Hillsborough

[trousers]

I've slept on this now and I still cannot believe the scale of deception over such a long period of time.

 

During that time people must have known or come to know information that made them think "this is wrong".

 

Keeping something like this quiet would surely take the cooperation of many, many people involving the Police, Whitehall secretaries and perhaps successive government ministers.

 

I'm particularly interested in what Margaret Thatcher's government knew and also what the lady herself might have known.

 

 

I was dipping in and out of the live news coverage yesterday and a journo asked the "How much did Thatcher know?" question to the enquiry panel.

 

They basically told the journo that this was covered in their 400 page report but they alluded to the fact that Thatcher wasn't in the 'loop of deceipt'.

 

I'm sure over the course of time people will pick and choose which parts of the report best fit their theory as to who knew what and when but if we're going to take this report as the definitive statement of what happened then, if it doesn't point the finger at the likes of Thatcher I think we have to conclude that either she wasn't complicit in any of the cover up or, if she was there wasn't any evidence to warrant stating this in the report.

 

As you say, all governments since Thatcher would have had the opportunity to disclose any government endorsed cover up had it taken place but they didn't. So if it transpires that Thatcher was 'guilty' then so is every government since by association.

[pap]

I've slept on this now and I still cannot believe the scale of deception over such a long period of time.

 

During that time people must have known or come to know information that made them think "this is wrong".

 

Keeping something like this quiet would surely take the cooperation of many, many people involving the Police, Whitehall secretaries and perhaps successive government ministers.

 

I'm particularly interested in what Margaret Thatcher's government knew and also what the lady herself might have known.

 

I can't imagine what range of emotions those directly involved with the tragedy will be feeling right now.

 

It certainly makes for an interesting case study in what is possible with the right amount of political will, and for those lucky enough not to be personally affected, the biggest lesson to take from this that the authorities are capable of spinning massive lies that betray those that they are supposed to be serving.

 

It'd be lovely if we could say that this was just a relic of our past, that this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. Problem is, that position is fundamentally irreconcilable with the events of the last decade.

[The9]

Good article from WSC in the immediate aftermath here - the front page was pretty much going against the majority of reporting at the time as well, albeit with it's usual tongue-in-cheek tone :

 

 

http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1152-september-2012/8991-post-hillsborough-disaster-editorial

[The9]

"Ultimately, what happens to us doesn't matter. It is our own fault for being football fans", from the article above pretty much sums it all up for me.

[The9]

That and the prophesy, in 1989 no less that

 

"Standing has been proved to be bad for us, so we must sit. Stadiums in urban areas are, without exception. unsafe places for large numbers of people to congregate, so, for the common good, all teams will eventually be required set up home on industrial estates in the middle of nowhere. Better still, we are to pay for the changes that are required, despite the huge burdens already endured and the fact that the government takes vast sums of money from the game."

This one is the argument against all-seaters, which is the only bit of the Taylor Report I didn't agree with - clubs reduced the capacity of standing areas, made matches all ticket, and nothing further happened before all seaters came in. As we all know, it wasn't standing that was dangerous, it was unrestricted, unsafe standing on crumbling overcrowded terraces with nothing to slow the flow of surges and nowhere to go when they happened. Between Hillsborough and the all ticket, all seater, edict being enforced, clubs showed that safe standing was perfectly possible - and then removed it anyway.

 

One thing that's never been discussed is the impact of banning drinking in football grounds (then amended to "within sight of the pitch"), which (admittedly along with the absence of alcohol provision altogether in some grounds) is one of the factors that led to people staying away from the venues until late, to drink elsewhere. It could be argued that that piece of hooligan control Thatcher Government legislation from the mid-80s was also a contributory factor in the background. No alcohol ban, far fewer fans outside immediately before kick off having been to the pub.

[Frank's cousin]

I've slept on this now and I still cannot believe the scale of deception over such a long period of time.

 

During that time people must have known or come to know information that made them think "this is wrong".

 

Keeping something like this quiet would surely take the cooperation of many, many people involving the Police, Whitehall secretaries and perhaps successive government ministers.

 

I'm particularly interested in what Margaret Thatcher's government knew and also what the lady herself might have known.

 

I can't imagine what range of emotions those directly involved with the tragedy will be feeling right now.

 

Whilst the Taylor report clearly highlighted the main causes as being police incompetance/mistakes, and as you say many questioned the level of 'fan' influence on the tragedy, I dont think I am the only one who was influenced by the way the media portrayed that level of inflence. It was relativey easy to assume that fans had played a bigger part than was shown in yesterdays final report. I do think though that we have several seperate issues here. The first being a full and frank understanding of what actually happened on the day and an acknowledgement that is was hideous combination of factors dominated by the police and stewarding failures, the second, that the environment at the time safety levels, attitude of policy makers towards fans (a legacy rightly or wrongly of the previous decade) etc an what part that played, and the third as you point out, the issue of the deceipt and disgraceful way in which the police tried to divert blame on the innocent victims.

