Hillsborough revelations due today **SEE MOD NOTE POST #1**

Latchy

Originally Posted by Davidth88

I attended a lot of football games around that time , I was at Arsenal the day it happened , and had been to Hillborough ( at the same end ) about 4 weeks before this happened so it was pretty raw TBH

The police culture at the time was , if you were attending a football game you were a criminal . You were herded to and fro , crushed by police horses and pulled out and arrested if you made any complaints.

The police totally and utterly were responsible for this . They covered it up afterwards for sure

It came out afterwards that the police pushed people back into the crowd assuming they were trying to invade the pitch , the police would not allow ambulances onto the pitch until much later etc .

It's too late now , and the South Yorkshire police were only doing what every other police force in England were doing TBH

^ Exactly how the football culture regrading the treatment of all fans of all clubs was back then and coming after Heysel ,it was so easy for the Yorkshire police and the scum media like the Sun newspaper to shift blame onto the Liverpool fans ,many who if they had had the proper treatment on the pitch could have survived .

I wasn't at the match that day but I was in Liverpool ,watched the events unfold live on the tv and saw for myself the shock and the tears shed around the city that night and the weeks after .

MagicSean

super_furry wrote: »

I find it distasteful how you've sought to change the terms of the discussion here over the course of the morning. You start by claiming -

"To me the whole thing boils down to

-Badly designed stadium (due to culture of football violence)
-Poorly organised police and stewards (down to poor communication)
-Poor decision making by police management and event organiser
-Badly behaved crowd outside the grounds (and reportedly some inside too)"

The bolded one is the most pertinant because it was the most contentious of your claims and more importantly one that has been proven to be blatantly wrong. To quote David Cameron again - "Today's report is black and white - the Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster."

Now that we have seen that enshrined as an inarguable fact, you appear to be seeking to find a new angle to lay the blame at the feet of the victims. Your contribution to the discussion has been to move from blaming "drunken morons" to a more subtle but no less consistant blaming of fans.

Again, the Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster.

I deliberately did not use the word fans the describe the badly behaved crowd outside as I did not believe them to be fans. Nor did I include the victims as part of this crowd.

But my understanding was that there was problems outside the grounds which contributed to the problem.

buck65

The pictures of that day still make me ill. Remember watching it live on TV, police should be ashamed of themselves for the cover up.

Everyone knew the fans were not responsible. Anyone that was "badly behaved" were probably just trying to get into the stadium to see the game.

super_furry

MagicSean wrote: »

I deliberately did not use the word fans the describe the badly behaved crowd outside as I did not believe them to be fans. Nor did I include the victims as part of this crowd.

But my understanding was that there was problems outside the grounds which contributed to the problem.

Your understanding has been proven to be entirely wrong and you should retract that claim. However as I believe that you have had an agenda at work throughout this entire discussion, I do not expect you to face the undeniable facts and do so.

cyrusdvirus

MagicSean wrote: »

I deliberately did not use the word fans the describe the badly behaved crowd outside as I did not believe them to be fans. Nor did I include the victims as part of this crowd.

But my understanding was that there was problems outside the grounds which contributed to the problem.

it seems that the PM disagrees with you

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

So the long lost "hidden files" on this disaster are to be released today. The families of the victims seem to think there will be evidence to overturn the coroners verdict of "accidental death" for those killed in the incident. I don't see how. To me the whole thing boils down to (snip)

.............

Amazing you couldn't wait the few more hours to see, but instead had to come out with a pre-emptive attempt at deflection. Remarkably like the police across the water, as it turns out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19569706

Matt_Trakker

Cameron on attempts to blame the fans:

Second, the families have long believed that some of the authorities
attempted to create a completely unjust account of events that sought to blame the fans for what happened.

Mr Speaker, the families were right.The evidence in today’s report includes briefings to the media and attempts by the Police to change the record of events.

On the media. Several newspapers reported false allegations that fans were drunk and violent and stole from the dead. The Sun’s report sensationalised these allegations under a banner
headline “The Truth.” This was clearly wrong and caused huge offence, distress and hurt.

News International has co-operated with the Panel and, for the first
time, today’s report reveals that the source for these despicable
untruths was a Sheffield news agency reporting conversations with
South Yorkshire Police and Irvine Patnick, the then MP for Sheffield
Hallam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-disaster-report-panel-released-live

dan185

MagicSean wrote: »

super_furry wrote: »

I find it distasteful how you've sought to change the terms of the discussion here over the course of the morning. You start by claiming -

"To me the whole thing boils down to

-Badly designed stadium (due to culture of football violence)
-Poorly organised police and stewards (down to poor communication)
-Poor decision making by police management and event organiser
-Badly behaved crowd outside the grounds (and reportedly some inside too)"

The bolded one is the most pertinant because it was the most contentious of your claims and more importantly one that has been proven to be blatantly wrong. To quote David Cameron again - "Today's report is black and white - the Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster."

