alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 I think they will. Joe Anderson has already gone on record. Yes, that they will repay the UK government part, the value to be assessed (imo it should be the full value plus a nominal interest component). They have committed NOTHING about repaying the EU part. Note even that report you have linked indicates that Liverpool council dont want this referred back to the EU, who are extremely tough on subsidies giving businesses an unfair advantage and who care very little about the business being in a Northern locale full of whining self-pitying scumbags, unlike the UK government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Its still dishonest - because essentially you have used taxpayers cash as risk capital in building a facility and then determining demand. If it takes off and you can turn a profit you pay back the government cash and take the profits; if it turns out to be a turkey you leave it as a public liability. Peel Ports (run by a billionaire from his tax shelter in the IOM) have a very unhealthy relationship with Liverpool City Council in that they front his waterfront development ideas, securing government funding and lobbying for approval, he takes the benefits. This sort of thing happens all the time, isn't constrained to Liverpool and much of the time, the funding is never paid pack. So we started out with "theft", now we've negotiated down to a form of "dishonest", which is incidentally being used across the country to coerce private industry into undertaking infrastructure projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 This sort of thing happens all the time, isn't constrained to Liverpool and much of the time, the funding is never paid pack. So we started out with "theft", now we've negotiated down to a form of "dishonest", which is incidentally being used across the country to coerce private industry into undertaking infrastructure projects. Dear oh dear Pap. You are off form. Now you are conflating different peoples opinions who were responding to different scenarios which you floated - and then trying to meld them all together and pass them off as an inconsistent mess. Isnt the inconsistent mess actually your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Dear oh dear Pap. You are off form. No you are conflating different peoples opinions who were responding to different scenarios which you floated - and then trying to meld them all together and pass them off as an inconsistent mess. Isnt the inconsistent mess actually your position? "hoisted on ones petard" springs to mind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Yes, that they will repay the UK government part, the value to be assessed (imo it should be the full value plus a nominal interest component). They have committed NOTHING about repaying the EU part. Note even that report you have linked indicates that Liverpool council dont want this referred back to the EU, who are extremely tough on subsidies giving businesses an unfair advantage and who care very little about the business being in a Northern locale full of whining self-pitying scumbags, unlike the UK government. So you're now concerned about the EU being paid back? And the fact that Liverpool don't fancy paying a load of money back to the EU is a surprise? Great stuff, Alps. Council doesn't fancy paying back millions of pounds shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 So you're now concerned about the EU being paid back? And the fact that Liverpool don't fancy paying a load of money back to the EU is a surprise? Great stuff, Alps. Council doesn't fancy paying back millions of pounds shocker. Yep, the Liverpool motto for life: "why pay for something you want when you can steal it from someone else ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Dear oh dear Pap. You are off form. Now you are conflating different peoples opinions who were responding to different scenarios which you floated - and then trying to meld them all together and pass them off as an inconsistent mess. Isnt the inconsistent mess actually your position? I'm doing nothing of the sort, merely summarising the opinions so far. But let me put this back on you. What would constitute an acceptable resolution? You've spent several pages moaning about it, so let's hear what you think should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 I'm doing nothing of the sort, merely summarising the opinions so far. But let me put this back on you. What would constitute an acceptable resolution? You've spent several pages moaning about it, so let's hear what you think should happen. liverpool should pay back every penny to the UK govt and the EU, plus a small interest component, BEFORE any turnarounds commence. This inferrs they have funded it themselves. Ergo, they have fairly entered the competition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 (edited) You've spent several pages moaning about it, so let's hear what you think should happen. Im sorry if you thought my 12 posts on the subject were several pages of complaining. You may have been confused by the fact that your 35 posts have stretched the thread to four pages, burying most other contributions in the process. Liverpool has a major credibility problem. Most of the rest of the country thinks its full of workshy