough happened; I'm 46 now. It's taken half my life for the documents to be made public: that's disgusting.

Today isn't justice for the 96. Today the truth comes out - justice will only come when there is a new inquest and someone is held accountable for what happened.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
God Bless Liverpool

I was eight when it happened so cant remember it and only know it from history.

The disaster was the sum of a range of wrong ideas, situations and attitudes that meant 96 innocent people lost their lives


Whether this brings 'closure' is for those directly affected to say. I hope it will bring some peace to them.

God Bless Liverpool
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I apologize for jumping on the bandwagon at the time.

Boris Johnson needs to go and PERSONALLY apologise to all concerned.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Caged terraces were a common sight in Britain at that time because of weekly hooligan pitch invasions.

Sale of alcohol had been been banned within football grounds because mis-use was contibuting to hoolignism. Therefore large numbers of, (mainly male), fans would get tanked up in pubs and arrive en mass at the last minute to see the match.

Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.

OK the Police cover-up was bad . No worse than the MoD covering up Gulf War syndrome . It's what we expect from our institutions.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I remain very sad at the horrendous loss of life but should I be angry that our government covered up the truth of this situation?

[Votive] [x 96]

AFZ
Hell, yes! I'm angry about it from the other side of the world, and with no connection to Liverpool. I just cannot understand why institutions stand shoulder-to-shoulder to protect the corrupt, the incompetent, and the stupid in their ranks, when the inevitable result is that they join themselves to the eventual fallout, and thereby tar all the good and conscientious members of their institutions with the same mucky brush. This stinks, and the stink unfortunately spreads far and wide.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Caged terraces were a common sight in Britain at that time because of weekly hooligan pitch invasions.

Sale of alcohol had been been banned within football grounds because mis-use was contibuting to hoolignism. Therefore large numbers of, (mainly male), fans would get tanked up in pubs and arrive en mass at the last minute to see the match.

Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
I think it's just as easy to argue that a failure to both prepare and implement adequate emergency management plans, given a foreknown situation which included crowds, drunkenness and restricted egress was the culprit. Imagine if there had been a fire - and this surely was a scenario which had been at least glanced at by someone, sometime - which was not visible to the stewards down by the pitch - would drunkenness and hooliganism have been the cause of the deaths that resulted if that had been the scenario instead?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
[Mad] I dare you to come to Liverpool and say that. Prejudice (against football fans, and especially scousers) on the part of the police was far more to blame.

And whatever the (direct or indirect) reasons for the disaster, what is totally inexcusable and must be punished, are the lies and cover-up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I am not really shocked by the police lies. I have heard about this over the years, as it is common knowledge on Merseyside. What is shocking is that families and others have not been believed but dismissed, and told to shut up.

But it's the story of the 41 who were still alive, that has really shocked me. And outside, row upon row of ambulances stood empty.

I saw a mother on TV who had tracked down the last seven people to see her son alive, way beyond the time of 3.15, and the final woman who saw him, who held him in her arms while he died. With no medically trained people around.

That is beyond negligence.

Fresh inquests are a necessity now.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Because yes, now is exactly the right fucking time to think about allegations of drunkenness.

I'll tell you what we should think about:

quote:
The panel discovered that as many as 41 victims of the disaster on 15 April 1989 might have been saved had the emergency response been better. They also found that 116 of the 164 police statements taken afterwards were doctored to show the police in a better light, and that the South Yorkshire ambulance service had also altered statements to deflect criticism.
From here

Oh, and

quote:
The panel found that the weight placed on alcohol levels was "inappropriate and misleading" and the pattern of alcohol consumption "unremarkable".

The report says blood alcohol levels were taken from survivors for no apparent medical reason and that attempts were made to "impugn the reputation of the deceased" by checking whether they had criminal records.
Bear in mind that blood was taken from six 14 year olds and three 15 year olds to see if any alcohol was there.

Angloid is right.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
The real question is simply: can we trust the Police about anything then and anything now? The answer must be no unless corrobative and "unadjusted" evidence is available.

Amended statements are lies in print and perjury in court. No matter who told the police to change the statements, take issue with the people (who like sheep) went along with it and failed to tell the truth as well as actively lying.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Oopss missed edit window - adjusted post.

I'm no football fan - I hate the game - but this whole thing makes me see the red mist. I feel for the families who have waited for justice and who have maligned in the process - multiplying their pain after grief and loss. That alone is desperately wrong.

The real question is simply: can we trust the Police about anything? (then and now) he answer must be no unless corrobative and "unadjusted" evidence is available.

Amended statements are lies in print and perjury in court. No matter who told the police to change the statements, take issue with the people (who like sheep) went along with it and failed to tell the truth, as well as actively lying.

As for the Sun and other newspapers implying that fans abused the dead and dying, it goes to show just how powerful the spin promulgated by the rich and powerful can be. I wonder who the MP concerned was? To be clear - name and shame.

Why, when the answer and evidence has been available in government files for 22 years at least (I'll allow a year to get it together), have successive Governments failed to bring it to light? Everyone here is culpable - and it's such a good reason on its own to kick secrecy laws into touch.

It opens a far bigger can of worms - what other "lies" from our glorious past remain to be exposed? What other foundations rocked? What other public reputations built on spin will be laid bare for the lies they are?
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
I don't know much about football but anyone who was a student in Sheffield in the second half of the 80s could tell you how bad the police were. I heard it said on the radio that the police were on a high after the miners strike and saw themselves as untouchable, they certainly acted as if that were true. The fact that they covered up for each other and acted as if they were doing it all in the national interest comes as no real surprise. I don't think there will ever be justice for the 96, after all the police officers involved will all be just about retiring on fat pensions, but I'm glad that some of the truth is finally emerging.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I don't know much about football but anyone who was a student in Sheffield in the second half of the 80s could tell you how bad the police were. I heard it said on the radio that the police were on a high after the miners strike and saw themselves as untouchable, they certainly acted as if that were true. The fact that they covered up for each other and acted as if they were doing it all in the national interest comes as no real surprise. I don't think there will ever be justice for the 96, after all the police officers involved will all be just about retiring on fat pensions, but I'm glad that some of the truth is finally emerging.
Most will be retired or dead themselves - the Police pension scheme is one of the (if not the) most generous of all Uk schemes. 30 years service from the age of 16 is enough to get you a 2/3rds of your final salary pension.

Waiting 23 years means the major players are either untouchable (dead) or retired (so there's no impact on job, pension etc if found culpable). Any prosecution is unlikely:

a) the judiciary will be taking on their own - and they aren't exactly good at that
b) any defendent could argue that they won't get a fair trial given the reports and information in the public doman
c) "not in the public interest" claims by Government - who tbh shoiuld also be in the dock esp one Margaret Thatcher who was aware of all the background but chose to do nothing.

