Hillsborough Inquest....

[David Johnson]

"Terrific post Sam."

Yes, well, given you seem to swallow everything whole that Salmond throws out on Scottish independence, I suspect your bar is not set particularly high, Mick.

"I notice DJ has gone quiet!"

How little you know me, ma wee Scottish chum.

!wink!

[Milk Tray Man]

Arginald Valleywater wrote:

> And we are getting more media bombardment. What next 96 new
> saints? Knighthoods? Liverpool used to be known for music and
> football. Now it is known for peddling misery instead of
> getting on with life like other people do after a bereavement.


Well there's been talk of Doreen Lawrence being put forward as a candidate for Mayor of London. And as we all know, Scousers are the most saintly, peace-loving and utterly blameless people on the planet.

So anyone fancy giving odds of it being "Margaret Aspinall OBE" in the new years honours list? Or Margaret Aspinall for Lord Mayor of Liverpool?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]This is obviously wrong. The families, friends of the dead refused to accept "the blame" placed on the dead by the police and certain parts of the tabloid press.[/quote]

Them refusing to accept the blame doesn't negate the point I made - that it's unhelpful in getting to the truth to just be simplistic and point the blame at one side. The police and press did that. It was wrong.

[quote]You need to familiarise yourself with the Ibrox disaster of 1971. This from Wikipedia.

"Sheriff James Irvine Smith, in his damages statement, ruled: "The said accident was due to the fault and negligence of the defenders, Rangers F.C Smith found Rangers F.C. guilty on four counts in the case of the death of Charles Dougan, a 31-year-old boilermaker from Clydebank who died, as did 56 others, from traumatic asphyxia.[/quote]

I'll familiarise myself with this incident as soon as you familiarise yourself with the phrase 'more often than not'.

[quote]Do you seriously think so much money would be paid in damages if there was an element of the fans being at fault???[/quote]

Yes. Of course. Why ever not? They still died tragically and if some fans were partly at fault for other fans' deaths, that doesn't mean the ones that died were partly at fault for their own deaths. Don't see your point here.

[quote]Yes I think in this case, the fans were innocent. I repeat. Did anyone die outside the stadium?[/quote]

The police were concerned enough to open the gates. Presumable they took this action because they thought there was a danger of a crush. We've all seen the video footage of the gates nearly giving way as thousands of fans pushed up against them, or did I dream it all?

Of course the management of the pens was an issue, but opening the gates and letting thousands rush in all at once was another. Maybe if a trickle of fans had gone in through the turnstiles it may have given more time for better decisions on which pens to filter people down. Who knows. But I believe the fans behaviour outside the ground and the decision to open the gates took away the thinking time stadium management had.

[quote]""and yes, the fans......all fans, for creating a culture of violence and mayhem for decades whereby the clubs had to pen them in behind metal fencing.

Obviously you are wrong. It is not "all fans" that were to blame for "creating a culture of violence and mayhem" . I repeat plenty of events had gone fine without problem, with the fencing. It didn't at Hillsborough for reasons that had nothing to do with hooliganism, but crowd control.[/quote]

You know 'all fans' was a figure of speech. Pointless comeback that doesn't help this debate.

And, yes......fencing people in doesn't in itself cause crushes, but it makes them more likely and thus part of the cause. If fencing played no part at all then why don't grounds in the UK have fencing anymore? Surely it is accepted that they can be dangerous.

[quote]Do calm down. My word, you appear to be getting more and more intemperate as middle age beckons, Samuel. Did I compare you with Argie? No, I did not.[/quote]

It was implied and you know it. You said:

"96 people who got smeared by the police and the Sun, give it a fucking rest. Move on. Eh?"

I never once said nor implied (like Argie has numerous times) that we should all 'move on'. In fact, I specifically addressed this attitude from others in my first post when I said:

"I would say to Bob and all the others that say 'move on' etc......maybe if the police had done their job properly we would have by now. This sense of injustice has kept it running and running more than anything. It's not all the doing of Liverpool fans playing the victim card."

So your sarcasm was indeed lumping me in with the 'move on' crowd just because I had the temerity to spread the blame across everyone that was involved rather than just making one side the scapegoat. It's completely one thing for us to disagree, but quite another to imply I'm some heartless cunt that doesn't give a fuck.

[quote]If you want to understand what I am on about as opposed to stupidly telling me to "fuck off", read the section from the link below that deals with shared identity.[/quote]

Telling you to 'fuck off' wasn't stupid. As I've shown above, you stupidly came out with the sarcastic "give it a fucking rest. Move on. Eh?" line. I'd rather be told to fuck off a thousand times than have anyone imply I'm an apathetic twat to 96 people being crushed to death. I'm the one that got offended here and the fact you tried to wriggle out of it rather than apologise tells me all I need to know about where you place yourself amongst people on here. I consider 'fuck off' to be quite polite all things considered.