 

I have looked over my posts from yesterday and can now see that I did not get the right balance in what I was trying to say so it could have been misinterpreted - or even been considered that I was placing too much emphasis on a single issue - that can happen on these boards when you get a bit stuck trying to hammer home one point.

 

I cant imagine hope the families must feel now either - I would hope that at the very least they can take some comfort now from the fact that their struggle for the truth to be made public has clearly demonstrated that the accusations made in the media were totally false. I appreciate that it will not necessarily be much comfort to the relatives and all thsoe effected that he lasting legacy is that such a tragedy is unlikely to happen again as a result of far stricter safety legislation - its sad and horrendous though that 96 innovent fans had to die first before something like thes improvemnets were implemented.

 

As to Justice - this is the difficult one - everyone has their own view on what this would involve - some are obviously more culpable than others what 'justice' means for the families is more important than what we think on here. With these situations there is always a case for criminal negligence, but I am not sure whether singling out individuals is always necessarily effective - do we blame the guy in charge on the day for his inexperience that led to poor and tragic decisions or the guy who gave him the job, knowing there were better more experienced officers available? I really dont know what is best in this case.

 

Then ther is the second issue of the public slur campaign and how that is dealt with. Its easy to simple say charge and prosecute the lot of them and I daresay the DPP will look at all teh evidence and see what charges can be brought, I guess we will see what happens.

[The9]

Oh, and a couple more from that article, for Frank's Cousin :

 

"Sheffield Wednesday officials seemed to believe that, in an emergency, it would be possible to evacuate a large number of people thorough a tiny gate in the perimeter fencing."

 

"The same people who indignantly call for the fences to be torn down now are the same ones who demanded that they should be put up in the first place."

 

"Thanks were duly said for there not having been any perimeter fences at Bradford, but no long-term lessons were learned from that fire."

 

There were always other solutions to the problems, Ken Bates' electric fences were not allowed, so there was at least some element of humanity attributed to football fans even then, but understandably, it took this disaster to change attitudes on all sides - and despite the best efforts of the fanzine culture and WSC, to some extent it had to be the voices of "normal", non-football people, in this case the victims' families, to speak up in order to avoid just another whitewash and nothing changing, still.

[Sheaf Saint]

I've slept on this now and I still cannot believe the scale of deception over such a long period of time.

 

During that time people must have known or come to know information that made them think "this is wrong".

 

Keeping something like this quiet would surely take the cooperation of many, many people involving the Police, Whitehall secretaries and perhaps successive government ministers.

 

I'm particularly interested in what Margaret Thatcher's government knew and also what the lady herself might have known.

 

I can't imagine what range of emotions those directly involved with the tragedy will be feeling right now.

 

The former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, who took over a year after the tragedy happened, was interviewed on R4 this morning. When asked at what point he became aware of the extent of the cover up he said it was following the judicial review that took place in 1997, and that he went to great lengths to bring it to light publicly. He left the position the following year.

[saintbletch]

[EDIT: I mentioned the Hutton Enquiry/Inquiry previously. It was obviously the Taylor Report]

I was dipping in and out of the live news coverage yesterday and a journo asked the "How much did Thatcher know?" question to the inquiry panel.

 

They basically told the journo that this was covered in their 400 page report but they alluded to the fact that Thatcher wasn't in the 'loop of deceipt'.

 

I'm sure over the course of time people will pick and choose which parts of the report best fit their theory as to who knew what and when but if we're going to take this report as the definitive statement of what happened then, if it doesn't point the finger at the likes of Thatcher I think we have to conclude that either she wasn't complicit in any of the cover up or, if she was there wasn't any evidence to warrant stating this in the report.

 

As you say, all governments since Thatcher would have had the opportunity to disclose any government endorsed cover up had it taken place but they didn't. So if it transpires that Thatcher was 'guilty' then so is every government since by association.

 

Thanks for that trousers. And as you've pointed out, and I orginally noted, successive administrations failed to act on what must have been a fairly widely known 'secret' (or at least suspicion). So I'm trying not to make this party-political. But the administration at the time and when the Taylor Inquiry results were published was Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government.

 

But of course we don't have inquiries to uncover the real truth. That might be a by-product of the inquiry of course, but the reason we have them is to firewall our politicians from the responsibility for events and to then stop them having to answer any further questions on the matter. They are a mechanism our politicians use to definitively create "the truth". Following an inquiry the results become "the truth" and any other discussion is nipped in the bud because we've already reached "the truth".

 

So it now appears with the Taylor inquiry. A decent job by Taylor it appears, but it either got nowhere near the truth or the warnings that politicians and Whitehall mandarins were given were not met with the political balls needed to get to "the truth".

