Hillsborough

born toulouse · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:28 am

The truth at last. Well done to the families and everybody who supported them. Doesn't bring anybody back or make the events less sad but at least it officially confirms that the fans weren't to blame.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Justice finally.

The energy this must have took from those involved, unbelievable.

StocksfieldPoolie · **Joined:** Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:48 pm **Posts:** 324

7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

Jury's answer: No

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

All those years it took to get those responsible to admit they got it wrong. In fact, they still haven't admitted it...they've gone into hiding instead.

Surely charges must be brought against the ones who knew what had happened but chose to spend time in cover-ups and maligning the dead fans.

Malcolm Dawes Knew My Father · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2011 4:25 pm **Posts:** 4198

Very sad to hear the time of deaths - some of those lifted over the fence and onto the pitch at 3.15 received no treatment or oxygen and died almost an hour later.

It's tragic that it took disasters of this scale (Hillsborough, Heysel, Bradford) for clubs and the emergency services to finally get their act together on crowd safety - but the long-term cover up of what actually happened at Hillsborough is a national disgrace.

Hopefully some level of accountability and censure will finally land at South Yorkshire Police's door, but what about those who colluded in the cover up - the Thatcher government and the Sun?

born toulouse · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:21 pm

Excellent article here from David Conn who has done a lot of determined work on this over the years.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

It is perfectly clear who was at fault and, worse still, who lied and who supported them. Even so, most I'd expect is one elderly ex-copper to carry the blame.

Compo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:27 pm

I was in the area at Halifax where we asked to go in the pathway and stewards agreed but then the police waved in throwing their sticks about when we where just stood there. Thankfully I got out of the way but a mate didn't and got knocked out. I have to say Harold Hornsey went up about a million times in my estimation that day a truely great man.

offshorepoolie · **Joined:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:32 pm **Posts:** 6011

Remember going to Halifax once and the gates got broke open so we got in for gratis .Horrible place with locals housing bricks at you from the embankment above.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

Don't read the Tabloids etc but have or will the Sun be apologising for them headlines at the time or do they barely mention the subject these days?

Lord_of_Stranton · **Joined:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:48 pm **Posts:** 1852

Neither the Sun nor The Times feature Hillsborough on tomorrow's front pages.

Maybe I'm naive but I expected better from the latter.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Did anyone see that fucking arsehole Kelvin McKenzie squirming on the telly earlier?

It's as if, in his own head, he thinks he is a victim of the whole police cover up.

What an absolute prick.

Twilight Zone · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1428

Chip Fireball wrote:

Unless you were around at the time, its probably quite hard to appreciate how much power the tabloid press had in those days. Young people find it hard to get their heads around the fact that there used to be a world without the internet, or mobile phones, where people wrote letters to communicate with each other that took a couple of days to get there, and there were only a few television channels that didn't broadcast around the clock.

When I was 18 we didn't have a car and we didn't have a phone. If I wanted to talk to my mates I had to go and call for them, if you wanted to see a lass, you arranged a time and a place and hoped she turned up.

I cant recall what sort of circulation The Sun had at the time, think it might have been about 4 million, but basically you got your paper in the morning, and that was your source of information. People took em to work, you read your paper, then you swapped it with someone who had a different one. If The Sun said a load of drunk Scousers without tickets, turned up pissed, smashed down the gates, stormed in and started robbing people, even kids that were dead, that would be considered Gospel by about one in three of the entire adult population. There was no source of counter information. People who were there might know it was a pack of lies but they had no way to express themselves- no Twitter, no Facebook, no You Tube.

The police and the politicians knew that, it was the biggest paper by circulation in the UK, and if you could get a story on the front page, then it didn't matter if it wasn't true, because if you said it often enough in the paper it would become true.

Spot on Chip

Bossa Nova · **Joined:** Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:51 am **Posts:** 376

The Sun is just one of many publications, owned by the massively wealthy, that seek to convince working-class people that all their problems are caused by other working class people. If only the working class got on their bikes and tried harder, they too could ascend the greasy pole and then stare down with contempt at those they left behind.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:27 am

Papers like the Sun have no political agenda whatsoever. They just reach for the easiest triggers. The fucking Beano was more politically conscious than the Sun.

poolieinnottingham · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:56 pm

Monty you usually talk a lot of sense but I've got to disagree here. Why did the S*n change allegiance to New Labour (and then back to the Tories again) if it has no political agenda?

And that made up survey about Muslims supporting Jihad, if that's not a political agenda then my dog is called Gnasher.

monkeybutt · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:34 am

poolieinnottingham wrote:

Monty you usually talk a lot of sense but I've got to disagree here. Why did the S*n change allegiance to New Labour (and then back to the Tories again) if it has no political agenda?