Oh for one great show trial!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think that normally there would not be prosecutions, as usually the police and other elements of the establishment, get away scot-free with stuff like this. But it's possible that the feeling about it is so strong, that the CPS will feel compelled.

Whether or not there might be corporate prosecutions, I don't know.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that normally there would not be prosecutions, as usually the police and other elements of the establishment, get away scot-free with stuff like this. But it's possible that the feeling about it is so strong, that the CPS will feel compelled.

Whether or not there might be corporate prosecutions, I don't know.
Very true - see attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

The perpetrator acquitted despite the evidence. It's not uncommon in cases involving members of the Police nor is the matter of "bent" evidence ever really purused. (Mendes?)

It only encourages more of the same - if only we all behaved the same way and were permitted (perhaps encouraged) to escape the consequences. Rather different for the rioters last year wasn't it? (I'm not condoning that in any way but the knee jerk reaction of the establishment was very obvious in some of the calls for sentencing).

How about the Daily Mail now making an issue of justice for the 96, given their intemperate reporting at the time? Perhaps that's one small route to atonement.
 
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:


I wonder who the MP concerned was? To be clear - name and shame.

The MP has already been named. Others are also calling for him to be publicly shamed.

He was leader of the Conservative group on Sheffield City Council for many years, and became MP for Sheffield Hallam, (now represented by Nick Clegg) in 1987. I don't know why he was even consulted about the Hillsborough tragedy, as the ground wasn't in his constituency, although he had stood for Sheffield Hillsborough in 1979, losing to Labour's Martin Flannery. He was, however, Sheffield's only Tory MP, the rest being Labour.

So, with the Miners' Strike still fresh in people's minds, I wonder were the authorities more likely to talk to a Conservative MP? Were Labour MPs less willing to engage with those they still saw as “the Enemy”?

It is easier to imagine why someone on the far right of the Conservative Party might wish to denigrate working class Liverpudlians.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:
[QUOTE]
So, with the Miners' Strike still fresh in people's minds, I wonder were the authorities more likely to talk to a Conservative MP? Were Labour MPs less willing to engage with those they still saw as “the Enemy”?

It is easier to imagine why someone on the far right of the Conservative Party might wish to denigrate working class Liverpudlians.
The politics of revenge at its worst, then. All because the miners shafted Ted Heath in the 1970's ....
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Just to add, Jon Paul Gilhooley, the cousin of Stevie Gerrard was 10 years old when he died at Hillsborough.

His blood was tested for traces of alcohol as well.

10 fucking years old.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There are many terrible stories coming out of it. One is that a few fans made a hole in the fence, and began to drag people out, but were driven back by police with dogs, the police apparently thinking that they were fighting.

Ambulances told to wait outside, as 'the fans were still fighting'.

Some fans asked Grobbelaar to help them, and he asked a policewoman to open a gate in the fence, and she said she couldn't unless her boss said so.

And so on and so on.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Caged terraces were a common sight in Britain at that time because of weekly hooligan pitch invasions.

Sale of alcohol had been been banned within football grounds because mis-use was contibuting to hoolignism. Therefore large numbers of, (mainly male), fans would get tanked up in pubs and arrive en mass at the last minute to see the match.

Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
I think it's just as easy to argue that a failure to both prepare and implement adequate emergency management plans, given a foreknown situation which included crowds, drunkenness and restricted egress was the culprit. Imagine if there had been a fire - and this surely was a scenario which had been at least glanced at by someone, sometime - which was not visible to the stewards down by the pitch - would drunkenness and hooliganism have been the cause of the deaths that resulted if that had been the scenario instead?
You might not be surprised to know that just a few years before, 55 had died in a fire at Valley Parade, Bradford City's ground. The stand was primarily wooden and while there was no fence preventing spectators getting onto the pitch, the turnstiles were locked and no staff were available to unlock them, there were fences preventing exit to other parts of the ground and there were no fire extinguishers.

Most football grounds were disaster areas then, but the Great and the Good didn't give a damn about football and football supporters. Things have changed now - they are interested in football, but there's a lot of money in it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Even more damning is that Hillsborough didn't actually have a safety certificate, which grounds were supposed to have.

Yet the FA awarded the semi-final to Hillsborough. Did anyone check?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
There'd been bother there the previous year when we played Forest as well. Also in 1981 when Spurs played someone, where a crush was only averted due to the ref asking that the gates be opened.

According to the excellent journalist David Conn (from the guardian) "The FA selected Hillsborough for a semi-final without asking a thing about supporters safety. Just about money, and free seats for FA guests".

Note how the FA haven't apologised for their role in this. Graham Kelly was one of those who swallowed the Druckenfeld/Inghram/Thatcher/Mackenzie lies.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.

No. It has been clear throughout that multiple complex factors were in play and we now know that any of those factors which painted the police and government in a bad light were deliberately suppressed.

If I *had* to pick one, ultimate, causative factor, I would say that it was the unwillingness of the most senior police officer on the day to acknowledge that pre-match crowd control had failed and, therefore, to ask for kick-off to be delayed.

I think that had a decision been taken to delay kick-off, the pressure outside the stadium would have abated, as fans who were frustrated by the mismanaged queueing systems would have relaxed and people could then have been safely admitted to the areas where there was space.

SY police didn't want to delay kick off because it would be an admission of failure on their part, and because they knew they would look like idiots.

The way that, despite the multiple factors involved, so many lives could have been saved had the police been prepared to say that they were losing control and needed more time, fills me with rage and frustration that we cannot turn back the clock.

[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Caged terraces were a common sight in Britain at that time because of weekly hooligan pitch invasions.

Sale of alcohol had been been banned within football grounds because mis-use was contibuting to hoolignism. Therefore large numbers of, (mainly male), fans would get tanked up in pubs and arrive en mass at the last minute to see the match.

Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
I think it's just as easy to argue that a failure to both prepare and implement adequate emergency management plans, given a foreknown situation which included crowds, drunkenness and restricted egress was the culprit. Imagine if there had been a fire - and this surely was a scenario which had been at least glanced at by someone, sometime - which was not visible to the stewards down by the pitch - would drunkenness and hooliganism have been the cause of the deaths that resulted if that had been the scenario instead?
You might not be surprised to know that just a few years before, 55 had died in a fire at Valley Parade, Bradford City's ground. The stand was primarily wooden and while there was no fence preventing spectators getting onto the pitch, the turnstiles were locked and no staff were available to unlock them, there were fences preventing exit to other parts of the ground and there were no fire extinguishers.

Most football grounds were disaster areas then, but the Great and the Good didn't give a damn about football and football supporters. Things have changed now - they are interested in football, but there's a lot of money in it.
At least BCAFC ownership and management had the grace and humility to acknowledge they were at fault and not to attempt to pass blame onto the victims.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There'd been bother there the previous year when we played Forest as well. Also in 1981 when Spurs played someone, where a crush was only averted due to the ref asking that the gates be opened.