 

The more I read, the more it appears that Margaret Thatcher's government was more concerned with the impact of criticising the Police rather than getting at "the truth" for the victims and their families.

 

In response to a suggestion from a civil servant that the government's response to the Taylor Report should be to "welcome the broad thrust of the report", she responded with.

 

"What do we mean by 'welcoming the broad thrust of the report'? The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations - M.T."

 

If, as her memo above suggests, Margaret Thatcher was concerned over criticisms of the Police, I'd find it difficult to believe that she would pursue any hunch, whispers or even facts that she might have become aware of - for fear of the damage to the Police force.

 

This may well have been a passive, unintentional thing with perhaps fine motives. But that attitude that came from the top led to years of hardship and demonisation of the people that attended that football match and their families.

 

For the record, I have little faith in government run inquiries - be they public or private. Politicians, police officers and now journalists for that matter, have become adept at remembering what they know can't hurt them and not recalling the things they know that can.

 

However this current one into Hillsborough disaster might change my view on that - if the subsequent pursuit of justice nails the people responsible.

Edited 13 September, 2012 by saintbletch
It was the Taylor Report not Hutton, and it's inquiry not enquiry

[Frank's cousin]

That and the prophesy, in 1989 no less that

 

 

This one is the argument against all-seaters, which is the only bit of the Taylor Report I didn't agree with - clubs reduced the capacity of standing areas, made matches all ticket, and nothing further happened before all seaters came in. As we all know, it wasn't standing that was dangerous, it was unrestricted, unsafe standing on crumbling overcrowded terraces with nothing to slow the flow of surges and nowhere to go when they happened. Between Hillsborough and the all ticket, all seater, edict being enforced, clubs showed that safe standing was perfectly possible - and then removed it anyway.

 

One thing that's never been discussed is the impact of banning drinking in football grounds (then amended to "within sight of the pitch"), which (admittedly along with the absence of alcohol provision altogether in some grounds) is one of the factors that led to people staying away from the venues until late, to drink elsewhere. It could be argued that that piece of hooligan control Thatcher Government legislation from the mid-80s was also a contributory factor in the background. No alcohol ban, far fewer fans outside immediately before kick off having been to the pub.

 

The alcohol issue is always going to be controvercial, because although having a pre match pint or 2 is synonomous with football - going back a century, there was a societal shift that did see this 1 or 2 escalate to 'tankfulls' - Young people do drink a hell of a lot more now than 50 years ago, and in theory, those who turn up at a stadia already off their heads are refused entry. I do think this is probably worse in the UK than in other countries where they just drink less - but this is another debate.

 

Standing is an odd one as many of the victims families campaign to avoid its return, which is understandable. Yet we see safe standing on the continent - the key there is atht its still ticketed and numbers are controlled - so you know who is in and the capacity is kept within strict limits etc. That does warrant looking into again.

[saintbletch]

The former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, who took over a year after the tragedy happened, was interviewed on R4 this morning. When asked at what point he became aware of the extent of the cover up he said it was following the judicial review that took place in 1997, and that he went to great lengths to bring it to light publicly. He left the position the following year.

 

I'd find it hard to believe that his words didn't reach our most senior politicians.

[Frank's cousin]

I'd find it hard to believe that his words didn't reach our most senior politicians.

 

Maybe far fetched but it would not surprise me if Blair did not want to upset his new found friends at the Sun - politicians and the media have a long tradition of mutual sweeping under the carpet where it suits both - Blair needed them onside and the Sun needed to keep its readership recognising the public desire for a change from 18 years of Tory rule... or am I reaching to far? (and I say that as someone left of centre politically)

[trousers]

Thanks for that trousers. And as you've pointed out, and I orginally noted, successive administrations failed to act on what must have been a fairly widely known 'secret' (or at least suspicion). So I'm trying not to make this party-political. But the administration at the time and when the Hutton Enquiry results were published was Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government.

 

But of course we don't have enquiries to uncover the real truth. That might be a by-product of the enquiry of course, but the reason we have them is to firewall our politicians from the responsibility for events and to then stop them having to answer any further questions on the matter. They are a mechanism our politicians use to definitively create "the truth". Following an enquiry the results become "the truth" and any other discussion is nipped in the bud because we've already reached "the truth".

 

So it now appears with the Hutton enquiry. A decent job by Hutton it appears, but it either got nowhere near the truth or the warnings that politicians and Whitehall mandarins were given were not met with the political balls needed to get to "the truth".

 

The more I read, the more it appears that Margaret Thatcher's government was more concerned with the impact of criticising the Police rather than getting at "the truth" for the victims and their families.

 

In response to a suggestion from a civil servant that the government's response to the Hutton Enquiry should be to "welcome the broad thrust of the report", she responded with.

 

 

 

If, as her memo above suggests, Margaret Thatcher was concerned over criticisms of the Police, I'd find it difficult to believe that she would pursue any hunch, whispers or even facts that she might have become aware of - for fear of the damage to the Police force.