duckers and divers - fair or unfair it doesnt really matter. People have other options when it comes to deciding where to put their new office / factory / call centre. If I were leading the City Council the last thing I would be trying to do is pull yet another fast one that remind people of the 1970s and 1980s. They should instead be trying to build a reputation for success and playing by the book. I actually heard good things about the workforce at Halewood a couple of weeks ago from the CEO of Jaguar and thought "hey thats a turnaround from 25 years ago when it was the ford plant and my manager friend there kept a length of lead pipe to defend himself". Stupid short sighted crap like this over the cruise terminal money means you win an insignificant battle for a couple of million but lose the war to repair the city's image. Edited 9 May, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 liverpool should pay back every penny to the UK govt and the EU, plus a small interest component, BEFORE any turnarounds commence. This inferrs they have funded it themselves. Ergo, they have fairly entered the competition Respect to you Alps for at least having a f**king position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Im sorry if you thought my 12 posts on the subject were several pages of complaining. You may have been confused by the fact that your 35 posts have stretched the thread to four pages, burying most other contributions in the process. In all honesty; Liverpool has a major credibility problem. Most of the rest of the country thinks its full or workshy duckers and divers - fair or unfair it doesnt really matter. People have other options when it comes to deciding where to put their new office / factory / call centre. If I were leading the City Council the last thing I would be trying to do is pull yet another fast one that remind people of the 1970s and 1980s. Build a reputation for success and playing by the book. I actually heard good things about the workforce at Halewood a couple of weeks ago from the CEO of Jaguar and thought "hey thats a turnaround from 25 years ago when it was the ford plant and my manager friend there kept a length of lead pipe to defend himself". Stupid short sighted crap like this over the cruise terminal money means you win an insignificant battle for a couple of million but lose the war to repair the city's image. Not the question I asked, tbf. I'll rephrase. What can Liverpool City Council do to make this right ( or fairer ) that they aren't actually doing? Pay back all of the money, as Alp suggests? Or would you like them to do more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Not the question I asked, tbf. I'll rephrase. What can Liverpool City Council do to make this right ( or fairer ) that they aren't actually doing? Pay back all of the money, as Alp suggests? Or would you like them to do more? Pay all the money back (perhaps minus some minor figure for depreciation) both UK Government and EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Pay all the money back (perhaps minus some minor figure for depreciation) both UK Government and EU. What depreciation ? Operations havent started yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 What depreciation ? Operations havent started yet. There might not be any - that would have to be assessed and set against, as you said, inflation or interest. I understood that the facilities have been up for a couple of years operating within the rules hosting visiting cruise ships and so could be worth slightly less than when built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 9 May, 2012 Share Posted 9 May, 2012 Yep, the Liverpool motto for life: "why pay for something you want when you can steal it from someone else ?" It's bred into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 10 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 10 May, 2012 I like Liverpool Plenty to do and see (in the central area) and some great people. Set against this are some real hard core 'scallies' (over 50 manily grug related shootings in 2011) and deprived areas which have been mainly denied the shed loads of grant aid spent on the city centre area The Cruise terminal grant would never have been given if Liverpool Council had been honest about their intention of using the facility for turnrounds as this would have caused uproar from the many UK cruise ports who have provided terminal facilities out of their own resources. What really did it for me was when Liverpool apporached Portsmouth (as a major south coast cruise port!