And that made up survey about Muslims supporting Jihad, if that's not a political agenda then my dog is called Gnasher.

Just for the record, what is your dog called? :animals-dogrun:

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

monkeybutt wrote:

poolieinnottingham wrote:

Monty you usually talk a lot of sense but I've got to disagree here. Why did the S*n change allegiance to New Labour (and then back to the Tories again) if it has no political agenda?

And that made up survey about Muslims supporting Jihad, if that's not a political agenda then my dog is called Gnasher.

Just for the record, what is your dog called? :animals-dogrun:

Gnipper.

The Colonel · **Joined:** Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:49 am **Posts:** 4891

There was a superb programme on 5live last night about the whole sorry affair. It was presented by Kelly Cates(Dalglish) and her guests were Phil Scratton, who knows more about this than any man alive, and Neil ?, a radio DJ who was at the match.

It was a brilliant but harrowing programme. I couldnt stop listening.

What was apparant though, was that The Sun, and a few other papers, were used by the "Authorities" to spread the lies and accusations about the fans, and as their readership was at around 4million and was many peoples only news oulet, they became public enemy No 1.

They were given a faxed brief, unoffical, that appeared to be factual, but rather than taking advice, and investigating, printed the information enclosed as fact.

The information came from a combination of the Police, the localauthorities, and government ministers of the day.

It was all lies. The Sun printed it, and despite knowing the above, for some reason, have never apologised.

But at the end of the day, people can blame the Sun all they want, but the real villians here are the Police, their paymasters and the Establishment.

But is anyone really surprised?

Does anyone REALLY trust the police? Even now?

I dont and never will.

mouldy old dough · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:13 am

Chip Fireball wrote:

Unless you were around at the time, its probably quite hard to appreciate how much power the tabloid press had in those days. Young people find it hard to get their heads around the fact that there used to be a world without the internet, or mobile phones, where people wrote letters to communicate with each other that took a couple of days to get there, and there were only a few television channels that didn't broadcast around the clock.

When I was 18 we didn't have a car and we didn't have a phone. If I wanted to talk to my mates I had to go and call for them, if you wanted to see a lass, you arranged a time and a place and hoped she turned up.

I cant recall what sort of circulation The Sun had at the time, think it might have been about 4 million, but basically you got your paper in the morning, and that was your source of information. People took em to work, you read your paper, then you swapped it with someone who had a different one. If The Sun said a load of drunk Scousers without tickets, turned up pissed, smashed down the gates, stormed in and started robbing people, even kids that were dead, that would be considered Gospel by about one in three of the entire adult population. There was no source of counter information. People who were there might know it was a pack of lies but they had no way to express themselves- no Twitter, no Facebook, no You Tube.

The police and the politicians knew that, it was the biggest paper by circulation in the UK, and if you could get a story on the front page, then it didn't matter if it wasn't true, because if you said it often enough in the paper it would become true.

nailed.

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

The Colonel wrote:

They were given a faxed brief, unoffical, that appeared to be factual, but rather than taking advice, and investigating, printed the information enclosed as fact.

It was all lies. The Sun printed it, and despite knowing the above, for some reason, have never apologised.

But at the end of the day, people can blame the Sun all they want, but the real villians here are the Police, their paymasters and the Establishment.

I don't agree, Colonel. If journalists did an honest job, then the police and the Establishment wouldn't get away with the things they do.

As you say, journalists on the Sun must have found out almost at once that they'd been sold a tissue of lies but said nothing, just as the current crop of tabloid journalists know that they're earning their salary by peddling lies about the 'benefit scroungers', the disabled, immigrants and all the other targets set up by the Government. They don't escape any blame at all, in my opinion.

The Government use them to bias public opinion, and they're happy to be used thus.

The Colonel · **Joined:** Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:49 am **Posts:** 4891

I do hope you dont think I was in any way defending the sun and journos there?

I think the Sun is a scum rag, and people that buy it, are even worse.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

I think even if the information they'd been given was true McKenzie would have been ill advised and wrong to go with that front page. They are obviously regarded working class people who'd stand behind the goal (alive or dead) watching football as worthless scum. 96 people had died, to run with that story was staggeringly insensitive and crass. It's obvious now it was all part of the plan to shift blame from those responsible. Hopefully they will now be held accountable and punished accordingly, in some case with prison sentences.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Another lovely story came in the court documents about a Sun journalist blackmailing a young lads family.

They were too upset to speak to him but he told them if they didn't at least provide a picture they would have to use the one they had of him, laying dead on the pitch. So reluctantly they provided a school photo. When the story ran both pictures were used.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:07 pm

poolieinnottingham wrote:

Monty you usually talk a lot of sense but I've got to disagree here. Why did the S*n change allegiance to New Labour (and then back to the Tories again) if it has no political agenda?
And that made up survey about Muslims supporting Jihad, if that's not a political agenda then my dog is called Gnasher.