 

This may well have been a passive, unintentional thing with perhaps fine motives. But that attitude that came from the top led to years of hardship and demonisation of the people that attended that football match and their families.

 

For the record, I have little faith in government run enquiries - be they public or private. Politicians, police officers and now journalists for that matter, have become adept at remembering what they know can't hurt them and not recalling the things they know that can.

 

However this current one into Hillsborough disaster might change my view on that - if the subsequent pursuit of justice nails the people responsible.

 

Good post as ever Sir.

[saintbletch]

Good post as ever Sir.

 

Thank you Sir.

 

Except it was the Taylor Report and not the Hutton Enqury and it's Inquiry and not Enquiry.

 

Other than that I stand by most of the other words.

[trousers]

John Apter ‏@Hantsfedchair At a time when cops need public support the #Hillsborough report is damaging to all those hard working honest cops who love their job.

[Sheaf Saint]

John Apter ‏@Hantsfedchair At a time when cops need public support the #Hillsborough report is damaging to all those hard working honest cops who love their job.

 

Well, I can certainly see the logic of this viewpoint, but I hope this tweeter isn't inferring that it should have been kept under wraps just to protect the sensitivities of serving officers.

 

And, to be fair, there have been numerous cases in much more recent memory that have done far more damage to the public image of the British Police (Ian Tomlinson, the phone-hacking scandal etc...) than this will.

[alpine_saint]

John Apter ‏@Hantsfedchair At a time when cops need public support the #Hillsborough report is damaging to all those hard working honest cops who love their job.

 

One sweeping generalisation about Scousers replaced by another - about coppers.

[The9]

John Apter ‏@Hantsfedchair At a time when cops need public support the #Hillsborough report is damaging to all those hard working honest cops who love their job.

 

Talk about blinkered. I should think a report which supports natural justice and transparency and is critical of poor police decision making (and then implicitly supportive of GOOD police decision-making) would be applauded by the police and lead to better relationships with the public.

 

It's precisely the "close ranks and develop siege mentality, protect ourselves at all costs" thinking that's being displayed there which is what is being undone by yesterday's findings.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Would be interesting to get the reaction from those most heavily criticised. Are Duckenfield and Irvine Patrick still around?

[alpine_saint]

I am not disputing the findings of the enquiry in any way whatseover, I simply cannot stand the dwelling in self-pity that comes with this tragedy. It feels intrusive and overbearing.

Even now there is talk of the "next step" What is that ? A public stoning of the senior police officers involved ? What do the victims families actually want now ???

 

Someone has sneered at my 9/11 thread, about the mourning that goes with that. Even now the US is re-evaluating the way it observes 9/11, and a lot of things that happened in past years did not happen this year. And that was only 11 years ago, not quarter of a century.

 

Also, can anybody explain to me sensibly why The Sun comes in for so much abuse over this ? OK, the title "The Truth" is pretty provocative, but their job is to sell papers, and from what I can tell they reported the story as it was told to them by the police, who are clearly the liars in this whole story. Does this enquiry actually not exonerate The Sun in a roundabout way, in that there were also a victim to the horrendous lies of the police ?

Edited 13 September, 2012 by alpine_saint

[pap]

One sweeping generalisation about Scousers replaced by another - about coppers.

 

Alps, as I hope you know, I have tried to not be a me too bully when it comes to responding to your posts. I'm not writing this to call you names either.

 

I'm actually utterly perplexed at the line you seem to be taking here. 23 years ago, those opinions would have been right at home in the midst of the cover-up. Yet yesterday and today, when the families finally get some measure of recognition about the injustice that they have suffered, they look idiotic and needlessly spiteful.

 

So what's the jip here? Is it a case of you being starved of attention, and this is the only way you know how to get it? Or is this some inexplicably bitter grudge you have against people from Liverpool?

 

Mate, you live in Austria. I honestly don't understand why you get so upset about things and people in another country.

[alpine_saint]

Alps, as I hope you know, I have tried to not be a me too bully when it comes to responding to your posts. I'm not writing this to call you names either.

 

I'm actually utterly perplexed at the line you seem to be taking here. 23 years ago, those opinions would have been right at home in the midst of the cover-up. Yet yesterday and today, when the families finally get some measure of recognition about the injustice that they have suffered, they look idiotic and needlessly spiteful.

 

So what's the jip here? Is it a case of you being starved of attention, and this is the only way you know how to get it? Or is this some inexplicably bitter grudge you have against people from Liverpool?

 

Mate, you live in Austria. I honestly don't understand why you get so upset about things and people in another country.

 

The undisputable truth is that the police in S. Yorkshire have acted like complete c**ts.

 

Or should I say "SOME". I assume there will be justice, of some as-of-yet unspecified nature.