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) to support their change of use application. Portsmouth said Ok but are now regretting it as one of the shipping lines due to operate turnrounds in 2013 out of Liverpool is Fred Olsen who are likely to move their ship calls from Portsmouth to Liverpool Liverpool should be made to pay back all £17m grant funding and go forward on a level playing field with all other rival ports. No one can deny them the opportunity but the port should not be given subsidies denied to their competitors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Uh-oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18033752 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Uh-oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18033752 Christ they really do take themselves, and their own importance and right to protest and moan seriously don't they ? Forever the martyrs, and grief stricken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Christ they really do take themselves, and their own importance and right to protest and moan seriously don't they ? Forever the martyrs, and grief stricken... have to admit that the fact that the 96 are still on the shirt - and yet you have these groups taking about insensity is somewhat strange... after all these years, teh fact they will be remembered is surely enough... time to move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 have to admit that the fact that the 96 are still on the shirt - and yet you have these groups taking about insensity is somewhat strange... after all these years' date=' teh fact they will be remembered is surely enough... time to move on?[/quote'] If the flames and any reference to the 96 had been removed they would have a point perhaps. But no, it's been removed from the badge and GIVEN IT'S OWN UNIQUE LOCATION AND SPECIFIC REFERENCE. What a bunch of sanctimonious tedious w@nkers they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Heysel was the one where Liverpool fans pressed forward and killed 39 Juventus fans and Hillsborough was the one where they pressed forward and killed 90 odd of their own fans but both were entirely someones elses fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Uh-oh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18033752 I prefer the older club crest. The present one is well over the top. Still do not know why the groups are complaining, surely the football club choose the badge and they are still remembering the 96, which is very important in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Heysel was the one where Liverpool fans pressed forward and killed 39 Juventus fans and Hillsborough was the one where they pressed forward and killed 90 odd of their own fans but both were entirely someones elses fault. You t wat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Heysel was the one where Liverpool fans pressed forward and killed 39 Juventus fans and Hillsborough was the one where they pressed forward and killed 90 odd of their own fans but both were entirely someones elses fault. if there was ever an epic one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Really think this should be locked now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 I think the key word is entirely. You would think that some in the crowd would have to accept a small portion of the blame although clearly other factors are more to blame than the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Really think this should be locked now. With all these classy responses from some of our fellow southerners? All I'll say is that this thread was educational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 (edited) You t wat. if there was ever an epic one! Really? Where is the fail then? Where is the inaccuracy? I guess we can class you as part of the Diana generation. Not old enough to actually remember the events, but full of righteous indignation looking for blame anywhere except where it lies. In 1985 Liverpool supporters charged the Juventus supporters - causing panic and in the process crushing 35 people to death against a wall and injuring 600. Try and find the victims names on a Liverpool website Pap. Try and find the memorial sites or calls for inquiries into the Heysel deaths - google 'list of Heysel victims' and you'll get Liverpool sites talking about Hillsborough - lots of them. Just fyi the youngest Heysel victim was an 11 year old boy, the oldest a 58 year old woman. In part as a result of Heysel the penning in of fans at football stadiums was introduced. Ironic really. Four years later a large crowd of Liverpool supporters is crushing outside Hillsborough as the match is about to start. A combination of delayed trains and traffic and people turning up without tickets is causing the police, no doubt mindful of Heysel, public safety concerns. When a side gate is opened to let one fan out the crowd surges and causes a crush, 20 people scramble through but some are injured. The senior policeman has to make a decision, let more fans in or risk a potentially deadly crush and or riot outside. We know the rest. You can blame the paparazzi, MI6, the French doctors or Prince Phillip for Diana's death - or you can blame her driver going at 90mph into a bend in a tunnel at night whilst ****ed. For Heysel you can blame a whole series of buildup events, the old stadium, the ref, UEFA - or you can blame the Liverpool fans charging the Juventus fans. Yes Hillborough was complicated - caused by an unfortunate series of events. Maybe the game should have been delayed, maybe the police made the wrong call, maybe the emergency services should have sent ambulances quicker - but at core though the reason for the Liverpool fans death was crushing by fellow fans. That doesnt mean that the fans outside are culpable for the deaths or intended for it to happen - but some recognition in Liverpool that the Liverpool deaths were caused in large part by people from Liverpool would be welcome. The victims were entirely blameless. If my family member was killed in this way I might still be campaigning now - but