According to the excellent journalist David Conn (from the guardian) "The FA selected Hillsborough for a semi-final without asking a thing about supporters safety. Just about money, and free seats for FA guests".

Note how the FA haven't apologised for their role in this. Graham Kelly was one of those who swallowed the Druckenfeld/Inghram/Thatcher/Mackenzie lies.
Actually, the FA have apologised.

quote:
"On behalf of the FA... we are deeply sorry this tragedy occurred at a stadium the FA selected...I offer a full and unreserved apology," said FA chairman David Bernstein.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.

No. It has been clear throughout that multiple complex factors were in play and we now know that any of those factors which painted the police and government in a bad light were deliberately suppressed.

If I *had* to pick one, ultimate, causative factor, I would say that it was the unwillingness of the most senior police officer on the day to acknowledge that pre-match crowd control had failed and, therefore, to ask for kick-off to be delayed.
<snip>

There was a very experienced match day commander due to take charge, who was replaced at short notice, and no satisfactory explanation for why that happened has been found, according to the press conference that the panel did yesterday.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I apologize for jumping on the bandwagon at the time.

Boris Johnson needs to go and PERSONALLY apologise to all concerned.
Why Boris? What did he have to do with it?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
This.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's interesting how this scandal is being viewed by different political groups. Provisionally, I would say that on the left, people are saying, this is symptomatic, in other words, the police, and other Establishment institutions regularly lie and cover their tracks.

On the right, I think commentators are saying that it is an unfortunate lapse by various authorities, but it is exceptional, and we can continue to trust them.

And I guess, a bunch of people in the middle who sort of saying, well, there are some bad examples of this around, in fact, rather a lot, and we need to make sure they are clean from now on.

I suppose you could also label this the spectrum between cynicism and hope.

I am curious if it has any effect politically; it's possible of course, that it will soon be forgotten.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Of course, he did apologise for that at the time as well. I guess that doesn't count for much in your eyes?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am not really shocked by the police lies. I have heard about this over the years, as it is common knowledge on Merseyside. What is shocking is that families and others have not been believed but dismissed, and told to shut up.

But it's the story of the 41 who were still alive, that has really shocked me. And outside, row upon row of ambulances stood empty.
Yes.

FWIW, I was sceptical that the report would tell us anything new, because I thought that the negligence of the police was already well-established, including the fact that the police commanders should have been able to see that the pen was overcrowding and act accordingly. And the fans had already been largely exonerated of blame by the Taylor Report.

So I was shocked and angry to hear that there was more to come out. Leaving 41 people to die is something you'd expect of Putin's Russia. In fact if it happened in Russia and was publicised there'd be protests all over the West about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Of course, he did apologise for that at the time as well. I guess that doesn't count for much in your eyes?
The last few paragraphs of Chesterbelloc's link are quite interesting:
quote:
[Simon] Heffer acknowledged his role in the furore in July, writing: "I know a bit about this episode, because I wrote the first draft of the article, at Mr Johnson’s request.

"When I heard the piece ... had created a furore in the city and that Mr Johnson was in trouble with Michael Howard, I offered to ring the then Tory leader and admit responsibility.

Mr Johnson, most creditably I thought, refused to let me do this, saying he was the editor of the magazine, and it was his duty to deal with the matter."


[ 13. September 2012, 14:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some of these apologies ring hollow to me. For over 20 years, some people have been quite happy to say that drunken fans caused the crush at Hillsborough, and have also said that the families should basically shut up and move on.

But now, they are falling over themselves to apologize. If I was a family member linked to the disaster, I would be tempted to say, shove it. Why did you never bother to find out what we were saying all that time? Why did you just accept the misinformation?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Of course, he did apologise for that at the time as well. I guess that doesn't count for much in your eyes?
An apology, often years down the line, is always worth an article that panders to your readership's lowest standards. Editors are like that. We really shouldn't expect anything else.

To accuse an institution of lying and covering its tracks is simply to say it is an institution.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Of course, he did apologise for that at the time as well. I guess that doesn't count for much in your eyes?
I'd have thought that even you, Marvin, would be hard-placed to guess my attitude from a one-word link. As it happens, you guess wrongly.

I linked to that article with the sole intention of furnishing leo with the information he asked for. If the Heffer quote which Ricardus posted is a fair reflection of the affair, I think Johnson comes out of it rather well.

But next time, perhaps I'll just let someone else do the honours.
 
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :
 
Basically the police and emergency services panicked in the face of a mass human castrophy and then lied to cover up their incompetance which resulted in the deaths of the 96 fans.

That it took so long to expose the truth shames us; the tenacity and commitment to justice of the families of the 96 should make us proud.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Partly panic, but also a very fixed mind-set that the fans were fighting. Thus, when ambulances arrived at the ground, it appears that they were told not to go in, because of fighting.

In fact, if you watch some of the film of the pitch, many fans are desperately rushing across it, carrying injured and dying people on makeshift stretchers.

I suppose the notion of the hooligan was fixed in the minds of police and others.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You might not be surprised to know that just a few years before, 55 had died in a fire at Valley Parade, Bradford City's ground. The stand was primarily wooden and while there was no fence preventing spectators getting onto the pitch, the turnstiles were locked and no staff were available to unlock them, there were fences preventing exit to other parts of the ground and there were no fire extinguishers.

Most football grounds were disaster areas then, but the Great and the Good didn't give a damn about football and football supporters. Things have changed now - they are interested in football, but there's a lot of money in it.
[Tangent] My opinion of St Aldate's Church, Oxford, plummetted to rock bottom when I was at their main Sunday morning service the day after the Bradford City fire. There were lots of prayers about the need for more money for St Aldate's; not a single mention of the victims of the Bradford fire. [/Tangent]

Actually given what it might indicate about the priorities of the comfortable middle classes and their attitude towards football at the time perhaps it's not so much of a tangent.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
[Tangent] My opinion of St Aldate's Church, Oxford, plummetted to rock bottom when I was at their main Sunday morning service the day after the Bradford City fire. There were lots of prayers about the need for more money for St Aldate's; not a single mention of the victims of the Bradford fire. [/Tangent]

Actually given what it might indicate about the priorities of the comfortable middle classes and their attitude towards football at the time perhaps it's not so much of a tangent.
It wasn't just that they were football supporters and working class, but northern too. In the case of Hillsborough, they were not only northern but scousers. More than enough to damn them in the eyes of the establishment and the establishment toadies like the police.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To accuse an institution of lying and covering its tracks is simply to say it is an institution.
No it isn't, otherwise the institution of marriage is in BIG trouble.

Institutions are just organised ways of doing things by people.

Yes it matters because people saying things like what you said, means that people get rid of the formal forms without thinking what will go in their place. Nine times out of ten what replaces them is worse.