Now that we have seen that enshrined as an inarguable fact, you appear to be seeking to find a new angle to lay the blame at the feet of the victims. Your contribution to the discussion has been to move from blaming "drunken morons" to a more subtle but no less consistant blaming of fans.

Again, the Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster.

I deliberately did not use the word fans the describe the badly behaved crowd outside as I did not believe them to be fans. Nor did I include the victims as part of this crowd.

But my understanding was that there was problems outside the grounds which contributed to the problem.

So who are these crowd you speak of? What sort of crowds can you be referring to if its a crowd outside the ground where Liverpool fans were going? You don't see a crowd of Jehovah's witnesses outside a football ground. You see football fans.

But the fans have been absolved of blame. So this crowd trouble outside, who do you say it is? Because to me it sounds like you can only mean Liverpool fans.

Nodin

It underlined the "clear operational failure" that led to the disaster and the attempts by South Yorkshire police (SYP) and the ambulance service to cover up their shortcomings. The fact that the ambulance service also altered statements from staff is revealed for the first time. The evidence shows "conclusively" that Liverpool fans "neither caused nor contributed to the deaths" and shows the extent to which attempts, endorsed by the South Yorkshire chief constable Peter Wright, were made to smear them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-disaster-david-cameron-apologises

Hailhail1967

Refreshing statement from David Cameron.

I really hope this is the start of the road to closure for the friends and family of the 96. Some I believe who do not even have dath certs for their loved ones as they refused them at the time.

Matt_Trakker

Cameron:

Today’s report is black and white. The Liverpool fans “were not the cause of the disaster”. The Panel has quite simply found “no evidence” in support of allegations of “exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans ”no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium” and “no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying.”

Mr Speaker what happened that day – and since – was wrong. It was wrong that the responsible authorities knew Hillsborough did
not meet minimum safety standards and yet still allowed the match to go ahead.

It was wrong that the families have had to wait for so long – and
fight so hard – just to get to the truth.

And it was wrong that the police changed the records of what happened and tried to blame the fans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-disaster-report-panel-released-live

summerskin

MagicSean wrote: »

I deliberately did not use the word fans the describe the badly behaved crowd outside as I did not believe them to be fans. Nor did I include the victims as part of this crowd.

But my understanding was that there was problems outside the grounds which contributed to the problem.

your understanding is wrong, and is the one that the police wanted you to have. well done. How old were you at the time of it happening? Do you remember any of it or is your "recollection" purely based on media reporting?

I was watching Oldham Athletic that day, as i did every saturday. We heard what was happening because people had their radios wit them. we had no idea of the magnitude of it until we saw it for ourselves on TV at half time. It was clear that there was no hooliganism, clear that people wanted help but the police were unwilling to do so. Clear as day to anyone.

What did YOU see?

danniemcq

To those who are talking about what the police report says, i'm looking at the guardian live blog here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-disaster-report-panel-released-live and from camerons own mouth comes this#

david cameron wrote:

And it was wrong that the police changed the records of what happened and tried to blame the fans.

david cameron wrote:

Mr Speaker, the families were right.The evidence in today’s report includes briefings to the media and attempts by the Police to change the record of events.

david cameron wrote:

Today’s Report finds that 164 statements were significantly amended – and 116 explicitly removed negative comments about the policing
operation - including its lack of leadership.

i've read numerous accounts from eyewitnesses and survivors of that day and despite the absolute tragedy that happened that day i am so happy that finally the truth is coming out and the families will hopefully now get justice.

They might not get their loved ones back but they are getting the answers they truely deserve.

Matt_Trakker

Here's a link to the full official report.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc05/0581/0581.pdf

Takes a good while to open seeing as there's so much traffic going to the site, but there it is anyway, maybe come back to it in a few hours and get it then.

wonderfullife

Not sure if it has been said already but that is some impressive talent, expertise and skill on that investigative panel. Just watching their statement on Sky News now and they really had every area of expertise covered.

Opie

Quorum wrote: »

If teams were coming in from all over the country, can you honestly say there was never any hooliganism?