thats no excuse for the local paper, the City Council or the wider population to see Liverpool once again as a victim with no part in its own misfortune. Edited 12 May, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Really? Where is the fail then? Where is the inaccuracy? I guess we can class you as part of the Diana generation. Not old enough to actually remember the events, but full of righteous indignation looking for blame anywhere except where it lies. In 1985 Liverpool supporters charged the Juventus supporters - causing panic and in the process crushing 35 people to death against a wall and injuring 600. Try and find the victims names on a Liverpool website Pap. Try and find the memorial sites or calls for inquiries into the Heysel deaths - google 'list of Heysel victims' and you'll get Liverpool sites talking about Hillsborough - lots of them. Just fyi the youngest Heysel victim was an 11 year old boy, the oldest a 58 year old woman. In part as a result of Heysel the penning in of fans at football stadiums was introduced. Ironic really. Four years later a large crowd of Liverpool supporters is crushing outside Hillsborough as the match is about to start. A combination of delayed trains and traffic and people turning up without tickets is causing the police, no doubt mindful of Heysel, public safety concerns. When a side gate is opened to let one fan out the crowd surges and causes a crush, 20 people scramble through but some are injured. The senior policeman has to make a decision, let more fans in or risk a potentially deadly crush and or riot outside. We know the rest. You can blame the paparazzi, MI6, the French doctors or Prince Phillip for Diana's death - or you can blame her driver going at 90mph into a bend in a tunnel at night whilst ****ed. For Heysel you can blame a whole series of buildup events, the old stadium, the ref, UEFA - or you can blame the Liverpool fans charging the Juventus fans. Yes Hillborough was complicated - caused by an unfortunate series of events. Maybe the game should have been delayed, maybe the police made the wrong call, maybe the emergency services should have sent ambulances quicker - but at core though the reason for the Liverpool fans death was crushing by fellow fans. That doesnt mean that the fans outside are culpable for the deaths or intended for it to happen - but some recognition in Liverpool that the Liverpool deaths were caused in large part by people from Liverpool would be welcome. The victims were entirely blameless. If my family member was killed in this way I might still be campaigning now - but thats no excuse for the local paper, the City Council or the wider population to see Liverpool once again as a victim with no part in its own misfortune. That really was awful. A national embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Really? Where is the fail then? Where is the inaccuracy? I guess we can class you as part of the Diana generation. Not old enough to actually remember the events, but full of righteous indignation looking for blame anywhere except where it lies. In 1985 Liverpool supporters charged the Juventus supporters - causing panic and in the process crushing 35 people to death against a wall and injuring 600. Try and find the victims names on a Liverpool website Pap. Try and find the memorial sites or calls for inquiries into the Heysel deaths - google 'list of Heysel victims' and you'll get Liverpool sites talking about Hillsborough - lots of them. Just fyi the youngest Heysel victim was an 11 year old boy, the oldest a 58 year old woman. In part as a result of Heysel the penning in of fans at football stadiums was introduced. Ironic really. Four years later a large crowd of Liverpool supporters is crushing outside Hillsborough as the match is about to start. A combination of delayed trains and traffic and people turning up without tickets is causing the police, no doubt mindful of Heysel, public safety concerns. When a side gate is opened to let one fan out the crowd surges and causes a crush, 20 people scramble through but some are injured. The senior policeman has to make a decision, let more fans in or risk a potentially deadly crush and or riot outside. We know the rest. You can blame the paparazzi, MI6, the French doctors or Prince Phillip for Diana's death - or you can blame her driver going at 90mph into a bend in a tunnel at night whilst ****ed. For Heysel you can blame a whole series of buildup events, the old stadium, the ref, UEFA - or you can blame the Liverpool fans charging the Juventus fans. Yes Hillborough was complicated - caused by an unfortunate series of events. Maybe the game should have been delayed, maybe the police made the wrong call, maybe the emergency services should have sent ambulances quicker - but at core though the reason for the Liverpool fans death was crushing by fellow fans. That doesnt mean that the fans outside are culpable for the deaths or intended for it to happen - but some recognition in Liverpool that the Liverpool deaths were caused in large part by people from Liverpool would be welcome. The victims were entirely blameless. If my family member was killed in this way I might still be campaigning now - but thats no excuse for the local paper, the City Council or the wider population to see Liverpool once again as a victim with no part in its own misfortune. I knew that but you are allways going to get the brain dead spout they nasty bile and hatred.rip to the 96 people who died and their familys.I have always found Liverpo ol people ok. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 In some respects i have to agree with Buctootim -I find it very strange that the two tragic incidences seem so disproportionately covered - but you can see why - Heysal was football fans charging at the opposition and this directly leading to the death of innocnet people, but do Liverpool people seek the same 'justice' for those victims? Why are their no flames and a 35 next to the 96? I know ist controversial, but too often folk are frightened to say what is a sad truth. At Hillsborough, the police made series of tragic errors that given the way the stand was constructed and the cages led to the death of 96 people. But for me the question that many seem unwilling to pose was WHY were the police in that situation in the first place? Why did tehy panic and make the wrong decsions? Because ultimately, they had no idea how a large crowd of football fans desperate to get in would behave if they did not open those gates - and based on how at the time football fans had a strong reputation for things getting ugly, you could argue that it was the underlying culture of the time that was also to blame - has anyone in Liverpool ever acknowledged that? The victims were innocent, and tehir families have a right to know exactly what happened and what was he cause and blame, but maybe its just me that thinks that in the long efforts to push for a thorough investigation and understanding of what the poilice decsions were that led to teh tragedy, they have forgotten to ask that simpel question... if fans behaved as normal rational human beings, queing patiently and waiting their turn, not only would a police prescence of that nature have been unnecessary, but it certainly would not have led to panic decisions... as painful as that might be, I have not yet heard any argument that absolves fan behaviour (either on the day, or as a result of reputation from numerous previous incidents) from at least contributing to the sequence of events that led to that tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 I knew that but you are allways going to get the brain dead spout they nasty bile and hatred.rip to the 96 people who died and their familys.I have always found Liverpo ol people ok. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2 There as nothing disrespectful to the 96 or their families in Buct's post, he was making a fair and reasoned point as controvercial as it may appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 There as nothing disrespectful to the 96 or their families in Buct's post' date=' he was making a fair and reasoned point as controvercial as it may appear.[/quote'] That's just it, that it could appear 'controversial' to suggest that the masses of Liverpool fans surging outside a stadium would make a bad situation worse highlights how utterly defensive they can be. It's just common sense and your prior post hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 At the end of the day both events were linked to the terrible troubles at football in the 70's and 80's. There is no point in getting sanctimonious about it. There were dozens of clubs whose supporters would have charged other supporters, and the Semi Final tradegy could have happened to any club. Scousers turned up ****ed, without tickets and all at once. Well so did most club's supporters. The issue with the 96 is the sense of injustice, the way it was reported and the cover up that occured afterwards. had the same thing happend at one of our 80's semi finals, I'm damn sure we'd be feeling the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Hope all effected can one day realise that none of those deaths were in vain. Football is safer now, even though some still miss the 'atmosphere' that rushing and riot like behaviour brought with it. This is why I feel that being tough on our own fence rattlers was a necessary evil. Better to be a victim of over zealous policing than to be a number on a shirt with flames, and have your family still mourn a generation later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 The victims were entirely blameless. If my family member was killed in this way I might still be campaigning now - but thats no excuse for the local paper, the City Council or the wider population to see Liverpool once again as a victim with no part in its own misfortune. Can you link the articles where the local paper, the city council and the wider population of Liverpool claim that they have had no part in their misfortune in these events? I'm genuinely interested in seeing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Can you link the articles where the local paper, the city council and the wider population of Liverpool claim that they have had no part in their misfortune in these events? I'm genuinely interested in seeing them. the way the frothy mouthed scousers go on in their rage for "justice"....you would think they were completely blameless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 maybe some swf'ers need reminding how they melted down at us not remembering the titanic dead. People heal in their own way