Jengie
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Well, deliberate tampering with evidence sounds like 'perverting the course of justice to me'.

On the face of it it seems like someone has to be culpable, but we have the previous experience of Brazilian electricians and drunken newspaper sellers, killed with similarly clear evidence, to know that anyone really significant will wriggle out of it.

Hope that facist MP loses his knighthood though.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
At the moment one can hardly move for apologies regarding the outcome of the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report but despite considering referring officers and itself to the IPCC no apology is forthcoming from the South Yorkshire Police. Sir Norman Bettison, the current chief of the West Yorkshire Police and was a chief inspector at Hillsborough, is sticking to his assertion that the behaviour of some fans in the stadium made the job of the police "harder than it needed to be".

If that's the attitude one needs to get on in the police, then things haven't changed.

Jengie Jon: you know very well that marriage may be called an institution, but a comparison between that and instruments of the establishment is absurd.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The Independent Report of the Hillsborough tragedy is a damming indictment of Police and Press and Sheffield Wed. Football Club itself.

I ask a question which goes behind the whole tragic occurance.

What is is about football supporters which demands segregation at matches and a huge police presence even at local games?

I have often been to Twickenham ( rugby) and Lords (cricket) for national and international matches. Never have I been asked which team I support nor have I ever been coralled into a separate area on the basis of team loyalty.

Football seems to have an ethos in a tribalism and antagonism all of its own. The Independent Report makes much of the distinction between crowd control ( dealing with the hooligan element) and crowd safety. The Police evidently were more concerned with the former.

Its the culture of football which bears the largest blame/responsibility. Evidenced even today in the vile chanting and dubious songs which provide the background noise to every match.

Hillsborough was but the inevitable consequence of a shared culture. 96 deaths is too high a price to pay.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Of course, he did apologise for that at the time as well. I guess that doesn't count for much in your eyes?
Well, he apologised after realising what a stink it caused, but why the hell say it in the first place?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Just to make it clear, I am not saying hooliganism, (by Liverpool supporters), was the cause of the terrible deaths of those poor people at Hillsborough .
What I'm saying is that years of hooligan culture in this country had set the stage for such a tragedy to unfold. It just happened to be in that place on that particular day .

ISTM the whole chain of events that afternoon, after that one error by that one Copper, revolved around the fact that most , apart from those directly involved, wrongly believed it to be a hooligan incident .

We seem to have short memories as to just how big problem football violence was at that time .
That is why Police thought it would be easy to divert the blame for the Hillsborough tragedy . However they forgot the maxim ---"The Truth will always out" .
Opening the gate was a mistake , covering up the mistake by doctoring evidence was just plain wrong.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What is is about football supporters which demands segregation at matches and a huge police presence even at local games? [...] Football seems to have an ethos in a tribalism and antagonism all of its own. [...] Its the culture of football which bears the largest blame/responsibility. Evidenced even today in the vile chanting and dubious songs which provide the background noise to every match.
That's pretty much what I would have said in the 1980s and 1990s. My opinion changed for the not-very-good reason that I started actually going to football matches at about the age of fifty, and I found the noise and the shouting and so on to be fun.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This.
Thank you - I thought I had missed something and, clearly, I had.

Socialist that I am, I quite like Boris! Now, I can dislike him for a while!
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Independent Report of the Hillsborough tragedy is a damming indictment of Police and Press and Sheffield Wed. Football Club itself.
Being a Sheffield Wednesday fan, my natural reaction is to be all defensive about this and say "Unfair! No way! It was the police" etc. I was only 10 at the time and had never been to Hillsborough so I had know knowledge of the ground's state then. It does appear from the reports that it was far from adequate for the semi-final and that the club were more interested in making money from the event than in the proper safety of the fans.

(In fact, Hillsborough still feels in desperate need of updating and it was a bit of a shock that it was chosen to be one of the grounds used had we won the rights to host the World Cup in whenever-it-was.)

The club have put out a statement about it, which seems to boil down to "We're different owners from the last lot; we've been complying with this process (unlike the last lot)". It doesn't entirely convince, but it's also true that this is a very different club from what it was then (or even what it was just a few years ago - there was little love for Wednesday's previous owners from the fans back then). It's interesting that on the club's Facebook page, a lot of Wednesday fans are calling for the West Stand, as it's known now, to be demolished and rebuilt.

I'm not sure if there's a point to all this, other than I have hugely mixed emotions as a fan of the club where all this happened. First and foremost though there's immense sympathy for the loved ones of the 96 and relief that they have the truth - hopefully they will now get justice.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Question to Ken

He enjoys the shouting and the noise. Great.

What about the chanting and the abuse of opposing fans which is part nd parcel f the shouting and the noise.?

The last match I attended was at Highbury when Arsenal played Man U

I was appalled at the viscious chants of Arsenal supporters mocking Man U in the aftermath of the Munich disaster.

And, when the ref gave a penalty against Arsenal I was terrified at the wave of emotional reaction. "Kill the ref" they shouted and I firmly believe that if the could they would.

Never again. It scared me stiff.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
There has been an arms race of ever more vicious chanting between Liverpool and Man Utd supporters over their respective tragedies of Hillsborough and Munich.

I am not defending vicious chanting, just pointing out that it is part of the 'letting off steam' and tribalism of Working Class culture where provocation escalates the nastiness.

Football is one of the last bastions of working class male culture. It is not sanitised, it is not 'family-orientated' and it most certainly not politely middle class, regardless of how much money is pumped in or how razz-a-ma-tazz Sky Sports coverage makes it seem

Censoring the chanting would be a sop to polite consciences but in reality be just a different kind of establishment arrogance towards Working class men who because they aren't polite and do chant such nasty things must be re-educated for their edification.

God Bless Liverpool supporters that they don't listen to those who know better than them
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Question to Ken

He enjoys the shouting and the noise. Great.

What about the chanting and the abuse of opposing fans which is part nd parcel f the shouting and the noise.?

The last match I attended was at Highbury when Arsenal played Man U

I was appalled at the viscious chants of Arsenal supporters mocking Man U in the aftermath of the Munich disaster.

And, when the ref gave a penalty against Arsenal I was terrified at the wave of emotional reaction. "Kill the ref" they shouted and I firmly believe that if the could they would.

Never again. It scared me stiff.
If you haven't been before and you don't like football I've no doubt the 'atmosphere' at a football match is pretty intimidating. During the Six Nations Rugby tournament let me assure you that The Milleneum Stadium in Cardiff is a fierce place for rugby matches, and I don't think Murrayfield is a great place to be English either.