 

I am assuming the Twitter post is implying that the negative press the enquiry findings is providing for the police is going to make doing their job a lot harder for all of them, and that the majority of them are honest, hardworking public servants doing an incredibly sh*tty and thankless job under some ridiculous constraints at times.

 

You dont like generalisations about Scousers, seems a little bit unfair to object to police expressing their disapproval of generalisations about them being created in the light of this enquiry.

 

Regards your last line. I still regard the UK as "home", however much I despair of it. I am not sure I will ever be able to shake that off. Maybe you have to live abroad for an extended time to understand. Have you tried it ?

Edited 13 September, 2012 by alpine_saint

[pap]

The undisputable truth is that the police in S. Yorkshire have acted like complete c**ts.

 

Or should I say "SOME". I assume there will be justice, of some as-of-yet unspecified nature.

 

I am assuming the Twitter post is implying that the negative press enquiry is providing for the police is going to make doing their job a lot harder for all of them, and that the majority of them are honest, hardworking public servants doing an incredibly sh*tty and thankless job under some ridiculous constraints at times.

 

You dont like generalisations about Scousers, seems a little bit unfair to object to police expressing their disapproval of generalisations about them being created in the light of this enquiry.

 

Why generalise in the first place?

 

Specifics are the only fair way to deal with anything. I don't equate the cover-up in Hillsborough with all coppers being corrupt arse-coverers, but the enquiry will throw up some specifics that need to addressed.

[trousers]

can anybody explain to me sensibly why The Sun comes in for so much abuse over this ? OK, the title "The Truth" is pretty provocative, but their job is to sell papers, and from what I can tell they reported the story as it was told to them by the police, who are clearly the liars in this whole story. Does this enquiry actually not exonerate The Sun in a roundabout way, in that there were also a victim to the horrendous lies of the police ?

 

I guess it depends what people are accusing The Sun of doing wrong in the first place.

 

If they are accusing The Sun of publishing a report they received from a Sheffield news agency in an insensitive and sensationalist way (and at face value without confirming the details themselves) then they are guilty of the accusation.

 

However, if they are being accused of publishing a story as fact, when in fact they knew at the time that it wasn't, then I've not seen or heard anything in yesterday's report that substantiates that.

 

As I said yesterday, I have no desire to defend MacKenzie and The Sun, far from it, but I suspect that there are a lot of people out there accusing them of being complicit in covering up the truth when in fact they could just be guilty of incompetence and/or ignorance....

[sadoldgit]

I was at Orient crushed up against the wall the night it collapsed. It was a terrifying experience and I can only imagine the horror those poor souls experienced.

No one comes out of this with any credit. The police, the fans who were pushing and shoving. I know it is an unpoplur view but I for one am thankful of all seating stadia. I have never felt safe on the terraces in large crowds and why people think there is something noble about being squeezed in with loads of other fat smelly men god only knows. RIP those who died. Let us pray that it never happens again.

[alpine_saint]

Why generalise in the first place?

 

Specifics are the only fair way to deal with anything. I don't equate the cover-up in Hillsborough with all coppers being corrupt arse-coverers, but the enquiry will throw up some specifics that need to addressed.

 

Sorry mate, generalisation and conclusion-jumping is human nature. Especially in the immediate aftermath of traumatic events.

 

You tell me how many people on the street are interested and will research the specifics of the criticisms against the police and certain individuals in their ranks. Probably as many as researched the drunken theiving Scouser accusations. Not many.

 

Anyway, please answer my question. Now you know the scale of the police lying and covering up, do you think the animosity towards The Sun on Merseyside is still deserved ?

[alpine_saint]

I was at Orient crushed up against the wall the night it collapsed. It was a terrifying experience and I can only imagine the horror those poor souls experienced.

No one comes out of this with any credit. The police, the fans who were pushing and shoving. I know it is an unpoplur view but I for one am thankful of all seating stadia. I have never felt safe on the terraces in large crowds and why people think there is something noble about being squeezed in with loads of other fat smelly men god only knows. RIP those who died. Let us pray that it never happens again.

 

Incoming !!!

[Colinjb]

Anyway, please answer my question. Now you know the scale of the police lying and covering up, do you think the animosity towards The Sun on Merseyside is still deserved ?

 

Well, it doesn't reflect well on their powers of investigative journalism. They didn't even bother watching the live television pictures to see what was really happening.

[pap]

Anyway, please answer my question. Now you know the scale of the police lying and covering up, do you think the animosity towards The Sun on Merseyside is still deserved ?

 

I actually do. No other national paper ran that despicable story, yet the Sun chose to. Why is that? The story wasn't even new when it ran (a Yorkshire paper had printed a story).

 

Irrespective of the provenance of the story, The Sun printed lies and put its own sensational spin on it. So yep, animosity totally justified. I don't repeat everything I hear as the gospel truth. Journos have long known the score when it comes to the reliability of any information.