There's a difference between wind-ups and political agendas. They have a commercial agenda for attracting readers which just happens to coincide with spouting political shit (are those last two words tautology?) and saying fuck the consequences. Surely nobody seriously thinks the tabloids believe all the stuff they print?

poolieinnottingham · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:36 pm

I know what you're trying to say, but when media outlets are owned by people with a vested interest in spreading lies (be that the state or vermin like Murdoch), political shut will be spouted.

poolieinnottingham · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:16 am

Having read about the scale of the covering up, I'm absolutely astounded that the authorities have let it all be revealed now. I suppose time Will show the austerity con trick we're in at the moment to be the smoke and mirrors it is.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

David conn was on the guardian podcast yesterday, he's covered this trial for the last 2 years and pretty much fought alongside for the families since the 90s. He explained that stuff will start to come out now that couldn't be reported due to it being in court that will shock n surprise. Yorkshire police at this trial still tried to peddle the pissed yobs, mugging fans stuff from back in the day, which I believe is why the current Yorkshire police chief has been suspended.

Unbelievable with all the evidence available they are still claiming to have done nothing wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22671

Chip Fireball wrote:

WTF- The Sun had no political agenda ?? Eh ??

It's hardly shock horror that a national newspaper has a political leaning. Twas always thus. While we at it can we castigate the Guardian, the Mirror and the Woolfie Smith Times too?

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:59 am

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Chip Fireball wrote:

WTF- The Sun had no political agenda ?? Eh ??

It's hardly shock horror that a national newspaper has a political leaning. Twas always thus. While we at it can we castigate the Guardian, the Mirror and the Woolfie Smith Times too?

Nah, cant remember them covering up large scale murder, or as the SYP called it 'drunken ten year old fans'

hth

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37769

On the topic of ground safety standards, isn't it about time a nationsl body laid down a set of standards applicable to all professional clubs and covering capacity at grounds, as there appears to be some wide variations in acceptable standards.

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Chip Fireball wrote:

WTF- The Sun had no political agenda ?? Eh ??

It's hardly shock horror that a national newspaper has a political leaning. Twas always thus. While we at it can we castigate the Guardian, the Mirror and the Woolfie Smith Times too?

But the debate started around the suggestion that the Sun didn't have a political agenda. That's what people are replying to.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22671

Chip Fireball wrote:

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Chip Fireball wrote:

WTF- The Sun had no political agenda ?? Eh ??

It's hardly shock horror that a national newspaper has a political leaning. Twas always thus. While we at it can we castigate the Guardian, the Mirror and the Woolfie Smith Times too?

The thread was moving onto general discussions about papers but then you know that.

Kelvin McKenzie is/was the archetypal tabloid Editor. He goes for the sensational; Hamsters and Gotchas etc. No suprise there. He has no real interest in the truth only what will sell papers. Murdoch loves him which says a lot about Murdoch.

There are a lot of claims that you can lie at the door of Maggie but corruption is not one of them. Yes she played the political game when she needed to but she will have had it reported to her and will have believed it. Drunken football supporters where hardly news in the 80's so it would have have been an easy sell. There has not been a shred of evidence in this enquiry that she either sought to cover up or actually knowingly covered anything up. Bernard Ingram said something derogatory but Maggie did not.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22671

grabec wrote:

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Chip Fireball wrote:

WTF- The Sun had no political agenda ?? Eh ??

It's hardly shock horror that a national newspaper has a political leaning. Twas always thus. While we at it can we castigate the Guardian, the Mirror and the Woolfie Smith Times too?

But the debate started around the suggestion that the Sun didn't have a political agenda. That's what people are replying to.

I was replying specifically to Chip's point.

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

grabec wrote:

But the debate started around the suggestion that the Sun didn't have a political agenda. That's what people are replying to.

I was replying specifically to Chip's point.

Yes, and chip's point was to argue against the suggestion that the Sun didn't have a political agenda.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 37769

They all have a poitical agenda.

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

To be fair, what chip said about journalists being in it only for the money is probably what monty meant in the first place. It's the owners who have political bias, as was also said above, and even they're usually politically biased for the money.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22671

Tenuous and unproven at best. Hang on, I thought that Hillsborough was all down to Maggie?

The Colonel · **Joined:** Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:49 am **Posts:** 4891

Is our esteemed leader trying to suggest that Thatcher, despite having a spokesman that was dodgy,and a son that was decidedly dodgy, was like a paragon of vrtue?

Mmmmmmm.

And as for the current bunch of tory toffs?????????

I would be quite happy to see them on the end of a terrorist attack.