Trying to bring hooliganism into it is just plain wrong. There was no reports of hooligans here to have any impact on what happened. I'm not saying there were no hooligans there, but the tragedy was not caused by fans. Hooliganism was rampant in the 70's and 80's at every ground in Britain and parts of Europe. That is why they had fences up. I understand that, but what happened in the Leppings Lane end of Hillsborough was nothing to do with Hooligans, rioting or fighting fans.

MagicSean

super_furry wrote: »

Your understanding has been proven to be entirely wrong and you should retract that claim. However as I believe that you have had an agenda at work throughout this entire discussion, I do not expect you to face the undeniable facts and do so.

What agenda could I have considering I was 5 years old at the time it happened? I have no stake in it at all. it would appear that i Was incorrect in one of my assumptions but I reject your claim I had an agenda. My understanding was based on what I had learned about the incident over the years from documentaries and articles which were obviously incorrect.

gatecrash wrote: »

it seems that the PM disagrees with you

It would seem so.

Nodin wrote: »

Amazing you couldn't wait the few more hours to see, but instead had to come out with a pre-emptive attempt at deflection. Remarkably like the police across the water, as it turns out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19569706

Deflection of what? Did you read my op? I don't think I tried to deflect anything. Please show me where I have if you can. i stated what i belived to be the four contributors to the incident, three of which have been shown to be correct and one incorrect.

And i started the thread to see what people believed the revelations would be because the word on the net was along the lines of "It'll only state what we know already". And i did not know what this referred to.

dan185 wrote: »

So who are these crowd you speak of? What sort of crowds can you be referring to if its a crowd outside the ground where Liverpool fans were going? You don't see a crowd of Jehovah's witnesses outside a football ground. You see football fans.

But the fans have been absolved of blame. So this crowd trouble outside, who do you say it is? Because to me it sounds like you can only mean Liverpool fans.

Like I've said already. The word fans has been used to describe both supporters and hooligans. I assumed the crowd outside were the troublemakers and not actual fans. Not an unreasonable assumption considering the state of the game at the time but apparently incorrect anyway.

El Weirdo

summerskin wrote: »

your understanding is wrong, and is the one that the police wanted you to have. well done. How old were you at the time of it happening? Do you remember any of it or is your "recollection" purely based on media reporting?

I was watching Oldham Athletic that day, as i did every saturday. We heard what was happening because people had their radios wit them. we had no idea of the magnitude of it until we saw it for ourselves on TV at half time. It was clear that there was no hooliganism, clear that people wanted help but the police were unwilling to do so. Clear as day to anyone.

What did YOU see?

Like you, I was also at a match that day - QPR v Middlesbrough - and remember the news filtering through as we walked down the steps to the platform at White City tube station after the game.

Anyone that attended football matches around that time, especially as an away fan, will remember being treated like animals by police all over the country.

Latchy

What's so damming is that is that these papers have been there for 23 years now and it took the efforts of the family's ,not the authority's to get them out in the open now . The authority's back then are guilty of a massive cover up .

Rascasse

Interesting to see the sources for The Sun's famous article:

Documents released to the panel show how high-ranking police sources, the South Yorkshire Police Federation and the Tory MP Irvine Patnick were responsible for feeding the stories to White's News Agency in Yorkshire.

They led to the infamous Sun headline "The Truth" that led to a longstanding boycott of the paper in Liverpool.

Now that doesn't condone Kelvin McKenzie publishing the article, but he (or the reporter) did have solid sources for the allegations.

buck65

MagicSean wrote: »

Like I've said already. The word fans has been used to describe both supporters and hooligans. I assumed the crowd outside were the troublemakers and not actual fans. Not an unreasonable assumption considering the state of the game at the time but apparently incorrect anyway.

The crowd outside were trying to get in...what ****ing part of this do you not get?

Not an unreasonable assumption?
Apparently incorrect?
No, just incorrect just like your assumptions and your posts.

problemchimp

mitosis wrote: »

My problem with this kind of campaign is that it won't be let lie until the campaigners get the truth they want to hear whether it is the actual truth or not.

And, yes, I believe the fans hold a major part of blame for what happened - not individually but as a mob.

What do you base that on, hearsay?

MagicSean

buck65 wrote: »

The crowd outside were trying to get in...what ****ing part of this do you not get?

You'll note i used the past tense in the post you quoted.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

......
Deflection of what? Did you read my op? I don't think I tried to deflect anything. Please show me where I have if you can. i stated what i belived to be the four contributors to the incident, three of which have been shown to be correct and one incorrect.
.......