[badgerx16]

I think the problem with the Sun sits squarely with Kelvin McKenzie, who by all accounts went against the advice of his journos and sub-editors and redrew the front page with that fateful exclamation. The guy would have sold his mother if he thought it would increase circulation, and lets be honest, there are parts of the UK population who are quite willing to accept as gospel anything that paints Liverpool in a bad light or appears to confirm a stereotype.

[alpine_saint]

Well, it doesn't reflect well on their powers of investigative journalism. They didn't even bother watching the live television pictures to see what was really happening.

 

Re your first point. I scan through online newspapers every day and see repeated servings of codswallop, misrepresentation, lies, bad spelling and bad grammar. Journalism is in a horrendous state nowadays. If you are going to blame The Sun for bad journalism, you should blame them all.

 

As for the live TV pictures, I said before I watched it live in my student house in Manchester with 2 Liverpool supporters, and from what I recall it was impossible to draw any conclusions about cause from what we were seeing.

[sadoldgit]

Incoming !!!

 

Lets face it Alps, despite the shortcomings with crowd control there were people who didn't help the situation in the crowd.

[trousers]

Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak Mayor of London says he was "very, very sorry" for comments in 2004 about Liverpool fans being partly to blame for Hillsborough disaster

[alpine_saint]

I think the problem with the Sun sits squarely with Kelvin McKenzie, who by all accounts went against the advice of his journos and sub-editors and redrew the front page with that fateful exclamation. The guy would have sold his mother if he thought it would increase circulation, and lets be honest, there are parts of the UK population who are quite willing to accept as gospel anything that paints Liverpool in a bad light or appears to confirm a stereotype.

 

Forget the morals for a moment, its a simple case of supply-and-demand, and he gave (most of) the customers what they wanted. He was doing his job, in his eyes. For me, the phone-hacking stuff that caused the NOTW to fold is important in relation to this, because then a Murdoch paper really did cross the boundary of public interest, and got roundly clobbered for it. That story may have even been the beginning of the end for Murdoch's evil empire. This example of public power truly heartens me.

 

I actually do. No other national paper ran that despicable story, yet the Sun chose to. Why is that? The story wasn't even new when it ran (a Yorkshire paper had printed a story).

 

Irrespective of the provenance of the story, The Sun printed lies and put its own sensational spin on it. So yep, animosity totally justified. I don't repeat everything I hear as the gospel truth. Journos have long known the score when it comes to the reliability of any information.

 

 

The Sun is The Sun. It has its own take on morality and what constitutes just editorial principles. The pertenent question for me is whether it behaved worse in any way over Hillsborough than it does over any other story. In my opinion it didnt. Therefore, considering the nature of the beast, I find your opinion to be an overreaction and, dare I say it, an example of the self-pity which is so grating about Hillsborough.

 

How many intelligent, thoughtful people really thought "GOTCHA !" about the death of 323 Agentinian kids on General Belgrano, once the sensationalism died down ? But it caught the public sentiment for the moment. And 80s football support had such a bad reputation, the headlines of The Sun over Hillsborough caught the public perception of football perfectly, when compared to an upstanding institution like the police.

Edited 13 September, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

Lets face it Alps, despite the shortcomings with crowd control there were people who didn't help the situation in the crowd.

 

I kind of agree, but this thread is in no kind of mood for that kind of talk, I'm afraid.

 

Pay your fiver and become a full member, I miss your left-field codswallop and Lowe fetish...

Edited 13 September, 2012 by alpine_saint

[Whitey Grandad]

I was at Orient crushed up against the wall the night it collapsed. It was a terrifying experience and I can only imagine the horror those poor souls experienced.

No one comes out of this with any credit. The police, the fans who were pushing and shoving. I know it is an unpoplur view but I for one am thankful of all seating stadia. I have never felt safe on the terraces in large crowds and why people think there is something noble about being squeezed in with loads of other fat smelly men god only knows. RIP those who died. Let us pray that it never happens again.

 

Amen to that.

[saintbletch]

Anyway, please answer my question. Now you know the scale of the police lying and covering up, do you think the animosity towards The Sun on Merseyside is still deserved ?

 

If we're looking for behaviour that is difficult to rationalise, there are some people in Southampton and the surrounding areas that would tell you they hate Portsmouth and the people from there. And vice versa.

 

People deal with upsetting and emotional situations in different ways - many of your posts on here are testament to this.

 

What appears to be missing from your analysis of this situation however, is the recognition of the impact on the people involved. Not the impact of the tragedy itself, but instead of how it must have felt for 20 odd years to believe/know that there was another truth to be told, but having no way of getting that truth out.