The Colonel · **Joined:** Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:49 am **Posts:** 4891

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Tenuous and unproven at best. Hang on, I thought that Hillsborough was all down to Maggie?

No man. But almost everything bad from that era was.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:39 pm

grabec wrote:

To be fair, what chip said about journalists being in it only for the money is probably what monty meant in the first place. It's the owners who have political bias, as was also said above, and even they're usually politically biased for the money.

Exactamundo on all counts. It seemed pretty clear to me.
As for the Beano, I was being serious. It was (I don't know if it still is) more politically conscious than the tabloids. It never missed a chance to have a sly dig at targets who were begging for it, in much the same way as Dave Allen did.

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

Montpoolier wrote:

grabec wrote:

To be fair, what chip said about journalists being in it only for the money is probably what monty meant in the first place. It's the owners who have political bias, as was also said above, and even they're usually politically biased for the money.

Exactamundo on all counts. It seemed pretty clear to me.
As for the Beano, I was being serious. It was (I don't know if it still is) more politically conscious than the tabloids. It never missed a chance to have a sly dig at targets who were begging for it, in much the same way as Dave Allen did.

Wait a minute....on the other hand, you were still wrong if you meant that the line taken by the Sun and Times wasn't carried on with the deliberate intention of supporting the Establishment, in the knowledge that the newspaper reports were untrue.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:50 pm

Not aiming at you in particular grabes but anybody who believes a political party has any other motive than self perpetuation and that a taboid has any other motive than selling copy deserves a degree in gullibility.

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:40 am

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Tenuous and unproven at best. Hang on, I thought that Hillsborough was all down to Maggie?

Of course it wasn't down to Thatcher, silly!' It was the pissed up Liverpool fans....

grabec · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:45 am **Posts:** 830

Montpoolier wrote:

Not aiming at you in particular grabes but anybody who believes a political party has any other motive than self perpetuation and that a taboid has any other motive than selling copy deserves a degree in gullibility.

If you just mean that politicians and newspaper owners are most of them cynical and corrupt, then we're all in agreement.

Both sets of people take decisions for political reasons, and support each other for political reasons, whether it's to stay in power or to sell copy. I think we all agree that ideology has nothing to do with that.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22671

TalbotAvenger wrote:

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Tenuous and unproven at best. Hang on, I thought that Hillsborough was all down to Maggie?

Of course it wasn't down to Thatcher, silly!' It was the pissed up Liverpool fans....

A little less crystal meth required.

The Fat Man · **Joined:** Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:03 pm **Posts:** 2107

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

There are a lot of claims that you can lie at the door of Maggie but corruption is not one of them. Yes she played the political game when she needed to but she will have had it reported to her and will have believed it. Drunken football supporters where hardly news in the 80's so it would have have been an easy sell. There has not been a shred of evidence in this enquiry that she either sought to cover up or actually knowingly covered anything up. Bernard Ingram said something derogatory but Maggie did not.

Orgreave.

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:30 pm

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

TalbotAvenger wrote:

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

Tenuous and unproven at best. Hang on, I thought that Hillsborough was all down to Maggie?

Of course it wasn't down to Thatcher, silly!' It was the pissed up Liverpool fans....

A little less crystal meth required.

I'm sure you peddled the pissed up fans line for an age, perhaps I may have imagined it

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:35 pm

The Fat Man wrote:

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

There are a lot of claims that you can lie at the door of Maggie but corruption is not one of them. Yes she played the political game when she needed to but she will have had it reported to her and will have believed it. Drunken football supporters where hardly news in the 80's so it would have have been an easy sell. There has not been a shred of evidence in this enquiry that she either sought to cover up or actually knowingly covered anything up. Bernard Ingram said something derogatory but Maggie did not.

Orgreave.

Jimmy Saville

jish · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:08 pm

Mr Irrelevant wrote:

I'm looking forward to the conclusion which will prove it was the only match in history where it was the only match in the whole of history where none of the scousers were drunk and they all had tickets.

Incidentally, in a city of around half a million it seems that everyone was related to one of the 96.

Yep he peddled it. That's from 2014

Interesting that a 2 year inquest has proved that drunkeness wasn't an issue and that all of the victims were proven to have tickets

I just wish people would be more brazen about hating particular sets of fans or teams instead of pissfarting about with snide comments. They'd look stupid but at least the colours would be nailed to the mast for all to see

jish · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:14 pm

Incidentally, there is a wealth of information about this now available in the public domain for all to see. No excuse for ignorance now

The bottom line for me is that 96 innocent football fans including children died that day and I literally cannot comprehend how people cannot visualise that over and above any daft tribalism. It could have been any one of us, our kids or loved ones

Hillsborough

Gadgies online