Hillsborough Report

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Well put! The shear scale of the cover up is unbelievable, how do they sleep at night the bastards.

[Essex_George]

You cannot argue with that. I was watching the news conference and one family member said it was those in charge and not the rank and file he blamed. Another said she blamed then all, which is true. Some may helped on the day but they made a choice to cover it up and change their statements. Having public opinion against the fans helped a great deal and although it is hard to admit at the time, for me, it was far easier to believe a story about drunken fans.

[5co77ie]

Kelvin MacKenzie can fuck right off.

[pink_triangle]

Im glad the families are getting some justice from this terrible cover up. However I am very sceptical that all the documents provided showed no sign of politician wrongdoing. I just cant believe that information on such a big cover up could be just conained to the emergency services.

[Spindles]

But the inquiry means that people can now be prosecuted for it.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Yes, fucking, please. 23 years.

How utterly fucking disgusting is it to hear people apologise today, I don't give a fuck if they are sorry now they are caught, they have had 23 years to tell the truth, 23 long years of living happy comfortable lives knowing full well what the truth is but denying it until they are caught out on their lies.

I've spent today in bed, with the news on the radio, listening to this play out. I am glad that the truth HAS come out (I expected a blanket cover up, I'm sure I'm not alone) and I can only hope that we now see justice.

This.

[Spartacus Mars]

For the record, Boris didn't write the article. It was an anonymous editorial / leading piece published by the Spectator. Boris was the editor and took responsibility, but it was actually written by the equally-or-more ghastly Simon Heffer.

I've no problem lynching Boris over this, he was the editor and thus approved it, but I don't like the way Heffer gets off the hook.

[Spindles]

Fair comment mr Mars, thanks for the input. An editor should be held responsible for the content he approves, but the writer shouldn't get off the hook either (news international take note).

@rufus, indeed, sadly this is only the start of chapter 2. I got really angry about all this today, thinking about the lives of those who have been fighting, portrayed as they have been by the likes of Mr Heffer. Typical bully boy tactics. I am glad the truth is out, I genuinely thought it would be yet another whitewash and I am sure I am not alone.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

One thing that is coming out of this is that I hope this type of thing will never be able to happen again. Back in the 80's was an entirely different news environment. I did believe what was put before me. Now we have the internet and youtube and the like hopefully it will be virtually impossible to sort such a cover up. At the time I was really taken in, however over the years through experience at police hands and what has happened around me I have learned to distrust the people charged with our trust. I have been in a situation of covering my back, and a job at risk, but I told the truth. I cannot imagine a care were over 164 people were willing to lie.

[strummer77]

How utterly fucking disgusting is it to hear people apologise today, I don't give a fuck if they are sorry now they are caught, they have had 23 years to tell the truth, 23 long years of living happy comfortable lives knowing full well what the truth is but denying it until they are caught out on their lies.

Edited September 13, 2012 by strummer77

[Essex_George]

41 lives could of been saved. Justice needs to be brought against all responsible. JFT96

[eFestivals]

It was easy for nearly everyone to believe the story of drunken LFC fans.

Sadly, it was. In the standard context of the time - as a result of various happenings with football 'fans' from over the previous ten years or so - just about all football fans were regarded as scum by wider society.

In today's terms the old bill took a huge leap to invent the stories they used as a cover up. In the terms of the day it was just another example of scummy footie fans.

[eFestivals]

However I am very sceptical that all the documents provided showed no sign of politician wrongdoing. I just cant believe that information on such a big cover up could be just conained to the emergency services.

what's fucking wacky is that the documents get to show that Thatcher and Hurd both knew that South Yorks police were lying, but chose to do nothing about that.

And that, supposedly, is the proof of no political wrongdoing.

[Rachie]

It was easy for nearly everyone to believe the story of drunken LFC fans.

[eFestivals]

The thing is, some were drunk. Yesterday's report confirms that but puts that as insignificant because any drunkenness was not at a level that was unusual, because that falls within the normal things that the police had to deal with when crowd-controlling a football match.

While I completely agree with the conclusion they've made via that reasoning, and nothing of the cause of the tragedy should be put down to any drunkenness, it's still quite possibly the case that that had everyone been 100% sober, some of what happened might not have happened to the same extent or in the same way. People might have been more aware of their surroundings and what was going on, and what they did might have changed as a result.

Exactly the same applies with what the crowd chose to do after the gates had been opened. The gates themselves caused no crush, it was the movements of those people who did. Had I have been there I don't doubt I'd have done nothing different to those people who were there, but it's still the case that the pressure from the back created the crush at the front.

While it's exceedingly good that the police are finally being held to account for the actions they took which caused such bad crowd management and so directly caused the tragedy, there's a moral hazard from that that might cause some people to act in the way where they believe that others take responsibility for what they choose to do themselves.

What i'm saying is that there's things which can be learned by people in crowds from what happened, and not only the police. That shouldn't be forgotten amongst the finger pointing.

[Essex_George]

I remember starting a thread on the 17th anniversary of the tragedy on this very forum, and it became a massive thread mostly people telling me 'yes, BUT are you telling me there was no drunk scousers at that game?' it was a loosing battle. I remember getting so wound up i had to walk away from the thread.

Thank goodness the truth is now out.

I spent the whole of yesterday in Liverpool city centre attending all the services. Very upsetting, very emotional, but just wow at the people from this city (and country) for fighting for so long. I am proud to be from here.

[t8yman]

The thing is, some were drunk. Yesterday's report confirms that but puts that as insignificant because any drunkenness was not at a level that was unusual, because that falls within the normal things that the police had to deal with when crowd-controlling a football match.