 

That's not a simple mourning/grieving emotion alpine_saint. It's that, plus the feeling that the nation is probably thinking that your loved one was in some way part of a movement that led to their own death. It's knowing that someone should potentially be on a manslaughter charge for the death of your loved one, but instead people are talking about fans doing despicable things in the aftermath of the disaster. That moral wrong leads to the sort of slow-burning and deep-seated emotion that over time becomes a mission to set the record straight in the name of those they have lost.

 

I think what stops you seeing this subtle, emotional situation is complex in itself. But it isn't helped by a what appears to be a negative stereotypical view you hold, perhaps rightly in your experience, of the people of Liverpool.

 

The Sun, and MacKenzie in particular, served as a lightening conductor and acted as an important totem against which the people of Liverpool could vent anger and frustrations.

 

Should they still hold animosity towards The Sun following the apology? Logically no.

 

Can I understand why they will? Absolutely yes.

Edited 13 September, 2012 by saintbletch

[alpine_saint]

If we're looking for behaviour that is difficult to rationalise, there are some people in Southampton and the surrounding areas that would tell you they hate Portsmouth and the people from there. And vice versa.

 

People deal with upsetting and emotional situations in different ways - many of your posts on here are testament to this.

 

What appears to be missing from your analysis of this situation however, is the recognition of the impact on the people involved. Not the impact of the tragedy itself, but instead of how it must have felt for 20 odd years to believe/know that there was another truth to be told, but having no way of getting that truth out.

 

That's not a simple mourning/grieving emotion alpine_saint. It's that, plus the feeling that the nation is probably thinking that your loved one was in some way part of a movement that led to their own death. It's knowing that someone should potentially be on a manslaughter charge for the death of your loved one, but instead people are talking about fans doing despicable things in the aftermath of the disaster. That moral wrong leads to the sort of slow-burning and deep-seated emotion that over time becomes a mission to set the record straight in the name of those they have lost.

 

I think what stops you seeing this subtle, emotional situation is complex in itself. But it isn't helped by a what appears to be a negative stereotypical view you hold, perhaps rightly in your experience, of the people of Liverpool.

 

The Sun, and MacKenzie in particular, served as a lightening conductor and acted as an important totem against which the people of Liverpool could vent anger and frustrations.

 

Should they still hold animosity towards The Sun following the apology? Logically no.

 

Can I understand why the will? Absolutely yes.

 

 

Good post, gives me something to think about.

[pap]

The Sun is The Sun. It has its own take on morality and what constitutes just editorial principles. The pertenent question for me is whether it behaved worse in any way over Hillsborough than it does over any other story. In my opinion it didnt. Therefore, considering the nature of the beast, I find your opinion to be an overreaction and, dare I say it, an example of the self-pity which is so grating about Hillsborough.

 

How many intelligent, thoughtful people really thought "GOTCHA !" about the death of 323 Agentinian kids on General Belgrano, once the sensationalism died down ? But it caught the public sentiment for the moment. And 80s football support had such a bad reputation, the headlines of The Sun over Hillsborough caught the public perception of football perfectly, when compared to an upstanding institution like the police.

 

You can accuse me of self-pity if that makes you feel any better, sir - but it's not the case. You asked a question, you got an honest answer, along with why I believed it.

 

I'm not really onboard with the whole "The Sun is The Sun" argument. It's like validating bad behaviour in an individual because the subject has a history of bad behaviour. I'm not even suggesting that there should be some kind of Sun witch-hunt. Despite JackanorySFC's repeated insistence that circulation figures are good in Liverpool, I know enough people who will never buy it because of the lies it printed about the character of the Liverpool FC supporters on the day. That is good enough for me. You can call it self-pity if you want. I prefer to think of it as a principled stand, and an appropriate response.

 

The Sun is free to print as much sh!t as it likes within the law. What it can't expect is for the people it smears to keep buying it.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I was dipping in and out of the live news coverage yesterday and a journo asked the "How much did Thatcher know?" question to the enquiry panel.

 

They basically told the journo that this was covered in their 400 page report but they alluded to the fact that Thatcher wasn't in the 'loop of deceipt'.

 

I'm sure over the course of time people will pick and choose which parts of the report best fit their theory as to who knew what and when but if we're going to take this report as the definitive statement of what happened then, if it doesn't point the finger at the likes of Thatcher I think we have to conclude that either she wasn't complicit in any of the cover up or, if she was there wasn't any evidence to warrant stating this in the report.

 

As you say, all governments since Thatcher would have had the opportunity to disclose any government endorsed cover up had it taken place but they didn't. So if it transpires that Thatcher was 'guilty' then so is every government since by association.

 

Of course Thatcher knew - Bernard Ingram was briefing journalists within hours that the Liverpool fans were to blame. Thatcher turned a blind eye to the S Yorkshire cover up as pay back for the support they gave her during the miners' strike.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I am not disputing the findings of the enquiry in any way whatseover, I simply cannot stand the dwelling in self-pity that comes with this tragedy. It feels intrusive and overbearing.