over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 12 May, 2012 Share Posted 12 May, 2012 Can you link the articles where the local paper, the city council and the wider population of Liverpool claim that they have had no part in their misfortune in these events? I'm genuinely interested in seeing them. Very good. As you well know its the absence of admitting any liability or culpability which is the issue. You should go into politics, you're disingenuous enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 May, 2012 Share Posted 13 May, 2012 (edited) Very good. As you well know its the absence of admitting any liability or culpability which is the issue. You should go into politics, you're disingenuous enough. No it's not. You weighed back into this argument making the case that Liverpool fans had some part to play in their own misfortune. As far as I'm concerned, that point is uncontestable. Both games involved Liverpool fans, so it would be madness to suggest that the fans themselves were not a factor in those tragedies. The whole 'point' of you reminding us about of the involvement of the fans on those occasions was this:- thats no excuse for the local paper, the City Council or the wider population to see Liverpool once again as a victim with no part in its own misfortune. So please - let's see the source material where the local paper, City Council and/or wider population of Liverpool are saying that Liverpool FC fans are free of all blame thus ( by implication ) playing the victim. It's your central claim, and you seem to be getting cross when people ask you for proof of it. Edited 13 May, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 May, 2012 Share Posted 13 May, 2012 No it's not. You weighed back into this argument making the case that Liverpool fans had some part to play in their own misfortune. As far as I'm concerned, that point is uncontestable. Both games involved Liverpool fans, so it would be madness to suggest that the fans themselves were not a factor in those tragedies. The whole 'point' of you reminding us about of the involvement of the fans on those occasions was this:- So please - let's see the source material where the local paper, City Council and/or wider population of Liverpool are saying that Liverpool FC fans are free of all blame thus ( by implication ) playing the victim. It's your central claim, and you seem to be getting cross when people ask you for proof of it. Not cross at all. Ive made the point that the Liverpool papers and council consistently point the finger at police, coroner, ambulance service, Liverpool FC badge designers in 2012 etc whilst failing to acknowledge that the central reason 96 people are dead is because 2,000 of their fellow fans pushed their way into the ground. You have decided to twist that into asking me to produce newspaper articles where they deny any Liverpudlian had anything to do with the tradegy. As I said, the sin is one of omission. Simple fact is that Liverpudlians are 20 times more likely to know or be related to someone who was pushing and shoving outside the ground than to know someone who died.You wouldnt get any sense of that fact from the papers or council leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 May, 2012 Share Posted 13 May, 2012 Not cross at all. Ive made the point that the Liverpool papers and council consistently point the finger at police, coroner, ambulance service, Liverpool FC badge designers in 2012 etc whilst failing to acknowledge that the central reason 96 people are dead is because 2,000 of their fellow fans pushed their way into the ground. You have decided to twist that into asking me to produce newspaper articles where they deny any Liverpudlian had anything to do with the tradegy. As I said, the sin is one of omission. Simple fact is that Liverpudlians are 20 times more likely to know or be related to someone who was pushing and shoving outside the ground than to know someone who died.You wouldnt get any sense of that fact from the papers or council leader. You've made claims, you can't back them up and if anyone is doing the twisting here, I think it's you. As I have now said numerous times, no one is in any doubt that Liverpool FC fans were (surprisingly) factors in disasters involving Liverpool FC. On the subject of Hillsborough, for example. You are saying that those deaths were caused by fellow Liverpool FC fans. On a very physical and literal level, you're right. However, the greater failing was letting that many people into the stadium in the first place, that South Yorkshire police knew this, and through fabrication and leaking of the "scousers stealing from their own dead" story, demonised an entire city in an effort to save their own bacon. You're using a literal truth in isolation in a perverse attempt to prove your own point. If some noddy police force had filled a stadium full of Sotonians to crushing point, would you be on here know throwing about your literal truth that "Saints fans killed each other?". As to the sin of omission. Do you honestly expect anyone in a representative position ( who is that btw? Liverpool council leader? Liverpool FC? ) to make a public speech implicating Liverpudlians in the death of their own? You might be literally correct, but your posts show a marked lack of empathy and a great deal of naivety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 