Then again, you aren't in any more danger than you would be in a pub, ie it pays to watch what you say, but I doubt you are in much more real danger at football matches. Here are some statistics and what surprised me was that at 71% of international and professional matches in England and Wales here exactly no arrests whatsoever. About 37 million attended football matches and there were just over 3,000 arrests. I reckon you get a higher rate of arrests and violence of all kinds in most towns on a Tuesday afternoon, let alone a Friday or Saturday night.

A lot of lies were peddled about Hillsborough. Plenty of what is at the very best termed disinformation is still spread about football supporters to this day.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Just to make it clear, I am not saying hooliganism, (by Liverpool supporters), was the cause of the terrible deaths of those poor people at Hillsborough .
What I'm saying is that years of hooligan culture in this country had set the stage for such a tragedy to unfold. It just happened to be in that place on that particular day .

ISTM the whole chain of events that afternoon, after that one error by that one Copper, revolved around the fact that most , apart from those directly involved, wrongly believed it to be a hooligan incident .

We seem to have short memories as to just how big problem football violence was at that time.
Maybe it's just me, but I would have thought that if hooliganism and violence was so utterly predictable at a match that anyone could expect to be caught up in it, anytime, they wouldn't have been taking their ten and twelve year-old sons and nephews along - however, from the list of victims, it would seem that they did.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Just to make it clear, I am not saying hooliganism, (by Liverpool supporters), was the cause of the terrible deaths of those poor people at Hillsborough .
Good. But, er, how to explain this then?

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.

 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Just to make it clear, I am not saying hooliganism, (by Liverpool supporters), was the cause of the terrible deaths of those poor people at Hillsborough .
Good. But, er, how to explain this then?

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
I can explain. rolyn was taken in by the lies too. Can't blame rolyn for that, because many of the lies came from people in positions of responsibility, authority, power and influence, and we're inclined to trust them, but we must have proper examination of such statements.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Just to make it clear, I am not saying hooliganism, (by Liverpool supporters), was the cause of the terrible deaths of those poor people at Hillsborough .
Good. But, er, how to explain this then?

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hillsbourgh was a disaster waiting to happen . Hooliganism was the culprit , albeit indirectly.
It seems to me that rolyn's follow-up post provides good clarification of the first, which could be interpreted in the current heated atmosphere surrounding this matter as siding with the corrupt establishment, even though that is not the most obvious reading.

In my reading of the first post, at least, rolyn does not seem to be saying that the specific cause of the tragic event in Hillsborough on that day in 1989 was hooliganism by the fans on the day but rather that a period of hooliganism in general had created a culture that was a significant contributory factor (hence saying that it was indirectly responsible). The clarifying post confirms this, and I see no contradiction for which rolyn ought to be called to account.

As somebody who was only a young child at the time of the events (5 years old, in fact), and who was then taken to live on the other side of the world the following year, I had no exposure to the goings-on, reports, and societal feelings in the years immediately following the event. I came back to the UK as a teenager, nine years after it happened, and since then have only ever heard occasional references to "the Hillsborough diaster" which I have never thought of as anything other than an event in history, much like Shire Dweller's experience. I have had a vague awareness of it being related to the collapse of part of a football stadium, resulting in injury and death, but not being from Merseyside or Sheffield and having no interest in football, until yesterday I had never heard of all of the lies and politicking in the aftermath of the tragedy.

For the first time, I have got an understanding of the significance of Hillsborough, and, while the whole affair has been saddening and shocking, it is new to me, and has not been tied to any memories or ongoing feelings over the years.

As such, I was able to read rolyn's post without baggage, and there seemed to me to be nothing there at which to take offence. Unless, of course, I'm missing something, in which case, I apologise.

[ 14. September 2012, 08:32: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Oh my word, using now to bring the conversation away from state incompetence and corruption back towards football fans, indeed.

A few other things:

I don't trust any apology that comes out now. All of this, and I include Cameron (and Straw regarding his "regrets") is PR.

Note that the insurers for Sheffield Wednesday did not comply with the panel.

Oh, and there is no "arms race" between mancs and Reds. A few hundred Liverpool fans sing about Munich and Shipman. Whole stands of mancs (among other fans) sing about Hillsborough.

We'll see what we hear from the Annie Road in our next home game.

[ 14. September 2012, 08:37: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Oh my word, using now to bring the conversation away from state incompetence and corruption back towards football fans, indeed.
I don't mean to speak for anybody else and I hope that rolyn doesn't think that I'm overstepping any boundaries here, but I didn't read rolyn as using now for anything in particular, as though having some sort of agenda. I don't know rolyn. Perhaps (s)he has a particular axe to grind; perhaps not - I don't know.

However, in a discussion such as this, when new information has come to light and people's long-held suspicions have finally been confirmed, I don't think it inappropriate to explore some of the reasons underpinning what happened. For many people under a certain age, much of this is very new and a worthwhile point of discussion.

It seems to me that the authorities, the police in particular, ballsed up. As a result, people were injured, people died. They then covered their tracks, calumniating the victims, causing untold hurt, anger and frustration to the mourners, and denied them the closure that they needed, all for saving face. This is reprehensible and inexcusable. I cannot begin to imagine what those families have endured or what could lead to a corporate lie of this magnitude.

However, again, as somebody for whom much of this is new, going back to the day, I do wonder what happened and why it happened.

Here's part of a post from page one of this thread:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are many terrible stories coming out of it. One is that a few fans made a hole in the fence, and began to drag people out, but were driven back by police with dogs, the police apparently thinking that they were fighting.

Ambulances told to wait outside, as 'the fans were still fighting'.

...

And so on and so on.
The police got it wrong, and the track-covering that followed these grave errors of judgement is something that we now know for fact. But it doesn't seem inappropriate to me to ask why the police got it wrong in the first place.

I was recently reading the synopsis of a film I'm thinking of buying on DVD. It is set in a prison, and one of the inmates is a Catholic priest who is very secretive about the reason for his incarceration, and who displays signs of immense feelings of guilt. He receives all manner of abuse because the other inmates make the same assumption that the audience is led to make, that he has molested children. In fact, one reviewer said that, watching the film, he felt himself relating to the feelings of the other inmates. Later in the film, the truth comes out, and it transpires that the act that led to his imprisonment had nothing to do with that, and is actually something with which many people would sympathise. (I won't say what it is in case anybody wants to see the film in question.)

The point is that this man, through no wrongdoing of his own, was suspected of something of which he was innocent and was maltreated as a result. While the actions of those who abused him were inexcusable (and in which the viewer is made to feel complicit), it doesn't change the fact that the root cause of their assumptions was a culture that had resulted from the previous actions of others.

Bringing this back to Hillsborough, I do have to wonder: Why did the police look at a crowd of innocent people who were desperataely scrambling to save their own lives and the lives of those around them, and assume that what they were seeing was football fans fighting? When people tore a hole in a fence to save others, why did the police think that they were seeing hooligans destroying property? The people there were innocent of these things. So where did the assumption come from?