Even now there is talk of the "next step" What is that ? A public stoning of the senior police officers involved ? What do the victims families actually want now ???

 

Someone has sneered at my 9/11 thread, about the mourning that goes with that. Even now the US is re-evaluating the way it observes 9/11, and a lot of things that happened in past years did not happen this year. And that was only 11 years ago, not quarter of a century.

 

Also, can anybody explain to me sensibly why The Sun comes in for so much abuse over this ? OK, the title "The Truth" is pretty provocative, but their job is to sell papers, and from what I can tell they reported the story as it was told to them by the police, who are clearly the liars in this whole story. Does this enquiry actually not exonerate The Sun in a roundabout way, in that there were also a victim to the horrendous lies of the police ?

 

So its OK for the Sun to print what the police tell them? Er hello - just look at the Leveson inquiry to see where and how dangerous that policy became.

[alpine_saint]

You can accuse me of self-pity if that makes you feel any better, sir - but it's not the case. You asked a question, you got an honest answer, along with why I believed it.

 

I'm not really onboard with the whole "The Sun is The Sun" argument. It's like validating bad behaviour in an individual because the subject has a history of bad behaviour. I'm not even suggesting that there should be some kind of Sun witch-hunt. Despite JackanorySFC's repeated insistence that circulation figures are good in Liverpool, I know enough people who will never buy it because of the lies it printed about the character of the Liverpool FC supporters on the day. That is good enough for me. You can call it self-pity if you want. I prefer to think of it as a principled stand, and an appropriate response.

 

The Sun is free to print as much sh!t as it likes within the law. What it can't expect is for the people it smears to keep buying it.

 

If it were only a principled stand and an appropriate response, I would have expected you to tone down the rhetoric about it seeing as the Sun has made a very strong public apology. As it stands, it sounds more like revenge and the collective self-pity. But WTF, with your political outlook, you wouldnt have been buying it anyway.

[pap]

Of course Thatcher knew - Bernard Ingram was briefing journalists within hours that the Liverpool fans were to blame. Thatcher turned a blind eye to the S Yorkshire cover up as pay back for the support they gave her during the miners' strike.

 

Thatcher was more than happy to use policemen as stormtroopers throughout the miners' strike. And people wonder why respect for authority seems to have diminished.

[alpine_saint]

Of course Thatcher knew - Bernard Ingram was briefing journalists within hours that the Liverpool fans were to blame. Thatcher turned a blind eye to the S Yorkshire cover up as pay back for the support they gave her during the miners' strike.

 

 

FFS, here comes the trade unionist mentality...

 

Sod the fact the strike was illegal.

[alpine_saint]

Thatcher was more than happy to use policemen as stormtroopers throughout the miners' strike. And people wonder why respect for authority seems to have diminished.

 

Wow, more of that disgusting generalisation.....

[pap]

If it were only a principled stand and an appropriate response, I would have expected you to tone down the rhetoric about it seeing as the Sun has made a very strong public apology. As it stands, it sounds more like revenge and the collective self-pity. But WTF, with your political outlook, you wouldnt have been buying it anyway.

 

You're quite right on your last point. The number one reason for not buying The Sun is not Hillsborough. It's more to do with not being a f*cking moron. Fortunately for me, my moronic moments are few and far between, and have never descended on me when I'm about to buy a newspaper.

[alpine_saint]

So its OK for the Sun to print what the police tell them? Er hello - just look at the Leveson inquiry to see where and how dangerous that policy became.

 

I dont believe I was excusing or justifying; I was attempting to explain.

[Sheaf Saint]

Of course Thatcher knew - Bernard Ingram was briefing journalists within hours that the Liverpool fans were to blame. Thatcher turned a blind eye to the S Yorkshire cover up as pay back for the support they gave her during the miners' strike.

 

Indeed. If you read up about what became known as the 'Battle of Orgreave', you will find some striking (no pun intended) similarities between the reports about the actions of the SY police, and their subsequent attempts to pin the blame for their own actions on the striking miners, and the Hillsborough cover-up. Orgreave and Hillsborough are only about 5-6 miles apart.

[alpine_saint]

You're quite right on your last point. The number one reason for not buying The Sun is not Hillsborough. It's more to do with not being a f*cking moron. Fortunately for me, my moronic moments are few and far between, and have never descended on me when I'm about to buy a newspaper.

 

And the first point ? Your "moron" comments suggest to me I am spot-on about your rhetoric about that paper.

[alpine_saint]

Indeed. If you read up about what became known as the 'Battle of Orgreave', you will find some striking (no pun intended) similarities between the reports about the actions of the SY police, and their subsequent attempts to pin the blame for their own actions on the striking miners, and the Hillsborough cover-up. Orgreave and Hillsborough are only about 5-6 miles apart.

 

I love the little links conspiracy theorists make...