13 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2012 Pap I understand the point you make and it is put over well. The observation I make here is that there have been other football related disasters eg Bradford, Glasgow Rangers and Bolton come to my (the latter two albeit in a different generation) and they all seem to have been dealt with in a more subdued manner. No one can take away the fact that 96 innocent Liverpool fans lost their lives on that tragic day but, from an outsiders view, all the blame seems to be laid at the door of any number of people/organisations with very little attached to the large number of fans who turned up late and rushed the entrances. Perhaps the Hillsborough Memorial groups would have been better served making their representations to the club re the new kit behind closed doors I am sure there must be quite a few of the victims families who prefer to grieve in private rather than have their memories regularly brought into the full glare of the public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 13 May, 2012 Share Posted 13 May, 2012 This sort of thing happens all the time, isn't constrained to Liverpool and much of the time, the funding is never paid pack. So we started out with "theft", now we've negotiated down to a form of "dishonest", which is incidentally being used across the country to coerce private industry into undertaking infrastructure projects. Curious to justify something this outrageous behaviour by saying it happens all the time. It is wrong and will ultimately hit local jobs here where we play fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 May, 2012 Share Posted 13 May, 2012 The observation I make here is that there have been other football related disasters eg Bradford, Glasgow Rangers and Bolton come to my (the latter two albeit in a different generation) and they all seem to have been dealt with in a more subdued manner. To be fair, though - none of those disasters involved a police cover up afterward, nor the mendacities that followed. There is also a point to be made over whether complainants in any dispute have much say in whether their particular issue is made front and centre by the media. Lots of people have disputes. Is it really fair to judge the scousers as narkier because theirs make the news? No one can take away the fact that 96 innocent Liverpool fans lost their lives on that tragic day but, from an outsiders view, all the blame seems to be laid at the door of any number of people/organisations with very little attached to the large number of fans who turned up late and rushed the entrances. Whichever way you slice this, you cannot lay this at the foot of the fans. No fan going that day knew that they were going to be involved in the events that followed or intended them to happen. Hillsborough and South Yorkshire police said they could handle the event. As it turned out, they couldn't. If I get admitted to an event where I pay on the door, I should have a reasonable expectation that my being there is not going to result in me or others dying. As should anyone. This is pretty much what Parliament, after many years of wasted time, unfounded accusations and manufactured ill-feeling, has decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 May, 2022 Share Posted 15 May, 2022 (edited) Somewhat surprised that Lineker hasn't condemned the latest episode of booing a national anthem (as far as I can tell) when he's been so vocal about such things in the past... Edited 15 May, 2022 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warriorsaint Posted 16 May, 2022 Share Posted 16 May, 2022 On 09/05/2012 at 12:49, alpine_saint said: Yep, the Liverpool motto for life: "why pay for something you want when you can steal it from someone else ?" Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warriorsaint Posted 16 May, 2022 Share Posted 16 May, 2022 On 13/05/2012 at 14:24, spyinthesky said: Pap I understand the point you make and it is put over well. The observation I make here is that there have been other football related disasters eg Bradford, Glasgow Rangers and Bolton come to my (the latter two albeit in a different generation) and they all seem to have been dealt with in a more subdued manner. No one can take away the fact that 96 innocent Liverpool fans lost their lives on that tragic day but, from an outsiders view, all the blame seems to be laid at the door of any number of people/organisations with very little attached to the large number of fans who turned up late and rushed the entrances. Perhaps the Hillsborough Memorial groups would have been better served making their representations to the club re the new kit behind closed doors I am sure there must be quite a few of the victims families who prefer to grieve in private rather than have their memories regularly brought into the full glare of the public Still idiots who patter this nonsense. Shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 17 May, 2022 Share Posted 17 May, 2022 A thread from the golden age of Saints Web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted 18 May, 2022 Share Posted 18 May, 2022 Kinda hoping we upgrade the national anthem to 'I vow to thee my country' when the Queen eventually passes. Far better song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now