[ 14. September 2012, 09:24: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There are various accounts of the police mind-set.

You can argue that they had pigeon-holed football fans as hooligans, and could not perceive them any other way, so when they saw people in distress against the fence, they were 'fighting'.

You could also argue that this was part of an anti-working class agenda, and also, possibly, an anti-Liverpool agenda. You still hear many jokes about Scousers, that they are all semi-criminals, living on the dole, and liable to nick your car.

All of this tends towards a dehumanization. So, apparently, about 40 people were just left to die on the pitch.

Would this have happened at a more middle-class venue, such as Wimbledon? Possibly not.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Damn this ridiculous time-limit on editing.

I forgot to say that apparently the senior ambulance people who were present, also had this perception of the fans.

This is perhaps even more shocking, as you would expect the ambulance service to be concerned with people's health, not their social status.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
I was referring to shamwari.

Regarding the police, this article about the fabrication of evidence against people who suffered due to police during the miner's strike offers a glimpse of a culture of police impunity.

Those responsible for Hillsborough are to be found within the ranks of the police, and in addition, now it has been revealed, members of the ambulance services were incompetent that day. The big question is the role of Bernard Ingram and Thatcher in the collusion of blaming the victims, and in the latter case, in enabling police to have such a feeling of impunity.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I don't mean to speak for anybody else and I hope that rolyn doesn't think that I'm overstepping any boundaries here, but I didn't read rolyn as using now for anything in particular, as though having some sort of agenda. I don't know rolyn. Perhaps (s)he has a particular axe to grind; perhaps not - I don't know.

No worries Scrumpmeister [Smile] . Thankyou for studying my post and for understanding what I'm trying to say . Admittedly I tend to sound a bit unfeeling at first, and then have to add some as I'm not out to hurt folks' feelings.

No axe to grind just a nobody with a POV . We were brought up to respect the Police , Ok we know they are not all white-knights . I seem to recall the Policeman who actually gave the order to open the double-gates did, afterwards, have genuine feelings of remorse at the outcome of his decision

Some one posted above that if hooliganism was such a big deal in 89 then why were families and young people the victims at Hillsborough . Therein lies the real nature the tragedy. Because yes, there you had people who *were* prepared to defy the hooligan element , get to the ground early in orderly fashion, stay off drink, etc.


Bringing this back to Hillsborough, I do have to wonder: Why did the police look at a crowd of innocent people who were desperataely scrambling to save their own lives and the lives of those around them, and assume that what they were seeing was football fans fighting? When people tore a hole in a fence to save others, why did the police think that they were seeing hooligans destroying property? The people there were innocent of these things. So where did the assumption come from?
That assumption came from a previous 20 years of increasing soccer hooliganism right across Britain.
I'm guessing that Thatcher saw Hillsborough as a perfect opportunity to shame the whole of the UK's hooligan culture.

Thankfully it did see the end that hideous spectacle of caged fans . But it took a further 15 years or more to really rid British football from the scourge of hooliganism . Among other things , it has been accomplished mainly by covert police operations targeting ring-leaders.

I believe those who lost their lives at Hillsborough on that terrible afternoon are best honoured by looking at the wider picture.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you haven't been before and you don't like football I've no doubt the 'atmosphere' at a football match is pretty intimidating. During the Six Nations Rugby tournament let me assure you that The Milleneum Stadium in Cardiff is a fierce place for rugby matches, and I don't think Murrayfield is a great place to be English either.

Then again, you aren't in any more danger than you would be in a pub, ie it pays to watch what you say, but I doubt you are in much more real danger at football matches. Here are some statistics and what surprised me was that at 71% of international and professional matches in England and Wales here exactly no arrests whatsoever. About 37 million attended football matches and there were just over 3,000 arrests. I reckon you get a higher rate of arrests and violence of all kinds in most towns on a Tuesday afternoon, let alone a Friday or Saturday night.
None of this is a recommendation.

I can attend an international rugby match here with 30,000 other fans and expect to see and hear no trouble, despite lack of segregation, and I can take my children.

Quite different to my experience of football matches in the early 90s, with the stone-faced lines of policemen expecting and geared up for trouble.

quote:
A lot of lies were peddled about Hillsborough. Plenty of what is at the very best termed disinformation is still spread about football supporters to this day.
No one can deny that lies were peddled about Hillsborough. It does not follow that football grounds were pleasant places in the 80s and 90s, or that football fans were all pleasant people, although I gather things have improved considerably since then.

That said, I note Rosa Winkel's comment that Liverpool and Man Utd fans still taunt each other concerning Hillsborough and Munich. [Disappointed]

Of course it should hardly need to be said that none of the violence and menace at football matches can ever be an excuse for criminal negligence or cover-ups thereof on the part of the police.

(edited to fix UBB)

[ 14. September 2012, 20:25: Message edited by: Cod ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There's almost a note creeping in here, that it was the fans' fault. This is pretty tacky, since we have just had a report denying this.

Crowd safety was not a priority. That is why 40 of them were left to die on the pitch, with no medical attention.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's almost a note creeping in here, that it was the fans' fault. This is pretty tacky, since we have just had a report denying this.
I know that looks like my stance quetzalcoatl but I can assure you it isn't .
Although never attending a football match I followed the fortunes of Liverpool FC as a school lad all through the 70s , had the kit-bag an all so you could call me a supporter .

I, like many, watched with horror as a pandemic of soccer thuggery took hold . Starting in the lower spectrum clubs, it eventually infected all the major clubs during the 80s and beyond.

Do any of us think those 'stony faced' police actually wanted to be at matches week on week trying to keep order in very difficult circumstances ?

Liverpool FC has a fine heritage . With this last revelation concerning the black afternoon at Hillsborough , coming as it did in the midst of a very dark period in UK soccer, surely this is the time for Liverpool let go of one very tragic event and reclaim it's glorious footballing past .

[ 15. September 2012, 08:58: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I suspect that the South Yorkshire Police had a slightly toxic culture due to the miners strike a couple of years earlier. That is they had become rather alienated from a large portion of the local population and were living in a semi-bubble anyway.

Jengie
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
surely this is the time for Liverpool let go of one very tragic event and reclaim it's glorious footballing past .
Liverpool as in Liverpool FC will no doubt (I couldn't say, being a footballphobe) continue to concentrate on the game. As it has done, despite the tragic diversion recently replayed. But Liverpool as a city, and everyone from survivors, victims' families, fellow-supporters to bishops, ordinary citizens and civic leaders, needs more than bland words of 'apology' 23 years too late. It needs to see those responsible for the tragedy and the cover-up suitably punished. 'Letting go' can't happen until justice has been done.