...and left out the notorious efforts to blame the fans and blacken their names, which, it turns out, were even more extensive than suspected.

K-9

Some peace and a little closure for the families and victims. There's nothing new in this report as far as I can see, the Taylor Report already proved fans were innocent, stuff came out about the cover up in the years after.

Some will still not believe and really after 23 years, no point wasting breathe or words on them, they can wallow in ignorance.

wonderfullife

Latchy wrote: »

What's so damming is that is that these papers have been there for 23 years now and it took the efforts of the family's ,not the authority's to get them out in the open now . The authority's back then are guilty of a massive cover up .

Similar story to Bloody Sunday. It needs massive campaigning and political lobbying sometimes to get "justice" for events that embarrassed the government/establishment back in the day.

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

...and left out the notorious efforts to blame the fans and blacken their names, which, it turns out, were even more extensive than suspected.

Well I was only focusing on the causes of the disaster itself and not to the subsequent coverup which was a deliberate criminal act.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

Well I was only focusing on the causes of the disaster itself and not to the subsequent coverup which was a deliberate criminal act.

Conveniently.

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

Conveniently.

Convenient to what? Have you anything other than personal comments to make?

Mr.Crinklewood

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Here's a link to the full official report.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc05/0581/0581.pdf

Takes a good while to open seeing as there's so much traffic going to the site, but there it is anyway, maybe come back to it in a few hours and get it then.

This link working fine.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf

super_furry

41 people had evidence of potential to survive after the 3.15 cut off point. Absolutely heartbreaking.

Roger Sterling

How was the Independent Panel chosen ?More than one Liverpool accent on it at the news conference - would it not be next to impossible for them to remain neutral and unbiased given the depth of feeling in the city?

K-9

Rascasse wrote: »

Interesting to see the sources for The Sun's famous article:



Now that doesn't condone Kelvin McKenzie publishing the article, but he (or the reporter) did have solid sources for the allegations.

Other papers printed similar stuff but not as shockingly as the Sun, they lapped it up, sure as we all know now how Murdock loved Maggie and Maggie hated Liverpool. The cat that got the cream, lapped it up, loved it.

Micky Dolenz

Roger Sterling wrote: »

How was the Independent Panel chosen ?More than one Liverpool accent on it at the news conference - would it not be next to impossible for them to remain neutral and unbiased given the depth if feeling in the city.

Mod

Don't post in this thread again please.

Davidth88

El Weirdo wrote: »

Like you, I was also at a match that day - QPR v Middlesbrough - and remember the news filtering through as we walked down the steps to the platform at White City tube station after the game.

Anyone that attended football matches around that time, especially as an away fan, will remember being treated like animals by police all over the country.

Jeez , I was at Arsenal , and afterwards watching on the news at Baker St Stn's pub.

We were treated like scum TBH, I remember being shoved onto trains going the wrong way because ' ALL AWAY FANS MUST GET ON THIS TRAIN ' , having Police horses deliberately crushed against us , being baton charged at Watford for no reason , all sorts of things.

Its a little late now because most of this has now disappeared ( I hope ) , but I hope the relatives who for so long have had to defend their dead relatives because of Police lies etc get some real sense of peace now.

Opie

MagicSean wrote: »

Well I was only focusing on the causes of the disaster itself and not to the subsequent coverup which was a deliberate criminal act.

Focusing on the causes of the disaster? What, the fans? Again, it has been proven that the fans were not to blame. South Yorkshire Police are the cause of the disaster, as they made an horrendous situation even worse. The authorities who passed Hillsborough as safe are also culpible, as are those who put Liverpools fans in the smaller end of the ground. Again, fans do not come into the equation....

Quorum

Opie wrote: »

Trying to bring hooliganism into it is just plain wrong. There was no reports of hooligans here to have any impact on what happened.

Oh, I know. It has been shown there was no crowd trouble on the day. I'm not saying there was. I'm saying there may have been in the past (not necessarily with Liverpool fans BTW), and even if there wasn't, the barrier may have been up as a preventive measure, because of fears there may be at some stage in the future. I don't think having those barriers was a good idea myself, but I guess someone somewhere did.

Placebo Effect

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

super_furry

Placebo Effect wrote: »

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

A deliberatelly and offensively wrong and willfully ignorant take on things.

To have that 'take on things' means you are discounting every single shred of evidence produced in the Taylor report and today's Independent Panel findings. It's entirely your right to continue in your ignorance but for your own sake, if not the sake of others, you should take the time to educate yourself.

cyrusdvirus

Placebo Effect wrote: »

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

oh dear sweet god jesus....