While I completely agree with the conclusion they've made via that reasoning, and nothing of the cause of the tragedy should be put down to any drunkenness, it's still quite possibly the case that that had everyone been 100% sober, some of what happened might not have happened to the same extent or in the same way. People might have been more aware of their surroundings and what was going on, and what they did might have changed as a result.

Exactly the same applies with what the crowd chose to do after the gates had been opened. The gates themselves caused no crush, it was the movements of those people who did. Had I have been there I don't doubt I'd have done nothing different to those people who were there, but it's still the case that the pressure from the back created the crush at the front.

While it's exceedingly good that the police are finally being held to account for the actions they took which caused such bad crowd management and so directly caused the tragedy, there's a moral hazard from that that might cause some people to act in the way where they believe that others take responsibility for what they choose to do themselves.

What i'm saying is that there's things which can be learned by people in crowds from what happened, and not only the police. That shouldn't be forgotten amongst the finger pointing.

[eFestivals]

He said that South Yorkshire police were widely regarded as the worst in the country for heavy handedness and thuggery - maybe as a direct response to the miners strike, I dunno.

Given that coppers from all round the country were bussed up to Yorkshire and elsewhere, that would make all of them thugs.

Oh, hang on...

[lost]

one of my best mates is an ex hooligan (you'd never believe it if you met him now - one of the most placid blokes you could ever meet) and he was "active" in the 80's. He said that South Yorkshire police were widely regarded as the worst in the country for heavy handedness and thuggery - maybe as a direct response to the miners strike, I dunno.

Edited September 13, 2012 by lost

[the_hedge]

The thing is, some were drunk. Yesterday's report confirms that but puts that as insignificant because any drunkenness was not at a level that was unusual, because that falls within the normal things that the police had to deal with when crowd-controlling a football match.

While I completely agree with the conclusion they've made via that reasoning, and nothing of the cause of the tragedy should be put down to any drunkenness, it's still quite possibly the case that that had everyone been 100% sober, some of what happened might not have happened to the same extent or in the same way. People might have been more aware of their surroundings and what was going on, and what they did might have changed as a result.

Exactly the same applies with what the crowd chose to do after the gates had been opened. The gates themselves caused no crush, it was the movements of those people who did. Had I have been there I don't doubt I'd have done nothing different to those people who were there, but it's still the case that the pressure from the back created the crush at the front.

While it's exceedingly good that the police are finally being held to account for the actions they took which caused such bad crowd management and so directly caused the tragedy, there's a moral hazard from that that might cause some people to act in the way where they believe that others take responsibility for what they choose to do themselves.

What i'm saying is that there's things which can be learned by people in crowds from what happened, and not only the police. That shouldn't be forgotten amongst the finger pointing.

[eFestivals]

good post.

Excellent post.

I'm glad my post got that response, and not another one. I'd started to write something similar yesterday and then thought better of it, in fear that someone would take my words as meaning something I wasn't meaning.

Rachie's post today had me write it again, as I think that I contributed to that previous thread that upset her. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't trying then to say anything different to what I've said now, but perhaps I didn't word what I said then as well as I appear to have done this time - and unfortunately the emotion around a tragic incident like this sometimes has people reacting to things in a way that they wouldn't on a more considered basis (tho I'm not sure if that's what went on on that occasion).

Anyway Rachie, if my posts on that occasion were any part of what upset you I sincerely apologise.

I'm simply trying to say that while that failure in crowd management puts the responsibility squarely on those responsible for crowd management that day, everyone involved played a part in how it panned out. If something similar were to happen again, then hopefully they'll be a little more awareness from the crowd of the effects of what they choose to do, and the scope of any incident can be lessened via that.

At the end of the day the pressure from outside pressurised the Police/Groundstaff to make a decision and unfortunately they took the wrong one.

Yup, that's about the nub of it.

The worst part about it is that experienced coppers had been bringing to the attention of their superiors that the standards of crowd control at Hillsboro had been slipping over the preceding months, because inexperienced-in-crowd-control police personnel had been put in charge of it.

[eFestivals]

so Boris had a point?

Nope, not that I can see.

He pretty much said Liverpool should stop wallowing in a false victim culture where everything was someone else's fault and not their own.

Given that it's now completely clear that it WAS someone else's fault, then it wasn't any false victim culture but something completely right.

Boris has long-ago apologised for having said what was said - but not for thinking it in the first place. He now needs to apologise for thinking it, because the whole basis of his thoughts was not from the facts.

[t8yman]

Excellent post.

A lot of my mates went to that match (Forest Fans) and they were also very drunk that day, that's what you do when you go to a semi final - it's a day out.

A lot of hooligans need to take a look at themselves. Although not directly responsible for what happened that day the way football crowds were handled was due to the reputation they built up. Ticketless fans need to look at themselves also. Again not directly responsible for what happened on that day but Liverpool fans had a reputation for turning up to matches without tickets (more so than other clubs). This would not have helped the sheer volume trying to get in.

At the end of the day the pressure from outside pressurised the Police/Groundstaff to make a decision and unfortunately they took the wrong one.

[eFestivals]

not so much about the 'wallowing', but about the drunken fans

"The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool's failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon."

except there seems to be not a jot of evidence that any fans "mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground".

What there was were fans impatient to get into the ground, because the game was about to kick off. The old bill opened the gates, and it all happened from that.

[The Nal]

All Boris was doing was echoing what was the "official" report at the time. He made a good point about Liverpool geographically (having docks and being on the wrong side of the country when they joined the EU) but it was all a bit ham fisted.

Anyway, the people going after Boris - why?! This is something he wrote nearly 10 years ago and apologised for at the time. It was big news at the time. Why dig it up again? To get the same apology from him again? Deflecting attention from the people who need to be got.

There's bigger fish to fry.