It's particularly sad to read the insensitive comments of Norman Bettison, who was one of the senior South Yorkshire officers who knew what was going on at the time. I thought he had redeemed himself because he went on to serve as an effective Chief Constable of Merseyside despite understandably strongly-voiced disquiet at the time of his appointment. But he clearly hasn't learned anything.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
surely this is the time for Liverpool let go of one very tragic event and reclaim it's glorious footballing past .
People have been saying this for years. The battle has not ended here. No-one has been charged yet. There's still a long way to go, and the families and survivors know that a lot better than yourself.

The point with regards to mentions of hooliganism, is that this is what we have been already told for 23 years. For years we have been told 'but you have to appreciate this' and 'the police have their own side of the story that'. Now isn't the time for that. Now is the time to talk of police corruption and prejudice against not just hooligans, but football fans in general, Liverpool fans as part of that. The story has moved on. I know a few rubgy fans who wish to use this time to stick the boot into football fans won't like that.

JJ: Check out the article I linked to to see more the connection between the miner's strike and Hillsborough.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
The cops were incompetent.

They had no freaking clue what was going on and no desire to find out.

They did not care that people were suffering.

They stopped people from helping.

They then went about creating a lie that it was the dead people's own faults.

They tested a 10 year old for alcohol.

*****


This has shite all to do with hooliganism culture.


***


The stand above was a seated stand.

My cousin was in the front row of that stand and helped pull kids to safety.

Don't freaking tell him this is about the atmosphere created by hooliganism.

*******


No excuses for what the cops did.


NONE.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
surely this is the time for Liverpool let go of one very tragic event and reclaim it's glorious footballing past .
People have been saying this for years. The battle has not ended here. No-one has been charged yet. There's still a long way to go, and the families and survivors know that a lot better than yourself.
Millions of pounds can be awarded in compensation, ex-coppers can be charged and MP's can be stripped of knighthoods .
The only thing that will remove the taint of Hillsborough from Liverpool is to put whole thing in context, and let humility taking precedence over anger.

OK, easy words for a distant observer like myself, but as you say Rosa I'm not the only one saying it.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

The only thing that will remove the taint of Hillsborough from Liverpool is to put whole thing in context, and let humility taking precedence over anger.
Humility on whose part? Unless you mean on the part of the liars, I'm tempted to call you to Hell.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
It winds me up when you get people who have fuck all to do with Liverpool telling the people of Liverpool what to do about the tragedy. There's no excuse now for not acknowledging where the culpability lays, and we know that that doesn't mean the fans.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm tempted to call you to Hell.
You can if it want . I haven't come on here spouting middle England guff in order to piss people off .
It's just a general feeling , obviously not helping so I'm quite prepared to STFU.

I've done some reading and discovered that alcohol was not a factor in the tragedy . The police at time said it was, I believed them . So I'll apologize for that.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm tempted to call you to Hell.
You can if it want . I haven't come on here spouting middle England guff in order to piss people off .
It's just a general feeling , obviously not helping so I'm quite prepared to STFU.

I've done some reading and discovered that alcohol was not a factor in the tragedy . The police at time said it was, I believed them . So I'll apologize for that.
Who's general feeling would that be? That of the silent majority I suppose.

It's a shame when people who were misled now sit back leaving the fight to those directly affected. Taking those responsible to task and investigating how the alteration of statements remained covered-up for so long isn't for the campaigners alone, and that is why the Attorney-General, amongst others, is involved.

Meanwhile we have one of those awful 'conditional apologies' from Sir Norman Bettison, current chief of West Yorkshire Police regarding his statement immediately following publication of the report. In a new statement he says "sorry if my earlier statement, intended to convey the same message, has caused any further upset". Here's a link: half-assed apology.

We have heard apologies from Sheffield Wednesday F.C., the Football Association and the Prime Minister but as yet there is still no apology from South Yorkshire Police.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's a shame when people who were misled now sit back leaving the fight to those directly affected. Taking those responsible to task and investigating how the alteration of statements remained covered-up for so long isn't for the campaigners alone, and that is why the Attorney-General, amongst others, is involved.
<snip>
...as yet there is still no apology from South Yorkshire Police.

So yeah, why the HELL isn't the whole country up in arms demanding answers, apologies and prosecutions? What is wrong with us?

AFZ
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's a shame when people who were misled now sit back leaving the fight to those directly affected. Taking those responsible to task and investigating how the alteration of statements remained covered-up for so long isn't for the campaigners alone, and that is why the Attorney-General, amongst others, is involved.
<snip>
...as yet there is still no apology from South Yorkshire Police.

So yeah, why the HELL isn't the whole country up in arms demanding answers, apologies and prosecutions? What is wrong with us?

AFZ
I think that most people will assume that it won't happen again, and if it does, it won't happen to them. Some interesting reflections that relate to a few points raised in this thread are in this BBC article.

When football fans were hated
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
I''m reading The Daughter of Time for the Ship's book group and this passage just leapt off the page at me, in the light of the Hillsborough revelations:

'The point is that every single man who was there knows that the story is nonsense, and yet it has never been contradicted. It will never be overtaken now. It is a completely untrue story grown to legend while the men who knew it to be untrue looked on and said nothing.'

Well, thanks to the persistance of the families and survivors, the lies have been 'overtaken'. Thank God for their efforts - but for them, their relatives would still be tarnished by the lies of South Yorkshire Police and the media.
 
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
I''m reading The Daughter of Time for the Ship's book group
Me too, it seemed like a classic example of "Tonypandy"* in the making.

The other thing that struck home was this article about the Bradford fire, and how the lessons weren't learnt. Elfn Safety gets a bad rep these days, but its easy to forget what happened in the bad old days before it was taken seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
Well, thanks to the persistance of the families and survivors, the lies have been 'overtaken'.
Hear hear. [Votive] for the 96, their family and friends.


*Term as defined in Starbug's post by the characters in the book, not wishing to start a tangent here
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
<tangent>
Will it take 20 years and a couple of further inquiries before this is put right?

The excesses of the police at protests and demonstrations has as long a history and has been justified on the same, spurious grounds, as their excesses towards football fans and strikers.

</tangent>

[ 17. September 2012, 12:05: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
<further tangent> Or, indeed, this one? <\further tangent>
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I am on dangerous ground here.

Having read every word of the Jones' report and contemplated it I have to agree that the SYP were culpable of trying to deflect blame on to the Liverpool supporters.

BUT

The Report quotes members of the Police "on the ground" who attended the injured and reported abuse of various kinds by supporters whilst so doing.

Their reports were not repudiated by the members of the Panel. Simply discounted.

When the dust settles I wonder just how the Jones Report will be evaluated.

At this (near) distance it seems unarguable. But sheer experience tells me to be aware that all is not all it seems to be.