Dude, i hope you are prepared...:rolleyes:

Opie

Quorum wrote: »

Oh, I know. It has been shown there was no crowd trouble on the day. I'm not saying there was. I'm saying there may have been in the past (not necessarily with Liverpool fans BTW), and even if there wasn't, the barrier may have been up as a preventive measure, because of fears there may be at some stage in the future. I don't think having those barriers was a good idea myself, but I guess someone somewhere did.

I understand what you were saying, about the barriers. They were there to combat crowd trouble. I just felt that some people may have been beating the hooligan/fans drum a bit too much.

Fratton Fred

Davidth88 wrote: »

El Weirdo wrote: »

Like you, I was also at a match that day - QPR v Middlesbrough - and remember the news filtering through as we walked down the steps to the platform at White City tube station after the game.
Anyone that attended football matches around that time, especially as an away fan, will remember being treated like animals by police all over the country.

Jeez , I was at Arsenal , and afterwards watching on the news at Baker St Stn's pub.
We were treated like scum TBH, I remember being shoved onto trains going the wrong way because ' ALL AWAY FANS MUST GET ON THIS TRAIN ' , having Police horses deliberately crushed against us , being baton charged at Watford for no reason , all sorts of things.
Its a little late now because most of this has now disappeared ( I hope ) , but I hope the relatives who for so long have had to defend their dead relatives because of Police lies etc get some real sense of peace now.

I remember those days. Frog marched from the ground to the tube, or locked in, in the pouring rain, for 45 minutes.

amiable

Placebo Effect wrote: »

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

Read the report before having such a stupid take on things

Placebo Effect

super_furry wrote: »

A deliberatelly and offensively wrong and willfully ignorant take on things.

To have that 'take on things' means you are discounting every single shred of evidence produced in the Taylor report and today's Independent Panel findings. It's entirely your right to continue in your ignorance but for your own sake, if not the sake of others, you should take the time to educate yourself.

Cause & effect....there had to be too many people in the first place?

Latchy

K-9 wrote: »

Other papers printed similar stuff but not as shockingly as the Sun, they lapped it up, sure as we all know now how Murdock loved Maggie and Maggie hated Liverpool. The cat that got the cream, lapped it up, loved it.

The feeling was mutual ....they hated her with a passion .

Davidth88 wrote: »

Jeez , I was at Arsenal , and afterwards watching on the news at Baker St Stn's pub.

We were treated like scum TBH, I remember being shoved onto trains going the wrong way because ' ALL AWAY FANS MUST GET ON THIS TRAIN ' , having Police horses deliberately crushed against us , being baton charged at Watford for no reason , all sorts of things.

.

I recall a friend of who attended the Scotland v Ireland match in Hamden Park when Mark Lawson scored to give Ireland the 1-0 win and he was saying the behavior by some of the Scottish police towards the Irish fans getting to and from the game was similar to above ...such was the attitude of the British police towards football fans back then .

Its a little late now because most of this has now disappeared ( I hope ) , but I hope the relatives who for so long have had to defend their dead relatives because of Police lies etc get some real sense of peace now

Indeed and my sentiments to

K-9

Placebo Effect wrote: »

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

You know why the people were crushed? Have you read anything why?

Do you think the Taylor Report and this inquiry might have thought about things like that?

The police opned a gate to relive pressure, nobody was inside to usher the crowd away from an already pack pen, caged in by cement and metal fencing. There was plenty of room either side of this pen

Think before you come out stuff people far more experienced and knowledgable than you have gone over this for 23 years.

Opie

Placebo Effect wrote: »

For people to be crushed in a ground would suggest that there were more people in there than should of been.

Is it the police's fault that those extra people showed up and showed up en masse and late? No.

It is their fault they didn't deal with it, but the fact they were there in the first place is the fault of the people.

That part of it is being lost now.

Just a take on things

Your ignorance is unbelievable. A solid attemp at trolling, and I dof my cap to you, because I doubt I will be the only biter at this muck...

super_furry

Placebo Effect wrote: »

Cause & effect....there had to be too many people in the first place?

Like I said, you should take the time to educate yourself.

K-9

Btw who the fcuk alcohol tests 10 year old kids?

Micky Dolenz

Placebo Effect wrote: »

Cause & effect....there had to be too many people in the first place?

Mod

Please don't post in this thread again. By all means read it, you may very well learn something.