Having said that, I take your point about a shared identity, but I still believe that forced respect, or guilt tripping people to pay their respects defeats the whole point of it. And to be honest, I doubt most people related to the people who died that day care that much about some fans in Kettering, Brighton or Middlesbrough not holding a minute's silence every year. As long as they feel they get justice and can pay their own respects in whatever way they desire, that's all that matters.

[fatmick]

Two things,
I am not wee or your chum!
I do not swallow whole anything anyone tells me. I know exactly the game Salmond is playing, just as I know the games Darling, Cameron et al are playing. I am not the one who sticks rigidly to a defined party line, like yourself and your defence of all things new labour!

[Milk Tray Man]

I agree with Sam Slater, plenty of blame to go round on all sides **including** some Liverpool supporters (although not the victims, who were already inside).

the problem is that the old bill tried to cover up their own mistakes, got rumbled and as a result is has now become politically unacceptable to blame anyone BUT the police (and to a lesser extent SWFC). Anyone who dares to suggest that some Liverpool supporters might just have behaved in a less than exemplary manner and thereby contributed to the disaster - even in some minor way - gets howled down in derision by the very vocal scouse "justice" lobby, who now have politicians of all stripes well and truly cowed. we've even got to the stage now where inquiries and inquests are being set up specifically to reach a particular verdict. case in point is the supposedly "independent" inquiry chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool that also included others with links to Liverpool. There was only ever going to be one outcome to that. Now the new inquest is doing much the same, with family members reading out what are essentially "victim impact " statements (normally read out in courts before sentence is passed) before the thing even gets underway! I mean what the fuck is that all about? clearly designed to have an emotional impact on the jury and not so subtly plant the idea in their minds that a "crime" was committed.

[David Johnson]

"I am not wee or your chum!"

Believe it or not, but I know that. How could it be otherwise? I am teasing you.

"I do not swallow whole anything anyone tells me. I know exactly the game Salmond is playing"

Interesting, given that you have not contradicted anything that Salmond has said on this forum and didn't even know that Salmond could have changed income tax rates but chose not to. Or could have done loads to help child care in Scotland but chose not to. Or the only tax that he has promised to change is lowering corporation tax. Or that he has refused to increase the highest rate of income tax after a yes vote.

"I am not the one who sticks rigidly to a defined party line, like yourself and your defence of all things new labour!"

Getaway with you. I am no New Labourite and I have forgotten the number of times I have called Blair a war criminal on this forum.

[David Johnson]

How specifically did Liverpool fans contribute to the disaster?

What is the EVIDENCE that supports that view? Which official report provides specific information that supports that view?

Or what is the argument here? The Tories organised a cover-up so that working class Northern football fans would appear in the best possible light?

[David Johnson]

I can understand why so many people like yourself are taken in by the following scenario:

1. There was a crush outside Leppings Lane.
2. The gate was opened as a result.
3. The fans rushed in.
4. There was a crush.
5. 96 people died.
6. Obviously the fans were partly to blame as well as other factors like the police incompetence..

It is worth understanding the following:

1. Gate C was opened at 2.52pm.
2. Since pens 3 and 4 were full by 2.50 pm, the tunnel should have been closed off whether gate C was to
be opened or not. The exercise was a simple one and had been carried out in 1988. All that was necessary was
for a few officers to act as a cordon at the entrance to the tunnel and divert fans elsewhere.
3. Despite this tactic being used in 88 it was not part of the police briefing in the Liverpool game.

So the thing to get Samuel which you clearly don't is as follows:

The critical mistake the Police made was not in opening the gate Instead, it lay in failing to close off the tunnel leading into pens 3 and 4 once they were full. And a crush was developing far earlier in pens 3 and 4.

Much of your post strikes me as daft. A mixture of laughable Slaterisms - I loved the one about "blame" and because the police blamed the wrong people it shows that looking for who is responsible or blameworthy is not helpful. Hilarious!

Mixed in with guesswork, leavened with a lack of knowledge of the work that others have devoted months and months pouring over.

Just go away and read some of the documents, Sam. Eh?

[Arginald Valleywater]

Somewhere, in the dark midsts of time, someone from Liverpool, may and I say may, have been the slightest naughty. Driving at 30.1 mph in a 30 zone, farting in church or jings and crivens turned up late at a football match and tried to get in without a ticket. They are human, not the saints this "inquest by media" is out to prove. The jury will be under pressure to jail everyone in Sheffield and shut down the whole Yorkshire constabulary...and that won't stop the professional victims. Our office, some 120 miles from Liverpool had a minutes silence this aft, just because our HQ is in Liverpool. Fortunately I was out so couldn't boycott it.

[Essex Lad]

The families of the 96 want justice but what kind of justice? The original inquest verdicts ? now overturned ? say that they were killed unlawfully.

Will new inquests return a different verdict?

If so, what will that verdict be and will the families accept that as "justice"?

We know that a number were alive some time after the crush and might have been saved had prompt medical attention been given.

But the fact remains that they weren't.

What other verdict can there be other than unlawful killing? And what price justice?