No doubt this invites a Hell call in which I will not participate. The Jones Report is sufficiently damming in other respects to command my total agreement.0
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
From my own reading of the report (and I appreciate that others may disagree), I thought that at least some of the abuse was a reaction to the way the authorities were behaving - after all, if you can see something going badly wrong and think that someone's life might be at risk, it would be natural to scream and shout at the people who were supposed to be helping if they just stood there and did nothing.

Some survivors elsewhere on the web have described the terrible screams and cries of the people who were trapped. Some of them were being sick and struggling to breath. So, I wonder how much of the 'abuse' mentioned by the police etc was actually caused by the terrifying situation the fans found themselves in?

[ 17. September 2012, 21:17: Message edited by: Starbug ]
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
... continued from previous post, due to missing the edit window.

For example, this quote from former PC Frost '"Fit fans venting anger blaming us. 'You're all useless bastards.' Yes they are right.' I see this as frustration at the police force's (in)action, not hooliganism.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am on dangerous ground here.

Having read every word of the Jones' report and contemplated it I have to agree that the SYP were culpable of trying to deflect blame on to the Liverpool supporters.

BUT

The Report quotes members of the Police "on the ground" who attended the injured and reported abuse of various kinds by supporters whilst so doing.

Their reports were not repudiated by the members of the Panel. Simply discounted.

When the dust settles I wonder just how the Jones Report will be evaluated.

At this (near) distance it seems unarguable. But sheer experience tells me to be aware that all is not all it seems to be.

No doubt this invites a Hell call in which I will not participate. The Jones Report is sufficiently damming in other respects to command my total agreement.0
I expect you would "have to agree that the SYP were culpable", as the current SYP chief constable, along with officials at the Football Association and Sheffield Wednesday FC, Kelvin MacKenzie (then editor of The Sun), Sir Irvine Patrick MP and the Prime Minister have done so.

The Hillsborough Independent panel has issued a very long and detailed report. They have been thorough in reporting what they have found. They have found that some fans, at the ground were furious with the police for what they had seen the police doing, or not doing. Among the things the fans had seen was the police forcing fans into enclosure and refusing to ease the crush. Some of those who were looking on, felt frustration and anger.

For 23 years that frustration and anger, in response to police incompetence was been used to justify the lies put about by those who in those days sought to demonise football fans.

That's all. No Hell call.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Exactly what I would say.

But feel free to focus on anything that might make the victims (in which I include survivors) look bad.

Nice tribute at Everton tonight, by the way.
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
From what I can recall, there was also some evidence of the Nottingham fans shouting at police when they realised what was going on. How is this any different to the Liverpool fans shouting about the same thing?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
For some reason some chose to focus on the fans, and not on the police. Has always been the case. Despite the revelations (well, I say that but a lot was known before last Wednesday) the 'fans were (somewhat at least) to blame' line is still being maintained by some.

I mean, stories are emerging about how policemen were actually suspicious of a fan trying to help someone who was later to die, while standing there doing nothing. (See here for more details.)

Now, of course, to come to the question of the op, we should be fucking angry. The thing is, we are seeing (from the majority of people) well-meaning concern from many people, and like with Everton many other fans have paid tribute (Sunderland fans joined in with the 'Justice for the 96' chant on Saturday. I'm told YNWA was applauded at Charlton). TV commentators have been reminding us of the seriousness of the matter.

The thing is, while this counts for a lot for those who were slandered, we still need more: Prosections against Druckenfeld, Attison, Graham Mackrell (Health and Safety office at Wednesday at the time), the FA as well as those who perpetrated the slander: Mackenzie (and Murdoch and others at the S*n), Irvine Patnick, Bernhard Ingham and Thatcher.

The thing is, the police had carte blanche at the time and are still untouchable, in my opinion. That we have some politicians* (including one very high ranking one) among this I do not hold much hope.

* Tory politicians. Let it be said that I would say the same of Jack Straw, even though he is right in his views about what happened, not that he did owt to remedy the situation.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think there will always be some people who blame the fans, either directly or indirectly. I'm not sure why this is, but in a sense, I don't care. That is their business. They are talking bullshit, but they are free to do that. There is probably no point in arguing with them.

The families are half way to their demand for justice, at any rate.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I watched "Hillsborough Remembered" on TV a couple nights back and found it very moving . My initial response was to regret my posts on this thread .

However, at no point did I ever say that fans on that day were directly responsible for what happened . It was the measures taken to combat anti-social behaviour at football matches that had turned stadiums into potential death-traps.

Apparently there had been near crush incidents at previous FA Cup semi-finals in the mid 80s, the nearest miss being at a Tottenham v Wolves game. So the writing was well and truly on the wall.

My current guess is that during this period there was a Government directive tucked away somewhere in a very dark filing-cabinet . And it went something like . .... 'In the event of a football crowd control disaster blame the crowd if possible'.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
The point is not that I am accusing you of blaming Liverpool fans, rather, that you (among others) insist on repeatedly reminding us of hooliganism in the 80s. Hooliganism was one of the influences behind what caused Hillsborough. However, it is only one of many influences, and other influences are a lot stronger, such as the 'enemy within' policy of the Thatcher years (see here, aided, of course, by police incompetence and corruption and aided by members of the media and some of society who strengthened and/or supported prejudice against all football fans.

The hooliganism line has been done for 23 years now. It's time to focus on other things. For example, let's look at the actions of the management of Sheffield Wednesday FC: manslaughter charge?

Of course, by focusing on Sheffield Wednesday FC and the FA, I am in agreement with you.

[ 20. September 2012, 20:14: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
The point is not that I am accusing you of blaming Liverpool fans, rather, that you (among others) insist on repeatedly reminding us of hooliganism in the 80s.
OK, I take your point . I admit to banging on a bit . I'm suspect my reaction is like many outside of the event, that being we're inclined to look for simple logic.
I can see that there were a variety of reasons leading to a desperate situation minutes before kick-off on that day . Consequently a cataclysmic error was made, and from that moment on an awful lot of shabby arse-covering has occurred .


Anyway FWIW, I wish you guys luck for the future.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Independent on Sunday

I'm sure there will be a lot of these kind of stories.

AFZ
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
That seems somewhat unfair. Straw didn't think there was the evidence for additional investigation, he was mistaken, he set up an independent review anyway as he had promised to do. I assume he expected the judge would do it properly but not find anything, because he didn't believe there was anything to find.

Public enquiries are often requested/demanded but they are extremely expensive and time consuming exercises. Clearly, the government will pick and choose which they grant.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
That seems somewhat unfair. Straw didn't think there was the evidence for additional investigation, he was mistaken, he set up an independent review anyway as he had promised to do. I assume he expected the judge would do it properly but not find anything, because he didn't believe there was anything to find.

Public enquiries are often requested/demanded but they are extremely expensive and time consuming exercises. Clearly, the government will pick and choose which they grant.
Yeah, that's my take on it too. His comment to the judge surely could not be construed as influence?

AFZ
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0